Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Neither does he lolNot sure what you mean
Neither does he lolNot sure what you mean
I struggle understanding quite a few of his posts.Neither does he lol
i might be mistaking religion for spirituality.I think I said this before but that makes no sense LOL, religious but don’t believe in God or heaven or hell or afterlife? Do you just like to go for the potluck dinner?
The matrix has you!i might be mistaking religion for spirituality.
View attachment 394145
so i could believe in things being out of my control, which i obviously do, and it would apply
definition of superhuman is "exceptional powers". i could just say thats anything thats beyond any 1 person's ability to control.
heaven and hell is here, choices we make will decide which way we go. afterlife is people resurrecting the good you do.
Meaningless.
Money from governments to study an issue which affects national security vs. money from an industry or industry group which affects shorter-term profits through pushing demonstrably provable lies about the science is different. I think you can understand that. But you won't. Because you're needlessly contrarian.I'm glad you admit that you think the people who fund scientists is meaningless, right after saying, twice, that you can't trust a scientist who was funded by the energy industry. Have you admitted your hypocrisy to yourself yet?
lol Dr. Malone. 4Chan's hero!
I’m curious, in what way does What’s happening or not happening now affect national security, lol. Also, if it’s such a big problem, why is government funding only half of the total funding? And so what if the funding is coming from oil companies? Are you saying our scientists are corruptible??Money from governments to study an issue which affects national security vs. money from an industry or industry group which affects shorter-term profits through pushing demonstrably provable lies about the science is different. I think you can understand that. But you won't. Because you're needlessly contrarian.
Governments and intergovernmental organizations are only about 1/2 the funding total recently, by the way.
Like arctic sea ice being completely gone in the summer, snow being a thing of the past in the UK, or Miami being under water by now?Money from governments to study an issue which affects national security vs. money from an industry or industry group which affects shorter-term profits through pushing demonstrably provable lies
Yes, governments actors are all completely neutral and have no vested interest in obtaining particular outcomes from the "science" that they approve the funding for.about the science is different. I think you can understand that.
No such thing. Especially when there are people who mindlessly and passively accept whatever their Lord and savior, the government, tells them.But you won't. Because you're needlessly contrarian.
Governments and intergovernmental organizations are only about 1/2 the funding total recently, by the way.
Its not all govt funded anyways.Like arctic sea ice being completely gone in the summer, snow being a thing of the past in the UK, or Miami being under water by now?
Yes, governments actors are all completely neutral and have no vested interest in obtaining particular outcomes from the "science" that they approve the funding for.
No such thing. Especially when there are people who mindlessly and passively accept whatever their Lord and savior, the government, tells them.
Oh? You don't say? Where's the other half come from? More corrupting industry influence? Do you even read what you post?
And @Next Day Error (a fitting name BTW) says if the government Isn't funding it, the science can't be trusted. Now we find out that it's not all government funded, so, even by his logic, it can't be trusted.Its not all govt funded anyways.
Not all govt info is bad anyways
you have 98% or whatever of scientists saying its here and human causedAnd @Next Day Error (a fitting name BTW) says if the government Isn't funding it, the science can't be trusted. Now we find out that it's not all government funded, so, even by his logic, it can't be trusted.
Just the stuff that confirms your bias is good, right?
Yet for the last 52yrs the”98”% have been wrong. Doesn’t that give you pause and make you think that either 98% don’t really believe that or are just going along with the consensus so they don’t get blacklisted OR… the science is wrong and being misinterpreted?you have 98% or whatever of scientists saying its here and human caused
theyre not all govt lol not that it really matters anyways
i doubt its been 98% for 52 years. weve had a consensus like that for at least 10 years, not sure how much longer.Yet for the last 52yrs the”98”% have been wrong. Doesn’t that give you pause and make you think that either 98% don’t really believe that or are just going along with the consensus so they don’t get blacklisted OR… the science is wrong and being misinterpreted?
That's a straight up lie. It's no surprise you people keep repeating it. You don't even know where that number was derived from.you have 98% or whatever of scientists saying its here and human caused
theyre not all govt lol not that it really matters anyways
Whatever, go ahead. Move the goal posts again.i doubt its been 98% for 52 years. weve had a consensus like that for at least 10 years, not sure how much longer.
the 1.5 degrees above celcius has been that number for at least 20 years now if not longer.Whatever, go ahead. Move the goal posts again.