Your response carefully avoids any of the things I mentioned that interfere with your indoctrination. Then you reverse the argument and accuse "fools" like me of behaving in the way I criticised a believer for, as if I'm the one who made the original comment. Your mind is so fucked you can't hold a two sentence argument together.Originally Posted by Mac76
Für eure Sicherheit
In your face, America!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-58197414
Strange comment that the incident wasn't terror related I would assume the people at the time were if anything bloody terrified
It means he was white
Email du jour:
"We're getting in touch because your domain name Domain: goonersweb.co.uk is due for renewal within 30 days."
Time to finally pull the plug? It has been on life support for a while now
Oh well like Arsenal our cup run must come to and end
NOTE: The location of this post has been moved and the thread title (which was previously Wenger is Leaving) has been manipulated by a notorious pro-Wenger moderator. What was previously a message that contained no profanity and made a comment on a real life event has now been manipulated by a deliberately provocative title. An old and crude propaganda and censorship technique.
Semantics. The only difference between saying you "believe" something and that you "know" something is your own perceived level of certainty. You can believe something and be correct, you can "know" something and be wrong.
And on this, none of us can be certain for a couple of reasons:
1) I'm not an expert on climate science, all I can do is read stuff and trust that they know what they're talking about
2) Science changes all the time as more data is gathered. People used to "know" that the sun went around the earth.
Why must you always use such pejorative language and insist there's some ulterior motive behind everything?The climate has always changed, but the cultists need to convince people this is something new and unrelated to four billion years of nature's progress.
From the things I've read the majority of climate scientists believe that the climate is changing in a way unprecedented in modern history and that a factor in that is our actions over the last century.
I watched a good documentary about it all which went through the history of the debate about this in science, but the idea of man-made climate change now seems pretty well accepted.
Well, no. Because the climate has demonstrably changed and because extreme weather events are happening at an increasing rate:Suddenly the vast majority must pay the tiny minority a large amount of money because... computer models.
https://www.ft.com/content/9a647a51-...8-cbf14ad878b7
This is stuff that is actually happening now. And those are costly to sort out. So what's better? Spending money on trying to stop the effects of climate change or spending money dealing with the consequences? I think you could have a reasonable debate about that actually but either is costly, just going "la la la, isn't happening" doesn't seem like a very sensible option.
Well, sure. Please do show the hard data. I'm always asking you for sources. I looked into the first of your claims above and you're right:You could show them hard data, like the huge acreage of forest burn in the past compared to the much reduced amount today, but they will still tell you the world is on fire. You can point to the plains of America where not a blade of grass could be glimpsed for the endless herd of buffalo, but the smaller herds of domestic cows now fart to such an extent that the trace amounts of methane in the atmosphere will surely kill us all. Or you can show them water levels in a thousand ports across the globe and how they have maintained a remarkable constancy across decades or even centuries, but they will still tell you the world is set to drown - like the poor Maldives that disappeared beneath the waves... never. None of it reaches these people because they don't know anything but they do "believe" so much.
https://royalsociety.org/blog/2020/1...ends-wildfire/
Hooray! We're not doomed after all. Oh, except...when considering the total area burned at the global level, we are still not seeing an overall increase, but rather a decline over the last decades. This has been confirmed in a series of subsequent studies, using data up to 2017 or 2018.
This may sound counter-intuitive. The global decrease is mostly driven by less fire in savannahs and grasslands, mainly in Africa, but also in South America and Australia. In quantitative terms, fire in those grassy ecosystems account for around 70% of the total global area burnt, so the reduction in fire activity here outweighs the increase in burned area that we are seeing in other parts of the world.
So...The decline in global average area burned has indeed been misused to support false claims numerous times. There is strong evidence that the increase in fire activity we are seeing in many forested regions is indeed linked to climate change. Even the decrease in fire in tropical savannas that we just mentioned does not mean that climate change is not having an impact there too; actually, quite the opposite. This reduction has been in part attributed to conversion of savanna to agricultural land but, also, to shifting rainfall patterns that reduce the overall flammability of grasslands.
Try reading my post too, as i said I'm not a 'believer', see that's the anti-science brigade imposing language on others again, you are a fool as you refuse to accept things when the evidence is right there in front of you
And there's no football team to support any more, just the horror show that has replaced it.Email du jour:
"We're getting in touch because your domain name Domain: goonersweb.co.uk is due for renewal within 30 days."
Time to finally pull the plug? It has been on life support for a while now
Für eure Sicherheit
Reply With Quote
