97% of scientists say g****l w*****g is caused by human activity...
Feb 23, 2021 00:19:10 #
Feb 23, 2021 00:25:11 #
Feb 23, 2021 00:45:34 #
nwtk2007 wrote:
Was this not debunked about a hundred times?
Sure it was but the Left can't seem top get past it. The link explains where the 97% number comes from.
Feb 23, 2021 01:40:38 #
JW wrote:
The date on this was May of 2014. Are you cons running out of things to talk about...
Feb 23, 2021 02:03:43 #
PeterS wrote:
The date on this was May of 2014. Are you cons running out of things to talk about...
No, just trying to let you know how long ago your talking points were debunked.
Feb 23, 2021 09:17:40 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
nwtk2007 wrote:
Was this not debunked about a hundred times?
No, it was not. At least, not by scientists.
Feb 23, 2021 15:39:06 #
nwtk2007
Loc: Texas
lpnmajor wrote:
No, it was not. At least, not by scientists.
In the original survey the "scientists" we're asked the percent chance that man has an effect on c*****e c****e. Even if they said there was only a 1% chance that man contributes to warming, they were placed in with the "97%."
Feb 24, 2021 01:03:08 #
lpnmajor wrote:
No, it was not. At least, not by scientists.
Sure it has been debunked; over and over again. All of the warming computer models have been shown to be wrong. That is just one of the ways.
Here's one from 2012.
Here's one from 2018.
Here's one from 2019.
Feb 24, 2021 01:05:13 #
nwtk2007 wrote:
In the original survey the "scientists" we're asked the percent chance that man has an effect on c*****e c****e. Even if they said there was only a 1% chance that man contributes to warming, they were placed in with the "97%."
The original survey only took into account those who actually responded to the survey. Most scientists did not respond but the activists and the g*******ts did.
Feb 24, 2021 07:37:50 #
nwtk2007
Loc: Texas
JW wrote:
The original survey only took into account those who actually responded to the survey. Most scientists did not respond but the activists and the g*******ts did.
Either way, it's a false claim.
Feb 24, 2021 11:41:25 #
coelacanth
Loc: Michigan swamp
97% of scientists were caused by g****l w*****g. Why are the Milankovitch Cycles being ignored by these same scientists?🤔 How much were ocean levels disturbed by the Earth's axis being shifted by the Great Tsunami in the Indian Ocean back in 2005?🤔 Is the Three Gorges Dam in China contributing to a wobble in the rotation of our planet due to the incredible amount of water that has been held back?🤔 Water is heavy. Lift a five gallon bucket full for an idea. So many questions and not enough collective brain cells to answer them with. My judgement is this: No one really knows what the hell they're talking about.
Feb 24, 2021 13:34:33 #
crazylibertarian
Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
nwtk2007 wrote:
Was this not debunked about a hundred times?
No, a thousand.
Feb 24, 2021 13:43:30 #
Feb 24, 2021 19:57:54 #
PeterS wrote:
The date on this was May of 2014. Are you cons running out of things to talk about...
Your boy the Senile Sock Puppet still talks about it. He thinks the Keystone Pipeline workers he betrayed can find a job making solar panels that pays six figures a year. He figured that out all on his own after the Secret Service re-trained him on how to tie his shoelaces for the third time this week.
Feb 25, 2021 00:48:03 #
lpnmajor wrote:
No, it was not. At least, not by scientists.
You should actually read the article before you remove any doubt about your ignorance.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.