Global warming is practically caused 100% by burning fossile fuels.
And this is the level of critical thinking we skeptics have come to expect from global warming disciples such as yourself. Making a statement like this clearly illustrates your ignorance of the fact that the earth warmed and cooled long before fossil fuels were even discovered. No... but THIS global warming is caused ENTIRELY by humans. The sun has nothing to do with it. Ocean acidity has nothing to do with it. The other cyclical machinations of the planet... no effect. It's all humans burning oil.
Just so you know, not even the most ardent, militant, angry anthropogenic global warming evangelist claims that 100% of global warming is caused by humans. If you need proof, in your own words, "FOR FUCK SAKE GOOGLE IT YOURSELF."
Wow. All I've done is ask questions to a guy who made the bold statement that the burning of fossil fuels has lead the the largest displacement of humans. I asked him to back his statement up with some metrics. Not only have there been ZERO rough metrics provided, I've been called an idiot and a shill for simply asking. Certainly, if such a claim is true, there ought to be some stats available to back it up, right? I have not claimed or rejected ANYTHING myself. What I have done is piss some apparently zealous people off by asking simple questions.
we have already migration streams due to global warming
Who? From where? You're saying people have moved due to global warming, yet you can't say from where or how many. And, as you've said, there's no way to even tell.
That's
completely
moronic.
...Which is obviously caused by burning fossile fuels.
Oh, yes -- obviously. Yet, you can't even state a +/- percentage of the portion of global warming that is actually caused by the burning of fossil fuels. So, how is it obvious?
Today, children, we're going to be talking about arithmetic. I know... big word, right? A + B = C. If you know C (total climate change = 100%) and you know B (total climate change not caused by the burning of fossil fuels), then you know A, right? A = C - B.
So, you're admitting that there is no way to know that anyone has been displaced due to the burning of fossil fuels. Yet, you're arguing for the validity of making that very assertion. Now, who's the idiot?
I beg to differ. Idiots like you have no place in this discussion.
Until you can learn to communicate in a post-elementary-school-playground manner, neither do you.
A) it does not matter if climate change is based 95% or 99.9% based on burning fossile fuels.
It certainly does if you're trying to ascertain whether fossil fuel burning has caused enough climate change to displace people, as the OP asserted.
Your hypothetical interview scenario is moot and useless. Calculation of population displacement due to climate change would never be based on interviews -- it would be linked directly to (habitable land mass before change) - (habitable land mass after change).
Protip: Use more logic and reason, and less emotion when composing your arguments.
You should probably google "escape velocity". The moon does, in fact, have an escape velocity and it's much lower than Earth's. And yes, you need to exceed Earth's escape velocity to even enter orbit, let alone travel to the moon.
I came here wondering the same thing. Also, how are these O2 molecules reaching escape velocity to actually leave our atmosphere and travel to the lesser mass of the moon? Label me a skeptic.
But keep frothing about Benghazi, there's no surer dog whistle for a right-wing nutjob.
Keep downplaying Benghazi -- there's no clearer attribute for a Hillary apologist. Your blind devotion is typical. Indeed, this same devotion is seen on the right as well. But, when the facts simply do not support your almost religious devotion and everyone can see it, and then you engage in name calling in a feeble attempt to recover, you lose all credibility. Hillary and Obama fucked up on Benghazi. They dropped the ball before the siege. They were negligent/inept during the siege. They then lied to the family members of those who were killed. Then, they lied to the American public. Then, they lied about lying to both the family members and the public.
Needlessly leaving Americans to die under siege, and then lying about the cause isn't big enough for you? Why, because it wasn't money-related? Then, how about Obama's $1.7 billion ransom payment to Iran? Or, the lies surrounding the ACA? Or Obama's own lies about his knowledge of Hillary's private server?
And, each of the people still locked up in Guantanamo might also beg to differ with your assertion.
They're not discriminating, though. Some users of their service might choose to discriminate based on the age data, but IMDB is in the clear here. Citing the first amendment is valid, too. In this case, it's freedom of the press.
Women respond better when you take their concerns seriously...
Some concerns are more concerning than others. If you've got a legitimate gripe about the way things are going in life, put your head on my shoulder and have a good cry; talk it out. Life gets crazy sometimes -- we all get that. But, if you're manufacturing short-circuited righteous indignation, as the OP was likely referring to, I think you need to be called out on your shit. No one should take anything like that seriously, other than as a serious indication that the concerned individual needs to rethink their purpose in life. Or, get help.
One of my criteria for buying a phone was that it had CM available -- my latest being the OnePlus X. Every Android phone I've owned has run CM. This is very disappointing.
Slashdot Mirror
*clears throat* "At this point, what difference does it make?!!"
There's more evidence she said that, than there is that Russia hacked the DNC.
And this is the level of critical thinking we skeptics have come to expect from global warming disciples such as yourself. Making a statement like this clearly illustrates your ignorance of the fact that the earth warmed and cooled long before fossil fuels were even discovered. No... but THIS global warming is caused ENTIRELY by humans. The sun has nothing to do with it. Ocean acidity has nothing to do with it. The other cyclical machinations of the planet... no effect. It's all humans burning oil.
