By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Biggerboat1 on 15 March 2019
Edit Thread
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Same here since I'm wondering when we're going to get back to the original topic of paying for the wall but it seems you want to stay away from that.

I didn't question the climate historical data.

We only know based on what we've found, and to assume we've found everything is one bold assumption. How do you know for sure that we couldn't have lived in those conditions? There's been plenty of change already and we're still here. If it's tech that's aloud us to survive, then why can't it continue to based on it's ever rapid innovation and evolution?

How do you definitely know there will be 12 billion people in 100 years? Why will it be around 100 years before we can live on Mars if at all? I thought we only had 12 years? The expert scientists told us all so already.

If you want to continue this discussion regarding historical climate data, human physiology, ecosystem robustness, population projections, mars colonization, and science in general, we will need a new thread.  You are correct that we have moved too far off the original topic at hand and should return to it (or Trump specifically given that is this thread's overall topic).

I will say one thing regarding those other topics.  Skepticism is not a valid means for debunking data.  If you think our ice core data, geological strata, fossil records, and other markers are insufficient to determine historical climate trends, then you need to postulate why. What precisely makes them insufficient for that use?  What basis are you founding your skepticism upon? What better means and methods should we use? 

I just wanted to chip in here to say that you have the patience of a saint!

I've found lots of your points really informative and appreciate the effort you go to so supply links/references/evidence to back up your well thought-out arguments. Especially when in return you often get a lazy one-liner that's only purpose is to distract or obfuscate...

Unfortunately some of those that you are debating with don't seem to have any actual interest in absorbing new information or considering a different opinion in an intellectually honest way, but rather are solely focussed on maintaining the same position as they entered the thread with - at all costs!

It would be great if people could recognise that being open-minded and having a willingness to change their mind in the face of a convincing argument is actually strength, not a weakness...

Anyway, just wanted to highlight the fact that myself and no doubt a few other lurkers are appreciating your input - even if we're not necessarily your intended targets :)