War in Ukraine

#90,026
#90,026
LouderVol said:
you know how I KNOW you don't know any of this? and even more hypocritical, don't really believe it.

Its because you aren't living off the grid. you aren't growing your own food, living off of only renewables, sourcing only local materials. if you actually cared Trump's tariffs would be the greatest thing a president has done to combat man made climate change.

you are virtue signalling along with the rest of them. comfortable on an elephant tusk ivory throne, pretending others are the problem.
Click to expand...
I literally have no idea what sort of psychobabble you’re spewing.
 
#90,027
#90,027
MontyPython said:
I literally have no idea what sort of psychobabble you’re spewing.
Click to expand...
you clearly don't believe in climate change, or at least don't fear it enough to actually walk the walk.

you use electricity. pretty sure you have mentioned driving an I.C.E. car. you aren't the type to grow your own food and reduce your footprint on this earth. I doubt you are energy neutral or a net contributor.

you are like all the hypocrites who expect everyone else to change, and not themselves. you say you trust the science, but you certainly don't act like you do. you parrots words and phrases and act like it means you have knowledge.
 
#90,028
#90,028
LouderVol said:
you clearly don't believe in climate change, or at least don't fear it enough to actually walk the walk.

you use electricity. pretty sure you have mentioned driving an I.C.E. car. you aren't the type to grow your own food and reduce your footprint on this earth. I doubt you are energy neutral or a net contributor.

you are like all the hypocrites who expect everyone else to change, and not themselves. you say you trust the science, but you certainly don't act like you do. you parrots words and phrases and act like it means you have knowledge.
Click to expand...
All right, first of all you need to understand the concept of capitalizing the first word in a sentence or paragraph.

Once you pass English 101 come talk to me...
 
#90,029
#90,029
MontyPython said:
All right, first of all you need to understand the concept of capitalizing the first word in a sentence or paragraph.

Once you pass English 101 come talk to me...
Click to expand...
I made straight A's in English during college as an engineering major. Am I now qualified to speak to you King Monty?
 
#90,030
#90,030
MontyPython said:
All right, first of all you need to understand the concept of capitalizing the first word in a sentence or paragraph.

Once you pass English 101 come talk to me...
Click to expand...
where did I claim that I was some master of English? you are deflecting, and have been for quiet some time.

weird that you haven't been able to produce any settled science on a pretty basic concept that is core concept to your belief system.
 
#90,032
#90,032
LouderVol said:
where did I claim that I was some master of English? you are deflecting, and have been for quiet some time.

weird that you haven't been able to produce any settled science on a pretty basic concept that is core concept to your belief system.
Click to expand...

Mtttttaayyyy Buckwheat. Here ya go... Again.

ALSO: Let's do "Flat Earth" theory next!

Do climate scientists agree it is "settled science" that mankind is causing global warming?

Short answer: **Yes—there is overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that recent global warming is primarily caused by human activities**, but *“settled science”* needs careful wording.

### What scientists agree on

Among climate scientists, especially those actively publishing in the field:

* **The Earth is warming**
* **Human activities—mainly burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes—are the dominant cause since the mid-20th century**
* **Greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane, etc.) trap heat**, and the physics behind this is well understood

Multiple independent studies over the past two decades consistently find **~90–97%+ agreement** among climate scientists on human-caused global warming. Major scientific bodies worldwide agree, including:

* National academies of science
* Meteorological organizations
* Geophysical and atmospheric science societies

This level of agreement is comparable to the consensus on smoking causing lung cancer.

### What “settled science” does *not* mean

Scientists generally avoid saying *everything* is settled. What’s settled is the **core conclusion**, not every detail.

There is still active research and debate about:

* How fast warming will proceed under different emissions scenarios
* How regional climates will change
* The precise magnitude of feedbacks (clouds, ice loss, ecosystems)
* The timing and severity of specific impacts

That’s normal in science. Ongoing research does **not** mean the core conclusion is in doubt.

### Why the phrase is controversial

* In science, nothing is ever declared absolutely final—evidence is always open to refinement.
* Some critics use “not settled” to imply “not real” or “not human-caused,” which does **not** reflect the scientific consensus.
* Scientists prefer phrasing like **“very high confidence”** or **“overwhelming evidence.”**

### Bottom line

* **Yes**, climate scientists overwhelmingly agree humans are causing global warming.
* The **basic cause is settled** at a level rarely seen in complex sciences.
* **Details and future outcomes** are still being refined, as expected in any active scientific field.

