Scientists issue 'warning to humanity'

[Principality of the Raix]

More proof can be found through simple research, ""30,000 scientists have come forward confirming that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money," was the subheadline in the Sept. 2 story."

I must be missing something, because that doesn't say environmentalists.

Cause you are attempting to snip the information, bio-chemist. Are can you not read? Bio-chemistry has to do with biological life on earth, which in turn has to survive with the climate. So yeah, it is a earth study which actually needs to take into account climate and climate change to study life on earth. Otherwise, here is plenty on the above statements.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/

[Valrifell]

You also didn't claim the 31 thousand were environmentalists either. I was comparing scientists to scientists.

Uh, it claims it in the statement. Please re-read.

Edited in; Enjoy the full read,

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/

"No, 30,000 scientists have not said climate change is a hoax"

[Albrenia]

You also didn't claim the 31 thousand were environmentalists either. I was comparing scientists to scientists.

Uh, it claims it in the statement. Please re-read.

Edited in; Enjoy the full read,

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/

Am I crazy? That article implies that the 31 were not environmental scientists by any reasonable rating of the term, and that the petition itself is misleading in wording so many of even that laughable minority of signatures don't believe the statement.

Have I finally snapped, do words mean the opposite of what they used to now or something?

[Principality of the Raix]

Uh, it claims it in the statement. Please re-read.

Edited in; Enjoy the full read,

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/

"No, 30,000 scientists have not said climate change is a hoax"

I knew you would attempt that, but the very fact that 30,000 have said it. Or needed it to be "not" said, proves that climate change is more or less a hoax. If you do not account for the 1,000 factors in climate change, and look at one co2 particle. You can tell something is falsified by these facts. While trying to claim humanity is the cause, when we have been burning coal longer then the industrial revolution took for us to become modernized. Only proves of the falsity of this claim.

[Valrifell]

Uh, it claims it in the statement. Please re-read.

Edited in; Enjoy the full read,

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/

Am I crazy? That article implies that the 31 were not environmental scientists by any reasonable rating of the term, and that the petition itself is misleading in wording so many of even that laughable minority of signatures don't believe the statement.

Honestly, he probably did a quick Google search and picked the first article he thought would prove his point, not realizing he misread the title.

[Albrenia]

Yeah. Next he'll be telling us the Earth not being a perfect sphere proves it must be flat...

[Byzantii]

See, what I think we need to do is go for Europe first. The US, as most of us know, is the #1 Largest Economy in the World-not to mention it's bigger than 2 continents. It will not yield as easily to Environmentalist policies as would massive polluters that are yet smaller, like Poland with it's massive Industrial waste or the Consumerist trash of European powers like France, Sweden or Germany. That is where we should implement the plans for a green future. In hindsight, go for Finland as the first target. It's a super-modern nation that seems to really care about PR, which would make it a very good shot at Pro-Environment plans for the future of it's nation. Hell, it might become the Environmentalist capital of the world if it carries out such a plan!

[Principality of the Raix]

Am I crazy? That article implies that the 31 were not environmental scientists by any reasonable rating of the term, and that the petition itself is misleading in wording so many of even that laughable minority of signatures don't believe the statement.

Honestly, he probably did a quick Google search and picked the first article he thought would prove his point, not realizing he misread the title.

Nope, I just needed something that said scientists have disproven it as that was the question. Show a scientist that rebunks it and I did. Now whether or not the individuals were tricked or not, is not the problem. I have found my evidence, even though you attempt to debunk something that can not be debunked.

[Principality of the Raix]

Yeah. Next he'll be telling us the Earth not being a perfect sphere proves it must be flat...

Actually it is not flat, I am not a flat theory person but I am not a sphere person either as both are wrong.

[Dooom35796821595]

I must be missing something, because that doesn't say environmentalists.

Cause you are attempting to snip the information, bio-chemist. Are can you not read? Bio-chemistry has to do with biological life on earth, which in turn has to survive with the climate. So yeah, it is a earth study which actually needs to take into account climate and climate change to study life on earth. Otherwise, here is plenty on the above statements.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/

Did you just provide a source that disproves your own assertions? Or did you just not read it properly?

Either way, you lose. Game over, please insert coin to continue.

[Albrenia]

Honestly, he probably did a quick Google search and picked the first article he thought would prove his point, not realizing he misread the title.

Nope, I just needed something that said scientists have disproven it as that was the question. Show a scientist that rebunks it and I did. Now whether or not the individuals were tricked or not, is not the problem. I have found my evidence, even though you attempt to debunk something that can not be debunked.

