smb
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 949
- Reaction score
- 273
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Stop with your pseudo-psycho babble... You're not qualified to make that kind of determination.
But, maybe you are right, it's stupid to look at the raw data to determine if it validates or violates the running hypothesis.
How is it that I am the one not accepting facts when I'm looking at the data, and you tell me I'm wrong based on dogma?
Oh, almost missed how it's ME that changes the terms whenever the previous terms stop getting people to buy into the scam?
Again not wrong based on dogma. You are wrong based on the observable facts.
Yes, it is climate change deniers who keep changing the argument. First it was OK, climate change is real and we need to do something about but it should be market based solutions. That then turned into climate is just a bunch a bull****. Then as the science became more and more a concensus the argument morphed into well not all scientist agree anyway this is still a bunch of bull****. Then climate change started to occur in a observable ways and became a threefold argument against it. First, climate change exists but it is not caused by human actions. Second argument is climate change may or not be happening and may or may not be caused by humans but there is nothing we can do about it anyway. The third and last argument being climate change may exist but we would ruin the U.S. economy by tryiing to do something about and besides the Chinese are worse. This last one is my most favorite because it is the age old argument that second graders used to make until they found it out it doesn't work. "I may be wrong but they are wronger see....see....