4 ms·
>our climate would be back to 2010, which is hardy a significant change. Uh, no. It is quite significant, and a mountain of evidence says that the climate chan
by billiam 4y ago
>our climate would be back to 2010, which is hardy a significant change.
Uh, no. It is quite significant, and a mountain of evidence says that the climate changes from concentrations in the last decade are very significant. You appear to be a denier of anthropogenic climate change who is willing to make silly straw men arguments.
- xyzzyz 4y agoI do happen to remember what the climate looked like in 2010, and I very much do not believe that enormous social and economic projects are warranted to revert the state of climate by 10 years. > You appear to be a denier of anthropogenic climate change who is willing to make silly straw men arguments. You appear to be unable to discuss the issue on merits, but this doesn’t necessitate resorting to ad hominem. You can do better than that.
- fwip 4y agoActually describing the beliefs that you hold is not an ad hominem. You, however, are claiming that they are unable to discuss the issue - that is.
- xyzzyz 4y ago> Actually describing the beliefs that you hold is not an ad hominem. There is not a single thing I have said in this thread that can be interpreted as “denial of anthropogenic climate change”. You are welcome to find it and quote it though. On the other hand, there are many places where I very much reaffirm the reality of anthropogenic climate change, for example
- fwip 4y agoWell, we can start with how you pretend that greenhouse gas concentration determines the current temperature, and not the rate of change of temperature. I bet you aren't stupid, so it's either willful ignorance or disingenuity.