US tech firms pledge to defy Trump on withdrawal from the Climate Change Agreement

[SurvivorNVL]

On this is so getting locked in two more pages or less.  Hands down.

[Mihle]

2 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

The fear mongering has really gotten to you. Real evidence in this day and age is subjective; saying there is no such thing as chromosomal gender because it hurts "muh feelings" doesn't invalidate that either, but people CHOOSE to believe it.

Facts isnt subjective, choosing to not believe something dont change the facts.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, rrubberr said:

Umm.... When you quote the study separately and the Breitbart article had nothing to do with climate change, I don't think they were quoting a study...

 

But you "read it" of course.

 

Are you okay?

 

The fear mongering has really gotten to you. Real evidence in this day and age is subjective; saying there is no such thing as chromosomal gender because it hurts "muh feelings" doesn't invalidate that either, but people CHOOSE to believe it.

https://thinkprogress.org/pruitt-scientifically-wrong-a114a6492ed7

 

The study you quote it's been refuted.

 

 

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Mihle said:

Facts isnt subjective, choosing to not believe something dont change the facts.

You ninja's me

[Mihle]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

 

When there are equally "facts" saying the opposite, whether or not that is the "popular belief" does not make them any less true..

when there are much more "facts" on one side than the other...

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Mmm... Muh hockey stick graphs

When there are equally "facts" saying the opposite, whether or not that is the "popular belief" does not make them any less true..

No, them being true makes them true. A peer reviewed and repeatable paper is factual. A paid for and unrepeatable paper is not factual.

[Mihle]

I am leaving this here, even 2 years old.

 

 

[Tech_Dreamer]

To be clear, the regulations put forward says US being one of the countries(who had top most cash in) to pay presumably billions of dollars to other world countries the major ones which doesn't have to accord with the set rules, ,its simply a bad trade,  isn't it kinda like a daylight robbery? like a guy walking up to you & asking for money without any weapons & saying it's for the welfare of his family & that of their families while they themselves don't work . regulations can be applied to control pollution, But this silent golden rule it has to be done through the paris accord, is a bit outlandish bullshit . Technically it's a weapon for the opposition. hence what we're seeing now

 

lets just say US curbs the whole deal while those set for the reduction & the other countries which play a major role in doing the damage increase it's shit & the whole thing doesn't make any difference two decades from now,  they cant think 3 steps ahead, they muddle through some fantasy temporary shit to feel better right now.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Mmm... Muh hockey stick graphs

When there are equally "facts" saying the opposite, whether or not that is the "popular belief" does not make them any less true..

So you first post a study to back up your claims and now discredit refutations because they disagree with your "opinion"? 

 

You can't have it both ways: You can't present "facts" and then claim those don't matter when contradicting information is presented to you. 

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Facts are something that is agreed upon; there is no fact, but we can agree on things. If there is not an agreement there is no fact. For instance, you can say "99% of scientists say there is climate change" which is, of course, lying by omission. 99% of scientists may believe that, but that does not mean that they agree it is caused by Human activity.

Do you actually listen to yourself when you talk or is your ego really that big?

 

The earth is an oblate spheroid.

 

Tell me how that isn't a fact but an "agreed upon notion"?

 

Edited it before you start " muh earth isn't round tho"

[Misanthrope]

Just now, rrubberr said:

Facts are something that is agreed upon; there is no fact, but we can agree on things. If there is not an agreement there is no fact. For instance, you can say "99% of scientists say there is climate change" which is, of course, lying by omission. 99% of scientists may believe that, but that does not mean that they agree it is caused by Human activity.

 

I don't need your videos, I go to a public school in California. Trust me. I've heard this malarkey before.

That's not what facts are. Not at all. Facts are claims backed by evidence. You refute them by presenting new evidence and pointing out inconsistencies. It's not "lets see how many scientists agree" but "Lets see what evidence scientists present to refute the claims" which so far is nothing that hasn't been clarified or refuted from the "not man made" and "not happening at all" camps.

 

 

[Mihle]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

I can represent "facts" that disagree with your "facts", and when there are "facts," and at that point, the judgement comes down to opinion.

[Sauron]

Gotta love how Tim Cook has the guts to say that in public after the "no reuse" scandal. Still, if they get any better I won't complain.

38 minutes ago, suits said:

Show me some solid evidence that global warming isn't BS. Cause the ice caps are refreezing the ozone layer has been thin before and weather goes in cycles.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[SurvivorNVL]

As a flat-earther, I must add my opinion to this thread.



Hail the Hollow-Earth.  Also this is Comic-Sans.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

"Known or proved"

 

Are you okay? Climate science and the shape of the globe are two very different things, no?

 

Of course, you have not been to space and OBSERVED the Earth, so you are AGREEING upon that "fact", and nothing more.

Oh I understand to concept, its you who just said there's no such thing as a fact, not me.

[suits]

33 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

https://climate.nasa.gov

 

Water levels are up, ice caps are refreezing not to mention other things, looks like their effects aren't real. Nice try nasa.

 

Is the earth decaying? Yeah 2nd law of thermodynamics, should we reduce emissions yeah, can we every stop it no. Get over it.

[Taf the Ghost]

Somewhat related, but I'd love to see the looks on people's faces if they had to actually research Government Economic Data. Stuff that's supposed to be much more provable, verifiable and testable.  Yeah, about those CPI numbers...

[The Sloth]

15 minutes ago, suits said:

Water levels are up, ice caps are refreezing not to mention other things, looks like their effects aren't real. Nice try nasa.

 

are you trolling? 

 

[SurvivorNVL]

The true question is if science can explain thigh-gaps.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, SurvivorNVL said:

The true question is if science can explain thigh-gaps.

I'm still trying to figure out when that became a "thing".  It went from "no one has heard of" to "Women's Magazines complaining about" in an instant.  

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

I'm still trying to figure out when that became a "thing".  It went from "no one has heard of" to "Women's Magazines complaining about" in an instant.  

The answer is because it is TWENTY-SEVEN-TEEN.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Now you're getting it. Observed fact and accepting as fact what people tell you are two very different things.

Claiming that the information based off scientific OBSERVATION is somehow not observed fact? 

 

1 minute ago, Kumaresh said:

Anybody with some 3rd Grade geometry and common sense can prove to themselves that the earth is not flat. Climate change on the other hand, much harder to independently verify its magnitude. When people think of climate change, they think only of Al Gore and his predictions most of the time. They think the apocalypse is nigh based on what he says. But most climate scientists disagree that his version of climate change is accurate. Almost NO scientists think that there is no climate change, however many climate scientists think that climate change and its impact is moderate, while very few think it is as extreme as the climate alarmists would have you believe.

No body here is being that alarmist, not from what I've seen but the skeptics have shown their presence.

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, SurvivorNVL said:

The answer is because it is TWENTY-SEVEN-TEEN.

I believe it started on Instagram around 2014, but I swear almost no one heard about it until a coordinated shaming round happened.  If it was invented solely for some "Concerned Women's Group" to complain about, I honestly wouldn't be surprised. 

[WMGroomAK]

One could look at this as a brilliant move that saves the US $2 billion by pulling out of the accords and then having the large US cities be so 'outraged' that they decide to meet the emissions standards themselves...  

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40131918

 

US government saves $2 billion, greenhouse emissions are still cut, win-win.  All this does is shift the responsibility for making these decisions from a Federal level to a state/local level.

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

I believe it started on Instagram around 2014, but I swear almost no one heard about it until a coordinated shaming round happened.  If it was invented solely for some "Concerned Women's Group" to complain about, I honestly wouldn't be surprised. 

It probably was invented for that very reason by some group.