Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

Discussion in 'Politics' started by nitro, Jun 16, 2015.

  1. jem

    jem

    actually I found one of your recent proofs. you told me to look at the IPCC report.
    And I told you I had. If you look at the footnotes you will see their predictions are made on modeling scenarios... not science.

    you are such a troll on this ricter. so here it is back at you... How much co2 did your carbon producing company produce today?
     
    #2171     Nov 17, 2016
  2. WeToddDid2

    WeToddDid2

    You are the one that denies science. As you can see below, temps are within natural variability.
    [​IMG]
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19798.html
     
    #2172     Nov 17, 2016
  3. Ricter

    Ricter

    Again, IPCC website. Drill down.

    You're lazy.
     
    #2173     Nov 17, 2016
  4. No he does not. Ricter is a smart man. I don't know if you trolling or just incredibly misinformed, or just plain stupid. Seeing as how you are a Trumper, I'm going with all three.
     
    #2174     Nov 17, 2016
  5. #2175     Nov 17, 2016
  6. Ricter

    Ricter

    LOL
     
    #2176     Nov 17, 2016

  7. I don't think lazy quite explains jerm. It's an ideologically deranged lawyerly lying stance. He doesn't really believe anything he says. Lying through his teeth. He's just like the lawyers that get murderers off. He's like a Jonny Cochran or that Shapiro guy. Lawyers are very well practiced and in fact do best when being intellectually dishonest.
     
    #2177     Nov 17, 2016
  8. Ricter

    Ricter

    Jem has expressed more than once a belief that others may be lurking and it their opinions he hopes to corrupt.
     
    #2178     Nov 17, 2016

  9. Oh yeah, it's obvious that he is on some insane mission to sell a lie. It's amazing how effort he puts into lying.

    And I love his mock outrage....calling us trolls and liars and just about having a heart attack while pretending to be outraged at the facts presented. Great acting.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016
    #2179     Nov 17, 2016
  10. Ricter

    Ricter

    Your argument:

    If A then B.
    B.
    Therefore not C.
     
    #2180     Nov 17, 2016