You evidence works against your claims, so yeah... Nice work.

[Principality of the Raix]

See, what I think we need to do is go for Europe first. The US, as most of us know, is the #1 Largest Economy in the World-not to mention it's bigger than 2 continents. It will not yield as easily to Environmentalist policies as would massive polluters that are yet smaller, like Poland with it's massive Industrial waste or the Consumerist trash of European powers like France, Sweden or Germany. That is where we should implement the plans for a green future. In hindsight, go for Finland as the first target. It's a super-modern nation that seems to really care about PR, which would make it a very good shot at Pro-Environment plans for the future of it's nation. Hell, it might become the Environmentalist capital of the world if it carries out such a plan!

China pollutes more then ALL the above and yet they will never relent, so your screwed.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Look past the graphs to see all the American groups that are in consensus.

Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

How is it false? How does it destroy the earth?

You turn off wind turbines every now and then.

Does that cause smog that makes it so that you need caned air to breathe? No.

The funny thing about this, is you are worried about smog. Yet, we have no need to worry about it; Unless you are in a city like Chicago. As America does not have a smog problem and this is not due to the environmental power as shown as majority of that is in California. Knowing this, the only Nation with a smog problem is China. Which does not only burn coal, but trash as well. So by this fact and factors, coal is not the only thing to cause smog. At the same time, America does not have a problem nor does France or Britain. In fact, Japan does not even have a problem, only china does. After all, do you need canned air to breath in America? No. But in China, you need to wear face masks and gas masks.

While you are only stating one type of clean energy that not even ALL of America employs, only California and states out near Colorado. Understanding that, you will understand the environment and tree's that MUST be cut down that actually hurts the ozone later the same thing that you seek to save. As tree's recycle monoxide to make it into oxygen, knowing this you can still see the vast environmental damage caused by turbine wind power. Unless you are building them on a flat plan, however you need to also look at the wasted wattage from such mannerisms as stated in my above post about All of this.

Yeah, you don't have that problem. Not yet. But we had had that problem before in the 70's. Both America and Canada.

"Clean" coal I trust as far as I can throw.

I didn't state one type of clean energy. If you have seen my other posts in the thread I have talked about:

Fusion, Fission, Solar, Wind are the ones I have been talking about.

I know what trees do. However, clearing down trees is a thing that happens with lots of things, coal plants included.

But coal plants consistently spew carbon in to the air, while turbines don't.

The benefits of turbines not spewing carbon in the air vs coal spewing carbon in the air are simple.

[Principality of the Raix]

Nope, I just needed something that said scientists have disproven it as that was the question. Show a scientist that rebunks it and I did. Now whether or not the individuals were tricked or not, is not the problem. I have found my evidence, even though you attempt to debunk something that can not be debunked.

You evidence works against your claims, so yeah... Nice work.

Not really, as my claims work as they do. As they are actual facts, not 3rd degree findings from someone who focused on one molecule.

[The Black Forrest]

"No, 30,000 scientists have not said climate change is a hoax"

I knew you would attempt that, but the very fact that 30,000 have said it. Or needed it to be "not" said, proves that climate change is more or less a hoax.

Your proof? Your defense seems based on a lie.

[Luziyca]

Honestly, at this rate, we're going to need divine intervention to survive the 21st century while maintaining our standards of living as they are now.

We could try and mitigate the damage, and we could go nuclear, but frankly, the way things are going now, I doubt humans are going to switch to nuclear.

[Principality of the Raix]

The funny thing about this, is you are worried about smog. Yet, we have no need to worry about it; Unless you are in a city like Chicago. As America does not have a smog problem and this is not due to the environmental power as shown as majority of that is in California. Knowing this, the only Nation with a smog problem is China. Which does not only burn coal, but trash as well. So by this fact and factors, coal is not the only thing to cause smog. At the same time, America does not have a problem nor does France or Britain. In fact, Japan does not even have a problem, only china does. After all, do you need canned air to breath in America? No. But in China, you need to wear face masks and gas masks.

While you are only stating one type of clean energy that not even ALL of America employs, only California and states out near Colorado. Understanding that, you will understand the environment and tree's that MUST be cut down that actually hurts the ozone later the same thing that you seek to save. As tree's recycle monoxide to make it into oxygen, knowing this you can still see the vast environmental damage caused by turbine wind power. Unless you are building them on a flat plan, however you need to also look at the wasted wattage from such mannerisms as stated in my above post about All of this.

