Perhaps Mr. hinge would care to read this short article from [Scientific American and recognize that he is not particularly well-informed on this issue:
No perhaps about it. I’m sure he’s been exposed to the information over and over again. He chooses to be misinformed, while deluding himself it’s because he’s smarter than all the experts instead of being a dupe of political and financial interests.
[QUOTE=Scientific American]
Already, China, the European Union, and U.S.—the world’s largest polluters, together responsible for more than half of global pollution—have agreed to limit future greenhouse gas emissions. Compared with 1997 … or 2009 … the prospects for a global effort to combat climate change have never been better. When climate negotiations get under way in Paris later this month, there is a real chance for a comprehensive set of actions from more than 190 nations around the world, all to restrain global warming.
[/QUOTE]
May we assume that all the GOP candidates have pledged to rescind any agreement if elecgted?
Has Madeleine Thomas read this ground breaking article? Is that why she chose to associate Camille Parmesan with Al Gore. Is this why Parmesan is depressed?
Again, nothing in anything that you posted shows that. You are still only producing more evidence of partisanship from your part regarding a scientific issue.
But that should be enough for many readers to get it:
Save your environment and preserve jobs, do not vote Republican any more until they do get a clue on this issue.
If only you were convincing enough to overcome the distrust so many people have about the UN/IPCC and man-made-CO2-is-evil crowd, your carbon regulation of all manufacturing would already have been established.
In the past, the public worked together to push thru clean air and clean water regulation. Scientists had provided believable information and data to the public.
Now, the man-made-CO2-is-evil crowd relies on name-calling to shout down any opposition, questions, and debate. After all, the man-made-CO2-is-evil crowd has always claimed that the science is settled as they continued to search for conclusive proof. Why continue the search if the science is supposed to be settled? Doesn’t that suggest that the science isn’t actually settled?
The science is very strongly showing that it’s happening. The vast majority of experts agree.
They continue the science to refine the image of what is going to happen. To prepare us for it.
You think that your ignorance is better than their knowledge. You’re a fool. I mean shit, you can’t even reason properly, you think the lack of 100% public buy-in means something. All it means is that the liars you vote for are persuasive.
Apparently your eyes are going bad. That’s unfortunate. And unbelievable.
“Shows that”??? Shows what? How dare anyone ask a question. Or three questions. I guess the science is settled and all questions have been answered, according to people like yourself.
Has Madeleine Thomas read this ground breaking article? Is that why she chose to associate Camille Parmesan with Al Gore. Is this why Parmesan is depressed?
You’re the one trying to change the status quo. You need to build an actual consensus of voters if you expect that to happen. It’s not going to build itself. Your failure is not my responsibility.
Ah, yes, it is not my problem that you are only sowing to all how much of tool you are.
Again, Madeleine Thomas is not showing anything that your ignorant mind is pushing here.
In reality the depression is just the same as many biologists encounter when they do notice how many creationists are in the USA. And it is not related to following any politician because no politician discovered evolution.
Educators though know what is going on and groups that defend evolution in academia had to add also the defence of climate science as virtually the same clowns that deny evolution also deny climate science.
BTW, it is true that all that is not turning to votes, but the reality is that the propaganda has kept a lot of Republicans in the dark about what their congress critters are doing in their name; sooner or later it will be reflected in the votes, in the meantime all have to realize that even on the matter of consensus in the public a lot of conservatives are not aware of what is going on.
No one said the article is ‘ground-breaking’; in fact, the point is that it not at all ground-breaking. I only mentioned it because it is a convenient summary of why many scientists believe that human-caused climate change is a significant issue. I was also proposing you read it to get your take on why the editors of Scientific American would want to lie to you, which I’ll admit would be purely for my own amusement.
As for the snipes at the people named in your post, if that’s what you are doing, I don’t have the slightest idea what you think your point is.
Pro-tip for Mr. Hinge: It’s too late at SDMB of course, but if you want to try posting at a different board and not have them know what a fool you are, avoid the facile and meaningless connection of Gore to AGW.
(Where do dolts like Unhinged get their Gore meme? Is it a Limbaugh or Hannity talking-point? Are they so isolated from reason they think Limbaugh/Hannity are the key intellectuals of modern America?)
It was Madeleine Thomas who associated Camille Parmesan with Al Gore. It was also Thomas who claimed that Parmesan is depressed. I can understand why some of the man-made-CO2-is-evil zealots could become depressed over the numbers of the public who simply find the claims of the MMCO2IEZ to be unbelievable. I also understand how being associated with Al Gore could be depressing.
You’re now claiming that biologists are depressed because there are creationists. Good luck trying to sell that story.