If you want, I can also explain **why some people think scientists disagree**, or **how consensus is measured**, or **what the main counterargument
s are and how scientists respond to them**.
 
#90,033
#90,033
MontyPython said:
Mtttttaayyyy Buckwheat. Here ya go... Again.

ALSO: Let's do "Flat Earth" theory next!

Do climate scientists agree it is "settled science" that mankind is causing global warming?

Short answer: **Yes—there is overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that recent global warming is primarily caused by human activities**, but *“settled science”* needs careful wording.

### What scientists agree on

Among climate scientists, especially those actively publishing in the field:

* **The Earth is warming**
* **Human activities—mainly burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes—are the dominant cause since the mid-20th century**
* **Greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane, etc.) trap heat**, and the physics behind this is well understood

Multiple independent studies over the past two decades consistently find **~90–97%+ agreement** among climate scientists on human-caused global warming. Major scientific bodies worldwide agree, including:

* National academies of science
* Meteorological organizations
* Geophysical and atmospheric science societies

This level of agreement is comparable to the consensus on smoking causing lung cancer.

### What “settled science” does *not* mean

Scientists generally avoid saying *everything* is settled. What’s settled is the **core conclusion**, not every detail.

There is still active research and debate about:

* How fast warming will proceed under different emissions scenarios
* How regional climates will change
* The precise magnitude of feedbacks (clouds, ice loss, ecosystems)
* The timing and severity of specific impacts

That’s normal in science. Ongoing research does **not** mean the core conclusion is in doubt.

### Why the phrase is controversial

* In science, nothing is ever declared absolutely final—evidence is always open to refinement.
* Some critics use “not settled” to imply “not real” or “not human-caused,” which does **not** reflect the scientific consensus.
* Scientists prefer phrasing like **“very high confidence”** or **“overwhelming evidence.”**

### Bottom line

* **Yes**, climate scientists overwhelmingly agree humans are causing global warming.
* The **basic cause is settled** at a level rarely seen in complex sciences.
* **Details and future outcomes** are still being refined, as expected in any active scientific field.

If you want, I can also explain **why some people think scientists disagree**, or **how consensus is measured**, or **what the main counterargument
s are and how scientists respond to them**.
Click to expand...

I doubt a sane person is going to read that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Carl Pickens
#90,036
#90,036
LouderVol said:
a person didn't even write that. Monty is such a big believer in it, he has to use a machine/system that is driving the current largest increase in power demands, and thus climate change, to tell him how bad climate change is.
Click to expand...

Yeah the Monty bot is refusing to take the new programming, he doesn't want to acknowledge they dropped all this climate change nonsense to move onto the AI nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN
#90,037
#90,037
MontyPython said:
Mtttttaayyyy Buckwheat. Here ya go... Again.

ALSO: Let's do "Flat Earth" theory next!

Do climate scientists agree it is "settled science" that mankind is causing global warming?

Short answer: **Yes—there is overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that recent global warming is primarily caused by human activities**, but *“settled science”* needs careful wording.

### What scientists agree on

Among climate scientists, especially those actively publishing in the field:

* **The Earth is warming**
* **Human activities—mainly burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes—are the dominant cause since the mid-20th century**
* **Greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane, etc.) trap heat**, and the physics behind this is well understood

Multiple independent studies over the past two decades consistently find **~90–97%+ agreement** among climate scientists on human-caused global warming. Major scientific bodies worldwide agree, including:

* National academies of science
* Meteorological organizations
* Geophysical and atmospheric science societies

This level of agreement is comparable to the consensus on smoking causing lung cancer.

### What “settled science” does *not* mean

Scientists generally avoid saying *everything* is settled. What’s settled is the **core conclusion**, not every detail.

There is still active research and debate about:

* How fast warming will proceed under different emissions scenarios
* How regional climates will change
* The precise magnitude of feedbacks (clouds, ice loss, ecosystems)
* The timing and severity of specific impacts

That’s normal in science. Ongoing research does **not** mean the core conclusion is in doubt.

