You can have my carbon when you pry it from my cold, dead…
You’re not smart enough to engage effectively on this topic.
When the sun burns out in a few billion years, will we still be worrying about climate change?
I will be.
Another moron and asshole heard from. I don’t doubt the usual fuckwits will make their appearance.
If this is somehow intended to cast doubt on her motives, it’s even more cretinous than your usual remarks.
(post shortened, underline added)
Wow! It’s a shame you couldn’t be bothered to read the article in question. I actually read the article linked to in post #216? I’m surprised that you hadn’t. Otherwise, you might have noticed that it’s a quote from the 2nd paragraph of that same article. Or are you calling Madeleine Thomas cretinous?
*Climate depression is for real. Just ask a scientist
-By Madeleine Thomas
Two years ago, Camille Parmesan, a professor at Plymouth University and the University of Texas at Austin, became so “professionally depressed” that she questioned abandoning her research in climate change entirely.
Parmesan has a pretty serious stake in the field. In 2007, she shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for her work as a lead author of the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In 2009, The Atlantic named her one of 27 “Brave Thinkers” for her work on the impacts of climate change on species around the globe.*
You don’t look a day over a million and a half. What’s your secret?
Did you read the article? Climate scientists are depressed because the public doesn’t seem to find their work believable.
If anyone ever has any questions about prostate problems, I can’t imagine them not thinking of you, first.
Apparently not.
Nanites. And clean living.
Mostly the nanites though.
In reality it is most of the Republican public, the scientist clearly has only encountered the “public” that is in the form of Republican congress critters or misguided Republican conservatives.
As a scientist has told you already, you are “a moron and asshole” so yeah, you are the one with the problem.
I read the article. What I don’t understand is what point you were trying to make in quoting it. You haven’t tried to explain that.
But imaging your posts have a point is pointless.
Are you also one of those depressed climate scientists? Why oh why don’t people simple believe what you tell them? Why don’t people do what you want them to do? This could be the question of the ages. Unless, of course, people have heard all sides of the issue and have made up their own minds? Is that even possible? :eek:
Are you actually pretending that you have read the technical papers and reports on the issue and made your decision on that basis?
You don’t have enough a mind to make up.
For historical reference
(post shortened)
It’s simple, Camille Parmesan has been associated with Al Gore. I can’t imagine anything more depressing than that.
Oh My, aren’t you bitter, today. The IPCC has had 28+ years to convince people that their way is the only way. It appears that they’ve failed.
Imagining being you is far more depressing.
No they haven’t. Even in the US, where Republicans and the political interests associated with fossil fuels have tried very hard to sow confusion on the issue, a large majority of people believe that climate change is happening (71%), that it’s caused at least in part by humans (69%), and that it’s an urgent threat requiring immediate and drastic action (62%). Most world governments were convinced years ago.
For posterity, using Al Gore with no context about anything he has said, like if he was the bogey man, is a move made by deniers who try to inject politics into the issue.
The way you referred to Gore is really just like a Godwin, just a symptom that guys like you do not have any ideas left, so the personification and political cards are played, regardless if it was noted **for years already **that the ones that do play those cards nowadays are just branding themselves as partisan, no science, useless idiots for the fossil fuel industry.
Exactly. This demonstrates more clearly than anything else that doorhinge’s opinions are politically based rather than on any evaluation of the evidence. It’s like imagining that insulting Darwin somehow scores a point against evolution.
The weird thing is that he seems to believe that he’s come to his opinions independently rather than having them dictated to him by politicians.
And that his bubble is so air-tight that he assumes the general public agrees with him.