Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Just outside Baltimore, MD, USA
"none-to-bright tree stump." That would be "none-too-bright..." Ha, can't make this up.
CNN is in bed with carbon-based industries? Riiight. And Lassie is shtooping Donald Trump. Regardless, each article lays out the facts on the ground, despite an over half a trillion dollars investment in renewable energy, Germany has hardly made a dent in their carbon emissions. Riddle me that Batboy. I guess those Germans just aren't very clever engineers, that must be it! Just a bunch of Sgt. Schulz's; when NY and CA politicians get to make energy policy, then we'll see some results! Really though, where are the articles factually incorrect? And the 97 vs 3 again. Like I said, that number was arrived at by basically excluding only those who 100% deny humans make any contribution at all to warming. By that criterion, me and almost every noted "skeptic" falls in the 97% (hey we're on the same team! I'll try not to open mouth breathe on you). The percent of scientists that fall into the alarmist camp is a bit under 50% in most studies I've seen. That's really the question most people are arguing, along with how alarmism should or should not drive critical energy policy.
To end this, you are a part of the warming religion clearly. There are good arguments to be made that we need to change our ways, and good arguments for transitioning to clean, renewable energy (to the extent possible), but folks like you don't make them. Really. You just blather. CNN in cahoots with Big Oil, along with any rational and respected scientists who warns against alarmism's downside? I can see where you get your fanaticism. Do you also believe we faked the moon landings and a race of shape-shifting reptilian aliens are running the world? I wouldn't be surprised.
Jim: '17 Giulia Q4 Ti Sport/Performance, '83 and '92 Spiders, '12 Honda Odyssey family hauler, '18 Mustang GT, and a '96 Taurus SHO because I love underdogs, and small V8s
Last edited by Rutlefan; 08-27-2019 at 01:10 PM.