Left off:
1. The 97% based their information off the same flawed data.
2. The politicians want to use the bridge's structural-non-worthiness to control more and more of the economy.
▼
deleted
· 10 years ago
1. The 3% based their "information" off the size of their salary...
2. ...and take advantage of gullible conspiracy theorists.
If 97% of the bridge inspectors who were saying it would collapse were making a shload of money saying it and the 3% who were saying its OK were not, I think I'd question the consensus. These global warming fear mongers are receiving untold billions of dollars every year for their "research," and would stop getting it if they didn't say everything was going to shit. Use a little intelligence here. Think about this; why has EVERY forecast and prediction they've made in the last 30 years been proven false? The world was supposed to end several times over by now but we're still here. For that matter, why have most of the fear mongers stopped using the words "global warming" and switched to "climate change?" Because the global temperatures have NOT risen like they said they would and the polar ice caps are larger than ever! Don't be sheep. Use some critical thinking skills is all I'm saying.
▼
deleted
· 10 years ago
The other supposed end-of-the-world dates were just based on random and/or non proved believes.
Climatic change is a fact, all they do is estimate when it's gonna be fatal for a human to live in those conditions, and also think about alternatives to save us.
It's not "OMG we are gonna die all of a sudden this day!". It's "we are slowly deteriorating our enviroment and we could reach a point of no return".
Also, they changed because the world is not "warming up", it's changing to extremists temperatures. Both colder and hotter.
That has been occuring since the creation of earth, were several "ice ages" have passed by". We are just accelerating the rate of it.
The education this days makes me wanna cry.
Wow, even kanyewest has more intelligence than the previous guest.
3
deleted
· 10 years ago
Which is more likely: the vast majority of climate scientists are using what meagre funds they can scrape together to fool everyone into making the world a better for some nefarious reason, or fossil fuel companies are using their absurdly huge profits to bribe the few scientists they can into fudging the data to create the doubt that will allow them to pile even more money on their mountains of cash?
Just keep scrolling
Just keep scrolling scrolling scrolling
What do we do, we scroll
1. The 97% based their information off the same flawed data.
2. The politicians want to use the bridge's structural-non-worthiness to control more and more of the economy.
2. ...and take advantage of gullible conspiracy theorists.
Climatic change is a fact, all they do is estimate when it's gonna be fatal for a human to live in those conditions, and also think about alternatives to save us.
It's not "OMG we are gonna die all of a sudden this day!". It's "we are slowly deteriorating our enviroment and we could reach a point of no return".
Also, they changed because the world is not "warming up", it's changing to extremists temperatures. Both colder and hotter.
That has been occuring since the creation of earth, were several "ice ages" have passed by". We are just accelerating the rate of it.
The education this days makes me wanna cry.