It's entertaining to pretend that this is a thread about the theory of gravitation, and then read all of the waffle in the last page or so.
It's entertaining to pretend that this is a thread about the theory of gravitation, and then read all of the waffle in the last page or so.
I hear you Snoop. I think that any labelling is borne out of frustration that the lobbyists behind anti-climate change are so good at creating enough doubt to keep the general public from taking serious actions to better our environment...at least that is how it is for me. I can't speak for anyone else. I labelled someone as wrong, in this thread, about their judgement of me:
I responded that he was wrong...about me...I would look at any sources which resulted in no sources being provided by him. I asked again for some sources on the last page promising to be open minded. What happened instead...he got into a side conversation with a member new to this thread who came in feeling maybe we do need to take this seriously and effectively created enough doubt in that members mind, muddying the waters with only his personal anecdotes and still not a single source. This is very disappointing. I have considered several times during this thread that I may be wrong but after researching some of the better sounding arguments against man made climate change, I only reaffirmed my beliefs that we need to take climate change seriously and not let doubt to get us stuck in the mud of inaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voldmer
...And even if I did provide sources, you, and any "climate change"-minions who might see this, would not change position one bit. Therefore it would be as meaningless as it is, when your side provide sources.
I appreciate your reminder and take it to heart. Sometimes I may also come across as too adamant to be understood and heard and that is an important reminder. Some of that reminder comes with additional muddying of the waters, but I accept that in this case as it brings the whole discussion back up a notch.
First of all, I have stated before that I don't want to spend so much time on this thread, so googling for sources is out of the question (though you may yourself wish to google the research of Henrik Svensmark, whom I would otherwise quote). Secondly, you appear not to get it: I don't trust your sources further than I can throw them! So they mean nothing to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by fogelbise
No worries. I do recall that you feel that those sources (that show a 97% consensus among climate experts are from thousands of peer reviewed science papers) are mostly backed by Universities who together are fabricating the data possibly just to keep their jobs and funding. That is your right to believe that of course and we can agree to disagree. Cheers.