Care to justify your argument? You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is meaningless if you can't actually explain it.
Dakota Access Pipeline
- Thread starter remibarna
- Start date
- Status
Care to justify your argument? You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is meaningless if you can't actually explain it.
What's not clear about it?
It's clear, but you offered zero reasons as to why you support the pipeline. A politician supporting it isn't a valid reason as to why you support the pipeline, that's simply polarity.
So you think global warming is a hoex then? When facts have been placed multiple times that it's very true and it's scary and could change the face of the earth. The air we breath everyday could change. That does not scare you? Care about our environment and animals? You know honey bees are in danger now because of our environment now right?
Banned forever. Reason: Rules violations
Their danger is more of pesticide use than climate change.
Studies have been shown that it's more likely from climate change. I don't think pesticide could have done that much damage.
Banned forever. Reason: Rules violations
I agree on that. But in other parts of the world. It's been killing them from climate change. Pretty sure there was another animal that was in danger and I think it's elephants or giraffes but I could be wrong on this since they've been in danger for a pretty long time now.
Banned forever. Reason: Rules violations
Ah yes that makes sense,
I'm someone that LOVES animals with a passion. Always grown up with animals. Love animals so much that I own a bunny as a pet.
But it just annoys me watching anything going in danger from climate change or anything like you stated deforestation, etc.
Banned forever. Reason: Rules violations
Oh stoppppp 10 years ago scientists said we'd have a lump of trash for an earth by now.
Your argument is invalid; you offer zero evidence, offer zero statements of credibility and offer zero points of your own. Please come back with an actual argument, or leave.
Ok Mr.Smartass where's your credible evidence?
Withgott and Brennan, along with their hundreds of sources used to make their compilation.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12572/proof-cnn-knows-climate-change-big-fat-hoax-john-nolte
There's my source, and I'm stickin to it. End of story.
Zooply Alright, you can stick to it, I'm just going to take you to pieces here (and the author).
0. Just going to attack credibility here, this is clearly a conservative biased source, just look at the other headlines. (Not saying CNN is an impartial source either, they're trash too).
1. "That's actually a good thing" - To call this a falsehood is an understatement. When there is a recorded 1 degree difference (which there is, there is yet to be a study done to disprove heat increases in the poles across a broad spectrum), it contributes to a positive feedback loop - a loop which feeds itself-. Basically, temperature increases in the poles, poles start to melt (Yes, the poles are melting. They gained sea ice, but lost about 20x more land ice than sea ice they gained. In addition, sea ice is seasonal). A one degree difference isn't helping us heat anyone because it's a change in climate and not global temperature, they're different things, radically different. The fact that the person writing this is unaware of that speaks volumes as to their actual knowledge on this subject. In addition, the limiting factor on growing crops hasn't been temperature in decades, we fixed temperature limitations with GMOs (we produce strawberries that make their own antifreeze now, along with other crops).
2. "To say we have no idea how the planet naturally cycles, is the understatement of all time." - Another blatant falsehood. We can know things without experiencing them. How do you think we knew the sun had an iron core centuries before we were able to use computerized scans of the sun? How do you think we can say the size of a far away star or about our own star's life cycle? We can tell a lot about our planets cycles just by the record it has given us; itself. Rock records have told us more about the history of our planet than everything else combined. Saying we don't understand the climate of the past is simply absurd, anyone who even possessed a middle-school knowledge of geology would understand that.
3. I believe this is referring to the climate summit email scandal. If it is, this person hasn't read the emails, and if you're citing them, neither have you. Go read them, the "blatant lies" found in them are nowhere near it. People simply cherrypicked oneliners.
