But everything you've said hints very strongly that you don't know how public transport works. You are arguing with people who are using these very systems daily and telling them they are wrong. You are making massive blanket statements, and complaining when people show you are wrong.
You do realise you are embarrassing yourself with every idiotic post like this, right? You are telling the world - proudly - that you have absolutely no idea about this subject, but consider your opinion to equal the weight of the entire body of evidence against your position. Your education has failed you.
Translation: "I don't understand what's happening, but some people I listen to have told me it's all messed up, so I will say what they said". If you don't understand the difference between ice on land and sea ice, you really shouldn't be commenting on this subject.
Seeing as volcanoes emit ~0.3bn tonnes of CO2 per year, and human industry emits nearly 30bn tonnes, why should anyone listen to a word you have to say?
You have already made up your mind, and it's contrary to all the evidence. You aren't very good at this.
Translation: "I don't know how this stuff works, but as I don't like the idea of me and those like me being responsible for the rise in temperatures (which I will pretend didn't happen), I will deny the evidence, and spout the same old tired nonsense as thousands before me have, hoping that this time it'll work".
The evidence is out there if you could be bothered to read it. The fact you haven't, and instead blurted out nonsensical, childish arguments, means you are either incapable of understanding the evidence, or simply do not want to. You are asking questions which have already been answered.
You are seriously saying you can do the sums on the back of a napkin? And that entire fields of science are incorrect (despite their evidence) because you simply think so?
The evidence you speak of for increasing crop yields is nonsense, as you are ignoring the problem of lands in climates suitable for agriculture not being where our current infrastructure is, and the soil in those places being completely unsuitable for plants. Also that our main staple crops lose nutritional content with more CO2, meaning those improved yields are a wash, would the crops be able to grow in the first place.
Just admit it - you don't know what you're talking about, but the thought that you might have to change your lifestyle scares you. That's fine. Don't pretend to be informed, as you are making it patently clear with every nonsensical, gibbering post you make that you really have very little clue.
So you found one positive aspect and hand-wave all the negative aspects away, aspects which do far more harm to humans than the benefits of a receding Sahara ever could. Brilliant. You sure are a clever one, aren't you!
The science is settled in as much as any scientific findings have to be in order to inform public policy. You saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Follow your own advice. This is getting tragic.
Not that "upend our entire economy" nonsense again. You are so misinformed about this whole discussion it's making my head spin. You are clearly intelligent, yet are parroting the same oft-debunked nonsense as many less-intelligent people have been doing for years. It's sad more than anything.
You are making lots of assumptions which tell more about your opinions than the actual situation at hand. The "global warming/global cooling/global climate change" people don't go nuts and take it way too far. You are assuming the loudest voices represent the majority, which is patently untrue. Environmentalists on the whole are not against everything, but a few loud ones might be. Again, you are skimming the surface and accepting the loudest voices as representing everyone. That is clearly not going to make you very well informed.
The science is settled as in much as there is no contradictory evidence. If some came along, then obviously the theories would be re-worked. The contradictory evidence hasn't been found yet, despite a multi-billion-dollar effort to discover it. Science is rarely overturned - you simply claiming perceived unfamiliarity does nothing to change that fact.
I used to think you were logical, now it seems you have your limits. What a shame.
You don't even realise you cited evidence that you are wrong as evidence you are right. No wonder this discussion is so difficult, when people like you assume you know what you're talking about, without even bothering to understand what you're saying.
Instead of writing that post, you could have found all the data you could ever want. The fact you didn't indicates you either don't know how to research anything, or you don't want to research this particular topic. Neither will help you engage in a rational, honest discussion on this subject, so it would help everyone involved if you improved/reinstated your research abilities.
He is in charge of his followers' spiritual well-being, which would be tested to the extreme should they be subjected to famine, loss of their homes, pestilence, and so on. The fact he's on the side of science and attempting to help billions of people should be applauded, not condemned.
Slashdot Mirror
Europe is larger than the US. If your first fact is flat-out wrong and incredibly easy to verify, why should people read on?
But everything you've said hints very strongly that you don't know how public transport works. You are arguing with people who are using these very systems daily and telling them they are wrong. You are making massive blanket statements, and complaining when people show you are wrong.
So incredibly vague. It's no real surprise your argument boiled down to something so vacuous.
300km/h isn't fast? That's nearly 190mph...