### Why the phrase is controversial

* In science, nothing is ever declared absolutely final—evidence is always open to refinement.
* Some critics use “not settled” to imply “not real” or “not human-caused,” which does **not** reflect the scientific consensus.
* Scientists prefer phrasing like **“very high confidence”** or **“overwhelming evidence.”**

### Bottom line

* **Yes**, climate scientists overwhelmingly agree humans are causing global warming.
* The **basic cause is settled** at a level rarely seen in complex sciences.
* **Details and future outcomes** are still being refined, as expected in any active scientific field.

If you want, I can also explain **why some people think scientists disagree**, or **how consensus is measured**, or **what the main counterargument
s are and how scientists respond to them**.
Click to expand...
1. you didn't write that. so you failed in understanding a fundamental part of the question. for being so learned and smart you don't understand a whole lot.
2. you used AI which is driving the current spike in power generation the world over. congrats on again being a huge hypocrite.
3. you never addressed the aspect of the pre-industrial era. AI, really.
4. what you parroted from AI even says that it isn't settled. which is a term you have used repeatedly in lieu of actual engagement in the conversation.
5. you continue to suffer from your amathia.
 
#90,038
#90,038
LouderVol said:
1. you didn't write that. so you failed in understanding a fundamental part of the question. for being so learned and smart you don't understand a whole lot.
2. you used AI which is driving the current spike in power generation the world over. congrats on again being a huge hypocrite.
3. you never addressed the aspect of the pre-industrial era. AI, really.
4. what you parroted from AI even says that it isn't settled. which is a term you have used repeatedly in lieu of actual engagement in the conversation.
5. you continue to suffer from your amathia.
Click to expand...
😆

1766530799565.jpeg
 
#90,040
#90,040
MontyPython said:
Mtttttaayyyy Buckwheat. Here ya go... Again.

ALSO: Let's do "Flat Earth" theory next!

Do climate scientists agree it is "settled science" that mankind is causing global warming?

Short answer: **Yes—there is overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that recent global warming is primarily caused by human activities**, but *“settled science”* needs careful wording.

### What scientists agree on

Among climate scientists, especially those actively publishing in the field:

* **The Earth is warming**
* **Human activities—mainly burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes—are the dominant cause since the mid-20th century**
* **Greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane, etc.) trap heat**, and the physics behind this is well understood

Multiple independent studies over the past two decades consistently find **~90–97%+ agreement** among climate scientists on human-caused global warming. Major scientific bodies worldwide agree, including:

* National academies of science
* Meteorological organizations
* Geophysical and atmospheric science societies

This level of agreement is comparable to the consensus on smoking causing lung cancer.

### What “settled science” does *not* mean

Scientists generally avoid saying *everything* is settled. What’s settled is the **core conclusion**, not every detail.

There is still active research and debate about:

* How fast warming will proceed under different emissions scenarios
* How regional climates will change
* The precise magnitude of feedbacks (clouds, ice loss, ecosystems)
* The timing and severity of specific impacts

That’s normal in science. Ongoing research does **not** mean the core conclusion is in doubt.

### Why the phrase is controversial

* In science, nothing is ever declared absolutely final—evidence is always open to refinement.
* Some critics use “not settled” to imply “not real” or “not human-caused,” which does **not** reflect the scientific consensus.
* Scientists prefer phrasing like **“very high confidence”** or **“overwhelming evidence.”**

### Bottom line

* **Yes**, climate scientists overwhelmingly agree humans are causing global warming.
* The **basic cause is settled** at a level rarely seen in complex sciences.
* **Details and future outcomes** are still being refined, as expected in any active scientific field.

If you want, I can also explain **why some people think scientists disagree**, or **how consensus is measured**, or **what the main counterargument
s are and how scientists respond to them**.
Click to expand...
You have to stop this AI crap. Many studies say that they are FOS and often try to just confirm the biases of the person interacting with it. I use it for certain things but you are out of control
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeuperDrive
#90,041
#90,041
volfanhill said:
You have to stop this AI crap. Many studies say that they are FOS and often try to just confirm the biases of the person interacting with it. I use it for certain things but you are out of control
Click to expand...
If you disagree with the content of my post, I'm listening otherwise go f*** yourself.
 
#90,047
#90,047
#90,049
#90,049
This is really hard to believe and Trump taking Putin's word. Unless some Ukrainian drone outfit went rogue, I'm not buying it.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top