By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Locknuts said:
ArchangelMadzz said:
My take is politicians cannot debate scientific issues they don't understand. I am not a climateologist but. If 99% of climatologists after hard study and research come to the conclusion that humans are influencing climate change until evidence is shown otherwise I have to go with the side where the evidence is.

I'm not going to tell a geologist what a rock is.

Where does the 99% figure come from? Not trying to be argumentative, I've just never seen that one before.



 

My fault, it was done with members of the national academy of sciences. The agreement is lower among the rest if you count anyone with a degree.

 

When there's overwhelming evidence for one side and little for the other it's hard for me to go in that direction. If the world was heating up and the ozone layer had no noticeable changes in the past 100 years then I'm sure they'd rethink the theory on some level.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'