Then brush up on your education - you are expecting people to take you seriously when you clearly don't even understand what you're complaining about.
You do realise you are embarrassing yourself with every idiotic post like this, right? You are telling the world - proudly - that you have absolutely no idea about this subject, but consider your opinion to equal the weight of the entire body of evidence against your position. Your education has failed you.
Read the IPCC reports to answer all your questions. It really is that easy.
Translation: "I don't understand what's happening, but some people I listen to have told me it's all messed up, so I will say what they said". If you don't understand the difference between ice on land and sea ice, you really shouldn't be commenting on this subject.
Seeing as volcanoes emit ~0.3bn tonnes of CO2 per year, and human industry emits nearly 30bn tonnes, why should anyone listen to a word you have to say?
You have already made up your mind, and it's contrary to all the evidence. You aren't very good at this.
Translation: "I don't know how this stuff works, but as I don't like the idea of me and those like me being responsible for the rise in temperatures (which I will pretend didn't happen), I will deny the evidence, and spout the same old tired nonsense as thousands before me have, hoping that this time it'll work".
You are embarrassing yourself.
Bad data != evidence. You are questioning data which has passed scrutiny, which is the mark of a cynic or a madman.
The evidence is out there if you could be bothered to read it. The fact you haven't, and instead blurted out nonsensical, childish arguments, means you are either incapable of understanding the evidence, or simply do not want to. You are asking questions which have already been answered.
If that were true you would not have made so many mistakes in your arguments. You appear to be blinded by hubris. No wonder you believe such nonsense.
You are seriously saying you can do the sums on the back of a napkin? And that entire fields of science are incorrect (despite their evidence) because you simply think so?
The evidence you speak of for increasing crop yields is nonsense, as you are ignoring the problem of lands in climates suitable for agriculture not being where our current infrastructure is, and the soil in those places being completely unsuitable for plants. Also that our main staple crops lose nutritional content with more CO2, meaning those improved yields are a wash, would the crops be able to grow in the first place.
Just admit it - you don't know what you're talking about, but the thought that you might have to change your lifestyle scares you. That's fine. Don't pretend to be informed, as you are making it patently clear with every nonsensical, gibbering post you make that you really have very little clue.
Then you clearly have no understanding of what CO2 in the atmosphere means to humanity. Thanks for clearing that up.
So you found one positive aspect and hand-wave all the negative aspects away, aspects which do far more harm to humans than the benefits of a receding Sahara ever could. Brilliant. You sure are a clever one, aren't you!
The science is settled in as much as any scientific findings have to be in order to inform public policy. You saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Follow your own advice. This is getting tragic.
Not that "upend our entire economy" nonsense again. You are so misinformed about this whole discussion it's making my head spin. You are clearly intelligent, yet are parroting the same oft-debunked nonsense as many less-intelligent people have been doing for years. It's sad more than anything.
You are making lots of assumptions which tell more about your opinions than the actual situation at hand. The "global warming/global cooling/global climate change" people don't go nuts and take it way too far. You are assuming the loudest voices represent the majority, which is patently untrue. Environmentalists on the whole are not against everything, but a few loud ones might be. Again, you are skimming the surface and accepting the loudest voices as representing everyone. That is clearly not going to make you very well informed.
The science is settled as in much as there is no contradictory evidence. If some came along, then obviously the theories would be re-worked. The contradictory evidence hasn't been found yet, despite a multi-billion-dollar effort to discover it. Science is rarely overturned - you simply claiming perceived unfamiliarity does nothing to change that fact.
I used to think you were logical, now it seems you have your limits. What a shame.
You don't even realise you cited evidence that you are wrong as evidence you are right. No wonder this discussion is so difficult, when people like you assume you know what you're talking about, without even bothering to understand what you're saying.
You just heard about this now? No wonder you keep spouting nonsense. You have a lot to learn, it seems.
So you don't have any understanding of the issues, and just assume your wishes will come true. This is why we can't have nice things.
Instead of writing that post, you could have found all the data you could ever want. The fact you didn't indicates you either don't know how to research anything, or you don't want to research this particular topic. Neither will help you engage in a rational, honest discussion on this subject, so it would help everyone involved if you improved/reinstated your research abilities.
He is in charge of his followers' spiritual well-being, which would be tested to the extreme should they be subjected to famine, loss of their homes, pestilence, and so on. The fact he's on the side of science and attempting to help billions of people should be applauded, not condemned.