4. Well this is just... wrong. The ozone was depleting, at an alarming rate as well. Wanna know why it's not an issue now? The developed world banned the use of cfcs and the damage was stopped, just as the climate scientists said it would be. The cfcs dissipated mostly by 2015 and the ozone layer began it's natural self repair and regeneration. This is a great example of how climate scientists actually fought to do something that saved millions of lives. Don't believe me? Research the damage a hole in the ozone would cause. Arctic ice is disappearing, any study will tell you that and there has been zero legitimate counter evidence to that. Super hurricanes? Never heard of that, but look at the number of hurricanes my friend. 115 in North Atlantic from 2000-2015. How many from 1900-1915 you ask? 59. Care to try and argue against that statistic? I'm looking forward to that.
5. This argument.... is so dumb. Yes, leave your job and land and run away somewhere else.
I also notice a lack of evidence towards this argument. "The scientists lied" isn't evidence, it's a claim. You'd have to back it with some examples to be a justified claim. The only evidence I see against climate change isn't even against climate change, it's a statistic for how long we have been recording the temperature on earth.
I look forward to an open and civil discussion with you, should you choose to continue, but dropping links doesn't really help your case if you cannot synthesize what they're saying, or use quantitative evidence.
0. Just going to attack credibility here, this is clearly a conservative biased source, just look at the other headlines. (Not saying CNN is an impartial source either, they're trash too).
1. "That's actually a good thing" - To call this a falsehood is an understatement. When there is a recorded 1 degree difference (which there is, there is yet to be a study done to disprove heat increases in the poles across a broad spectrum), it contributes to a positive feedback loop - a loop which feeds itself-. Basically, temperature increases in the poles, poles start to melt (Yes, the poles are melting. They gained sea ice, but lost about 20x more land ice than sea ice they gained. In addition, sea ice is seasonal). A one degree difference isn't helping us heat anyone because it's a change in climate and not global temperature, they're different things, radically different. The fact that the person writing this is unaware of that speaks volumes as to their actual knowledge on this subject. In addition, the limiting factor on growing crops hasn't been temperature in decades, we fixed temperature limitations with GMOs (we produce strawberries that make their own antifreeze now, along with other crops).
2. "To say we have no idea how the planet naturally cycles, is the understatement of all time." - Another blatant falsehood. We can know things without experiencing them. How do you think we knew the sun had an iron core centuries before we were able to use computerized scans of the sun? How do you think we can say the size of a far away star or about our own star's life cycle? We can tell a lot about our planets cycles just by the record it has given us; itself. Rock records have told us more about the history of our planet than everything else combined. Saying we don't understand the climate of the past is simply absurd, anyone who even possessed a middle-school knowledge of geology would understand that.
3. I believe this is referring to the climate summit email scandal. If it is, this person hasn't read the emails, and if you're citing them, neither have you. Go read them, the "blatant lies" found in them are nowhere near it. People simply cherrypicked oneliners.
4. Well this is just... wrong. The ozone was depleting, at an alarming rate as well. Wanna know why it's not an issue now? The developed world banned the use of cfcs and the damage was stopped, just as the climate scientists said it would be. The cfcs dissipated mostly by 2015 and the ozone layer began it's natural self repair and regeneration. This is a great example of how climate scientists actually fought to do something that saved millions of lives. Don't believe me? Research the damage a hole in the ozone would cause. Arctic ice is disappearing, any study will tell you that and there has been zero legitimate counter evidence to that. Super hurricanes? Never heard of that, but look at the number of hurricanes my friend. 115 in North Atlantic from 2000-2015. How many from 1900-1915 you ask? 59. Care to try and argue against that statistic? I'm looking forward to that.
5. This argument.... is so dumb. Yes, leave your job and land and run away somewhere else.
I also notice a lack of evidence towards this argument. "The scientists lied" isn't evidence, it's a claim. You'd have to back it with some examples to be a justified claim. The only evidence I see against climate change isn't even against climate change, it's a statistic for how long we have been recording the temperature on earth.
I look forward to an open and civil discussion with you, should you choose to continue, but dropping links doesn't really help your case if you cannot synthesize what they're saying, or use quantitative evidence.
- Status
