It's about disproving theories Danny. You haven't even managed to begin to do so, mostly because you don't know how, but also because you can't. Perhaps just crawl back in your denialist's cave and contemplate how God will judge you for not using the brain he gave you to good purpose.

(Written on 03/12/2019)(Permalink)

Sigh... stupidity abounds...

(Written on 03/12/2019)(Permalink)

I'm assuming you're taking that from the bible or some other work of fiction. Again, no point in discussing the finer details of a Picasso with a blind man.

(Written on 03/12/2019)(Permalink)

You didn't answer my question. I'll take that as a 'yes', which only confirms your inability to critically question what is right in front of your eyes. No point in arguing colors with a blind man.

(Written on 03/12/2019)(Permalink)

Science works through hypothesis and efforts to prove or disprove. There has been essentially nothing to disprove accepted climate science, save for a few discredited and deeply flawed papers by the people you seem to follow blindly. But I get it. Much easier to wake up and face the day if you can fool yourself into thinking everything is rosy. No brains, no headaches. Probably best that you continue life with your blinders on. They're necessary to accept religion too, and I'll wager you're really worried about where you go after death. The notion that there's nothing beyond is probably terrifying. And I'm sure the idea that we're living in a simulation probably panics you completely... that definitely doesn't track with mainstream religious indoctrination!

(Written on 03/12/2019)(Permalink)

Nice try. Facts provided. There's a whole Internet full of them, if you care to look. Which, clearly you have not...

(Written on 03/12/2019)(Permalink)

'not in full agreement'... you mean those three discredited hacks who disagree with the (literally) thousands of scientists who have found consensus? The 'scientists' whose work has been found sorely lacking or flawed through peer review (what real scientists do)? Yeah, I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of those nutjobs. Clearly you're not asking any questions, let alone intelligent questions if you're taking their word over that of the thousands who aren't paid by Big Oil, the military industrial complex, etc. It's sad that your vision of the world is so narrow and easily influenced by nonsense. If we all went your way, there would be consensus that the world is flat and smoking Camels is great for your throat. Let me guess... you also believe in God, right? Pretty sure I'm right about that, because your sort of blind belief fits squarely with religion... which absolutely requires blind faith and compliance to control its congregation. If anyone star

(Written on 03/12/2019)(Permalink)

And without any useful facts, another denialist is vanquished!! (crowd cheers) Bye Bill!

(Written on 02/12/2019)(Permalink)

That's where you're losing me Dan. Greta only says that we must make changes to ensure our ongoing survival as a species. The scientific community is in full agreement with that. It's only delayists, denialists and politicians in the pocket of big corporations who take issue with it. And try to convince us with BS living-in-a-cave scenarios. She says that we must listen to science and the scientists, rather than decide what we want to 'believe'... which seems to trend towards what is easiest and cheapest - quelle surprise.

(Written on 02/12/2019)(Permalink)

Again, missing the point Bill. Purposely? Re-read my last two paragraphs above. 'Viable' is going to be different for everyone. EV's were 'viable' decades ago, but overly-costly and anemic. 'Viable' wasn't the consensus. Yet today, EV's are taking over and will kill the ICE auto industry. Are killing it already, in fact. But your original point was all about the conspiracy theory of George Soros...etc. Now shifting to a debate over what constitutes 'viable'. Bait and switch... standard denialist strategy.

(Written on 02/12/2019)(Permalink)