Climate Change = Religion of the Left

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,262
Reaction score
58
Points
48
Which would suggest that the “current rate” is slower than the old “current rate”.
Find me a quote and we'll compare and see if you are right. Assuming the stats this guy - whoever he is - cites are correct, the statement is indisputable. And I read only the headline. But I do know what a qualifier is and what that qualifier means. Section2 does not. And maybe neither do you.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
103
Points
63
Find me a quote and we'll compare and see if you are right. Assuming the stats this guy - whoever he is - cites are correct, the statement is indisputable. And I read only the headline. But I do know what a qualifier is and what that qualifier means. Section2 does not. And maybe neither do you.
I didn’t check on either of your facts. I assumed both to be true since you didn’t seem to dispute S2’s statement, just his understanding.

Assuming both of your statements to be true, my statement has to be true.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
41,479
Reaction score
215
Points
63
I didn’t check on either of your facts. I assumed both to be true since you didn’t seem to dispute S2’s statement, just his understanding.

Assuming both of your statements to be true, my statement has to be true.
Find me a quote and we'll compare and see if you are right. Assuming the stats this guy - whoever he is - cites are correct, the statement is indisputable. And I read only the headline. But I do know what a qualifier is and what that qualifier means. Section2 does not. And maybe neither do you.
If al gore said “at the current warming rate.... we will be under water in 20 years”
Then 20 years later. Not under water.
Then new guy says “same thing” ie “at current warming rate...underwater in 20 years”
We should listen to him because it’s indisputable? What an odd thing to dispute
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,723
Reaction score
519
Points
113
Trump is making the Artic ice free again!
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
103
Points
63
No, you tool. Stop spreading misinformation. And by the way, it's not very difficult to check this stuff yourself before you spread it. Google, combined with choice of reliable sources, is your friend. Be smart for a change.

RW talking points, debunked like usual.
JTF’s style

S2:“Al Gore told us the same thing 20 years ago.”
Cncmin: “No, you tool” and links the following:
Did Al Gore Predict Earth’s Ice Caps Would Melt by 2014?
What's True?
In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.
What’s False? (Paraphrasing)
Al Gore just repeated something someone else said. It’s not his fault.

Who is the tool again?
 

Angry

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
29
Points
48
Half man, half bear, half pig. I’m super cereal!
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,124
Reaction score
241
Points
63
JTF’s style

S2:“Al Gore told us the same thing 20 years ago.”
Cncmin: “No, you tool” and links the following:
Did Al Gore Predict Earth’s Ice Caps Would Melt by 2014?
What's True?
In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.
What’s False? (Paraphrasing)
Al Gore just repeated something someone else said. It’s not his fault.

Who is the tool again?
*shakes head* You are unreal. Read the damn link I provided. You and S2 are spreading lies about what Gore said. Stop spreading lies.
 

OldBob53

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
836
Reaction score
102
Points
43
There's no such thing as global warming, no such thing, no sucha thing! Repeat mantra as the water rises about your feet.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
123
Points
63
There's no such thing as global warming, no such thing, no sucha thing! Repeat mantra as the water rises about your feet.
Haha, old liberal trying to sound smart when he's not. Very sad.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
6,821
Reaction score
577
Points
113
*shakes head* You are unreal. Read the damn link I provided. You and S2 are spreading lies about what Gore said. Stop spreading lies.
There is no truth, though. The truth is whatever you want to believe it is. That's the world we live in today.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
41,479
Reaction score
215
Points
63
JTF’s style

S2:“Al Gore told us the same thing 20 years ago.”
Cncmin: “No, you tool” and links the following:
Did Al Gore Predict Earth’s Ice Caps Would Melt by 2014?
What's True?
In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.
What’s False? (Paraphrasing)
Al Gore just repeated something someone else said. It’s not his fault.

Who is the tool again?
Now now KGF. CNC is right. He didn't say 20 years, he said 5.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,262
Reaction score
58
Points
48
I guess neither do you.
Apparently you don’t know what “same thing” means.
Excellent. Source the quote, please. I don't deny it happened. Also, I stand by my statement. Nice deflection off your blatant logic fail though. Just be a big boy and admit when you make an error. Contrary to your belief, that shows strength of character.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,262
Reaction score
58
Points
48
If al gore said “at the current warming rate.... we will be under water in 20 years”
Then 20 years later. Not under water.
Then new guy says “same thing” ie “at current warming rate...underwater in 20 years”
We should listen to him because it’s indisputable? What an odd thing to dispute
Missed this one. Let me dumb it down for the dense.

If there are 20 donuts on a plate and Section2 eats one donut per year, at that rate, the donuts will be gone in 20 years.

That's indisputable. It's basic math.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
103
Points
63
Missed this one. Let me dumb it down for the dense.

If there are 20 donuts on a plate and Section2 eats one donut per year, at that rate, the donuts will be gone in 20 years.

That's indisputable. It's basic math.
But if someone claims that the donuts are being eaten at a rate of 1 per day over the course of 20 days, 18 shouldn’t be left. So we could assume that the “rate of 1 per day” was erroneous and unreliable.

And if someone else later makes the same claim when there are 18 left, we are right to question that claim.

This is fun.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
41,479
Reaction score
215
Points
63
Missed this one. Let me dumb it down for the dense.

If there are 20 donuts on a plate and Section2 eats one donut per year, at that rate, the donuts will be gone in 20 years.

That's indisputable. It's basic math.
That's true. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said at all, but that is a true statement. Good job.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
41,479
Reaction score
215
Points
63
I guess neither do you.
Excellent. Source the quote, please. I don't deny it happened. Also, I stand by my statement. Nice deflection off your blatant logic fail though. Just be a big boy and admit when you make an error. Contrary to your belief, that shows strength of character.
Oh, we are WAAAAY beyond "sourcing the quote". You jumped in with your horse$hit logic to try and impress us all, and we're just standing back and enjoying you make a fool out of yourself. By all means, keep digging.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,262
Reaction score
58
Points
48
That's true. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said at all, but that is a true statement. Good job.
Oh, we are WAAAAY beyond "sourcing the quote". You jumped in with your horse$hit logic to try and impress us all, and we're just standing back and enjoying you make a fool out of yourself. By all means, keep digging.
Is it true or horse$hit logic? It can't be both. You being the undisputed king of binary should know this.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
6,821
Reaction score
577
Points
113
But if someone claims that the donuts are being eaten at a rate of 1 per day over the course of 20 days, 18 shouldn’t be left. So we could assume that the “rate of 1 per day” was erroneous and unreliable.
Or there were 38 donuts to start, not 20.

But I'm sure you'll bask in the ignorance of saying "we're just fine, we have 18 donuts left".
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,262
Reaction score
58
Points
48
But if someone claims that the donuts are being eaten at a rate of 1 per day over the course of 20 days, 18 shouldn’t be left. So we could assume that the “rate of 1 per day” was erroneous and unreliable.

And if someone else later makes the same claim when there are 18 left, we are right to question that claim.

This is fun.
Sure. No problem with that. I make no claim about the stats. As mentioned above. Your logic is sound here.
 
Top Bottom