Reminds me of the Redskins lining up with 10 on Defense (and playing the down) for the first play of the game after Sean Taylor died.

LOL - I stopped reading after the “I know you are one of those guys...” Enjoy things until the world ends. Unless you are wrong, in which case we can revisit this discussion in 50 years or so, when the world is still very much alive. :)

Let’s accept that the IPCC represents the “Scientific Community”. It’s latest report gives a HUGE range of possible values for Climate Sensitivity - latest I think was something like 1.5 - 4.5 degrees Celsius. And the most recent reports have been revising the likely range downward. But even that “consensus” range…

Oh and cutting CO2 emissions to the levels required to avoid any possible warming would do a hell of lot more than “depress business cycles” for a quarter. It would devastate (maybe even destroy) the global economy. And that has actual effects - like many humans dying from poverty.

Made up numbers doesn’t make the predictions of doom any more scientific. Makes it less so, actually.

You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself. Just because you used Google to find support for your alarmism, that doesn’t make you a halfwit.

And for those that would like a more thorough take on my “Lukewarmist” view, here’s one brief article that highlights the argument: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/global-lu…

An “extinction event” meaning what exactly? That humans will go extinct? All animals? Or (what the actual science suggests) that some number of threatened species will be at greater risk in a warmer climate, while other species more adapted to such temperatures will thrive? But saying that isn’t nearly alarmist…

Which ignores the crucial questions...First, what is the climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration? Ie, how much temperature rise will occur at a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a VERY complex question and it depends on a lot of factors which are poorly understood.

Ah the “Precautionary Principle”. Except it ignores that there are risks to acting as well as not acting.

Whether or not the “deniers” “cause” is correct or not is not the point. Even accepting that man made climate change is occurring, there is no scientific support for the conclusion (which is often made) that it will ‘destroy the Earth’ or any of the similar claims. It’s alarmist garbage.

Global Warming isn’t going to kill the Earth, or humans, or all the animals. It’s unscientific alarmist bull like this that just makes me laugh when people deride “deniers” as anti-science.

Other possible explanations exist.

Apps are not the “building blocks of the tech industry”. They are perhaps the window dressing or some other silly analogy, but hardly the base structure.

“Despite”? That mass shooting would have been a lot worse if the law abiding students hadn’t used their legally owned guns to pin the sniper down.

What’s wrong with guns AND dildos? But I do like the honesty right up front - ‘being absurd is the point’. Yup, because there is certainly very little thought being put forward.

You must work in my Datacenter: https://goo.gl/photos/bMYYe2a…

We have been trying Terra’s Kitchen. It’s only been 2 weeks, but so far we like it. The meals are quick to make (30 minutes from pulling the stuff out of the fridge to eating). They are a bit expensive (I assume they all are), but the salad and fruit snacks are a nice addition. Note that the cost varies depending…

Society as a whole clearly has too much free time.