Yeah, you don't have that problem. Not yet. But we had had that problem before in the 70's. Both America and Canada.

"Clean" coal I trust as far as I can throw.

I didn't state one type of clean energy. If you have seen my other posts in the thread I have talked about:

Fusion, Fission, Solar, Wind are the ones I have been talking about.

I know what trees do. However, clearing down trees is a thing that happens with lots of things, coal plants included.

But coal plants consistently spew carbon in to the air, while turbines don't.

The benefits of turbines not spewing carbon in the air vs coal spewing carbon in the air are simple.

Yet all of those cause more waste then they produce, does not matter which one. Read up on the waste they all produce, I have.

[Principality of the Raix]

I knew you would attempt that, but the very fact that 30,000 have said it. Or needed it to be "not" said, proves that climate change is more or less a hoax.

Your proof? Your defense seems based on a lie.

Not even close, but those who state it as a lie are probably the ones that are attempting to lie through the truth.

[FreeDUMB-]

Who cares? The government has no right to regulate what people do to the environment, even if it is harmful.

[Albrenia]

You evidence works against your claims, so yeah... Nice work.

Not really, as my claims work as they do. As they are actual facts, not 3rd degree findings from someone who focused on one molecule.

So 30 thousand not-really-environmentalist scientists possibly disagree with the rest of the scientific body, both real environmentalists and not, so that the disagreement rate is less than 3%, and you take this as irrefutable proof that the 97% are wrong?

Are you feeling ok?

[The Black Forrest]

Who cares? The government has no right to regulate what people do to the environment, even if it is harmful.

Your edgy bending will not work here.

[Valrifell]

"No, 30,000 scientists have not said climate change is a hoax"

I knew you would attempt that, but the very fact that 30,000 have said it.

Who probably didn't have experience in the associated field or even researched for very long, if they were scientists in the common understanding at all.

Or needed it to be "not" said, proves that climate change is more or less a hoax.

No, it does not, especially when you factor in the, what, hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and journals on the subject? If not hundreds, then dozens. There's boundless information on the subject if you'd look.

If you do not account for the 1,000 factors in climate change, and look at one co2 particle. You can tell something is falsified by these facts.

Nop, just nop. You're deliberately trying to frame CO2 as this lone particle to make your position more sound, when you're ignoring the reality where tonnes of carbon dioxide are released in the atmosphere every day. Also, we're supposed to be in a cool cycle, you realize.

While trying to claim humanity is the cause, when we have been burning coal longer then the industrial revolution took for us to become modernized. Only proves of the falsity of this claim.

Never quite on that scale before. Also suspect is the rapid rise in temperature following the years after industrialization.

I'm going to implore you to watch this video, I think it's really neato.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yeah, you don't have that problem. Not yet. But we had had that problem before in the 70's. Both America and Canada.

"Clean" coal I trust as far as I can throw.

I didn't state one type of clean energy. If you have seen my other posts in the thread I have talked about:

Fusion, Fission, Solar, Wind are the ones I have been talking about.

I know what trees do. However, clearing down trees is a thing that happens with lots of things, coal plants included.

But coal plants consistently spew carbon in to the air, while turbines don't.

The benefits of turbines not spewing carbon in the air vs coal spewing carbon in the air are simple.

Yet all of those cause more waste then they produce, does not matter which one. Read up on the waste they all produce, I have.

Hmm, what waste is worse?

A little less power or loads of carbon in the air?

I'm saying the carbon is worse waste then the lost KWH.

[Principality of the Raix]

Who cares? The government has no right to regulate what people do to the environment, even if it is harmful.

Exactly!!!! Thank you! This is the bottom line of everything!

[Valrifell]

See, what I think we need to do is go for Europe first. The US, as most of us know, is the #1 Largest Economy in the World-not to mention it's bigger than 2 continents. It will not yield as easily to Environmentalist policies as would massive polluters that are yet smaller, like Poland with it's massive Industrial waste or the Consumerist trash of European powers like France, Sweden or Germany. That is where we should implement the plans for a green future. In hindsight, go for Finland as the first target. It's a super-modern nation that seems to really care about PR, which would make it a very good shot at Pro-Environment plans for the future of it's nation. Hell, it might become the Environmentalist capital of the world if it carries out such a plan!

China pollutes more then ALL the above and yet they will never relent, so your screwed.

America actually pollutes more per capita, and China is also the largest producer of green energy.