Scientists: Human activity has pushed Earth beyond four of nine planetary boundaries
Jan 17, 2015 13:16:57 #
Keenan wrote:
As I figured, you have failed to come up with one example of the scientific community warning about "end of the world theories" in history.
A fine example of creative extrapolation.
Jan 17, 2015 14:16:58 #
Keenan wrote:
As usual, you right wing idiots don't make decisions about what is the truth based on science or objective information. Instead, you simply list some names of people you hate, and if they accept the science of global warming, then that is enough for you to simply deny science. How typical. Your opinion is worthless.
And what exactly is your background Keenan? I am aware that PrarieSeasons has a background in Engineering, the "E" in "STEM". Actually I am curious about a number of folks up here. Anyone else have a STEM background?
Jan 17, 2015 14:18:09 #
Keenan wrote:
WND? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You're joking, right? You think WND has any credibility?
You're joking, right? You think WND has any credibility?
At least as much as you do Keenan. I realize that sets the bar pretty low.
Jan 18, 2015 01:21:17 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
A fine example of creative extrapolation.
Translation: Ok, obviously I can't give you any examples, so I'll just divert and accuse you of some fancy words.
Jan 18, 2015 08:38:09 #
Keenan wrote:
Translation: Ok, obviously I can't give you any examples, so I'll just divert and accuse you of some fancy words.
I gave the example. You chose to ignore it. My posts are short, and to the point. Unfortunately, I must leave the comprehension up to you.
Jan 18, 2015 17:15:40 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
I gave the example. You chose to ignore it. My posts are short, and to the point. Unfortunately, I must leave the comprehension up to you.
The example you gave did not fit your assertion of "scientific end of the world theories". You gave an example of "scientists who proposed the detonation of atomic bombs on the polar ice cap to slow the coming ice age during the earth's last natural cooling cycle." That example was not a theory of end of the world. Nor was that an example of a global scientific consensus.
Jan 18, 2015 17:22:41 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
Keenan wrote:
The example you gave did not fit your assertion of "scientific end of the world theories". You gave an example of "scientists who proposed the detonation of atomic bombs on the polar ice cap to slow the coming ice age during the earth's last natural cooling cycle." That example was not a theory of end of the world. Nor was that an example of a global scientific consensus.
To claim there is a scientific consensus is an over exaggeration, there are no scientific consensus with global warming.
Jan 18, 2015 17:43:09 #
Keenan wrote:
The example you gave did not fit your assertion of "scientific end of the world theories". You gave an example of "scientists who proposed the detonation of atomic bombs on the polar ice cap to slow the coming ice age during the earth's last natural cooling cycle." That example was not a theory of end of the world. Nor was that an example of a global scientific consensus.
Congratulations on your excellent eye sight. Splitting hairs like that is a real talent which requires excellent vision, a keen blade, and flawless technique. However, some talents serve little purpose.
Jan 18, 2015 17:45:11 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
Congratulations on your excellent eye sight. Splitting hairs like that is a real talent which requires excellent vision, a keen blade, and flawless technique. However, some talents serve little purpose.
Yet again, you did not respond to my points. You resorted to ad hominems instead. People generally resort to ad hominems because they have no substantive arguments. Your opinions are uninformed and worthless. Next...
Jan 18, 2015 17:57:55 #
Keenan wrote:
Yet again, you did not respond to my points. You resorted to ad hominems instead. People generally resort to ad hominems because they have no substantive arguments. Your opinions are uninformed and worthless. Next...
Hahaha..there's a lot of that going around. Do you have a STEM background Keenan?
Jan 18, 2015 18:18:34 #
Keenan wrote:
Yet again, you did not respond to my points. You resorted to ad hominems instead. People generally resort to ad hominems because they have no substantive arguments. Your opinions are uninformed and worthless. Next...
I saw no point to your comments except for your mischaracterization of my comments.
Jan 18, 2015 18:20:44 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
I saw no point to your comments except for your mischaracterization of my comments.
And yet you can't specify what exactly I mischaracterized, and you can't give me any specific responses to my points. Not impressed.
Jan 18, 2015 18:26:22 #
Keenan wrote:
And yet you can't specify what exactly I mischaracterized, and you can't give me any specific responses to my points. Not impressed.
Do you have any other debate techniques? Your "Prove It" ploy is getting tiresome.
Jan 18, 2015 18:30:17 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
Do you have any other debate techniques? Your "Prove It" ploy is getting tiresome.
And your substanceless responses and refusal to back up your claims is considered very poor debating techniques in most quarters, and is tiresome.
Jan 18, 2015 18:39:17 #
Keenan wrote:
And your substanceless responses and refusal to back up your claims is considered very poor debating techniques in most quarters, and is tiresome.
If you hadn't mischaracterized my first post I would take your posts more seriously.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.