Just so you know, not even the most ardent, militant, angry anthropogenic global warming evangelist claims that 100% of global warming is caused by humans. If you need proof, in your own words, "FOR FUCK SAKE GOOGLE IT YOURSELF."
That's all, just... *cough*.. yumpin' yimminy.
Wow. All I've done is ask questions to a guy who made the bold statement that the burning of fossil fuels has lead the the largest displacement of humans. I asked him to back his statement up with some metrics. Not only have there been ZERO rough metrics provided, I've been called an idiot and a shill for simply asking. Certainly, if such a claim is true, there ought to be some stats available to back it up, right? I have not claimed or rejected ANYTHING myself. What I have done is piss some apparently zealous people off by asking simple questions.
Who? From where? You're saying people have moved due to global warming, yet you can't say from where or how many. And, as you've said, there's no way to even tell.
That's
completely
moronic.
Oh, yes -- obviously. Yet, you can't even state a +/- percentage of the portion of global warming that is actually caused by the burning of fossil fuels. So, how is it obvious?
I've not made ANY assertions. I've simply asked questions. Questions that, obviously, make some people angry and uncomfortable.
Today, children, we're going to be talking about arithmetic. I know... big word, right? A + B = C. If you know C (total climate change = 100%) and you know B (total climate change not caused by the burning of fossil fuels), then you know A, right? A = C - B.
So, do you still think I'm being *sniff* unfair?
So, you're admitting that there is no way to know that anyone has been displaced due to the burning of fossil fuels. Yet, you're arguing for the validity of making that very assertion. Now, who's the idiot?
Until you can learn to communicate in a post-elementary-school-playground manner, neither do you.
It certainly does if you're trying to ascertain whether fossil fuel burning has caused enough climate change to displace people, as the OP asserted.
Your hypothetical interview scenario is moot and useless. Calculation of population displacement due to climate change would never be based on interviews -- it would be linked directly to (habitable land mass before change) - (habitable land mass after change).
Protip: Use more logic and reason, and less emotion when composing your arguments.
Exact? No. How about ballpark-range?
What percentage of climate change is due, solely, to fossil fuel burning? We all agree that the number is less than %100, but what is it?
How much area, in square kilometers or whatever area unit you wish to use, has been affected by climate change so that people have been displaced?
Until you can answer those two questions, you have no place in this discussion -- your assertion is little more than mere conjecture.
You should probably google "escape velocity". The moon does, in fact, have an escape velocity and it's much lower than Earth's. And yes, you need to exceed Earth's escape velocity to even enter orbit, let alone travel to the moon.
I came here wondering the same thing. Also, how are these O2 molecules reaching escape velocity to actually leave our atmosphere and travel to the lesser mass of the moon? Label me a skeptic.
Keep downplaying Benghazi -- there's no clearer attribute for a Hillary apologist. Your blind devotion is typical. Indeed, this same devotion is seen on the right as well. But, when the facts simply do not support your almost religious devotion and everyone can see it, and then you engage in name calling in a feeble attempt to recover, you lose all credibility. Hillary and Obama fucked up on Benghazi. They dropped the ball before the siege. They were negligent/inept during the siege. They then lied to the family members of those who were killed. Then, they lied to the American public. Then, they lied about lying to both the family members and the public.
How many of them have been policy-related? How many involved people being imprisoned or killed?
Needlessly leaving Americans to die under siege, and then lying about the cause isn't big enough for you? Why, because it wasn't money-related? Then, how about Obama's $1.7 billion ransom payment to Iran? Or, the lies surrounding the ACA? Or Obama's own lies about his knowledge of Hillary's private server?
And, each of the people still locked up in Guantanamo might also beg to differ with your assertion.
They're not discriminating, though. Some users of their service might choose to discriminate based on the age data, but IMDB is in the clear here. Citing the first amendment is valid, too. In this case, it's freedom of the press.
Oh yes, Somebody made deals with Putin, but you're thinking of the wrong guy.
Alarm!. TBT, baby.
I was thinking it would be funnier if it was:
China 'Smart Restaurant' Uses Fecal Recognition To Make Meal Suggestions
"So, Chang Li, it seems you need more bran in your diet. Ditch the won ton and have a muffin, k?"
Some concerns are more concerning than others. If you've got a legitimate gripe about the way things are going in life, put your head on my shoulder and have a good cry; talk it out. Life gets crazy sometimes -- we all get that. But, if you're manufacturing short-circuited righteous indignation, as the OP was likely referring to, I think you need to be called out on your shit. No one should take anything like that seriously, other than as a serious indication that the concerned individual needs to rethink their purpose in life. Or, get help.
One of my criteria for buying a phone was that it had CM available -- my latest being the OnePlus X. Every Android phone I've owned has run CM. This is very disappointing.
No, he wants to preserve the whole concept of girlfriend.
You're thinking of RHCP, and it's being used to combat terrorists.