Search results

Personally I don't see it from the point of whether it's a waste, because when you see it from the taxpayers' point of view it is, but from the transsexual's point of view, it obviously isn't. My main issue is using public funds for something that these patients really should be paying out of...

Sir, you insulted me first. I was just responding in kind.

Punish you, as in, completely dominate you and humiliate you in a debate. Sounds like I succeeded.

There are also people who "have spent their entire career learning what they do", and they doubt AGW. Sounds like you only listen to the popular scientists and discount those who aren't. Oh, so if I have doubts about vaccines, I must be a youtube watcher? Seems like you have a lot of...

The scientists you believe in could be wrong.

I don't want to derail this thread, so I will just say this: your precious "orthodoxy" means absolutely jack. Most of the time, most people are on the wrong side of history. Most people are wrong. When you have an overwhelming consensus of people, even if they are scientists, chances are...

Doctors who oppose covid "vaccines" are fine doctors.

There are some scientists who doubt AGW.

My point is that two people can look at the same evidence and come up with different conclusions. One says, "this proves climate change is man-made!!" and the other goes, "Nah".

There is evidence for climate change not being man-made. Yet you deny this. Guess this makes you a science-denier.

All theories are based on evidence. Just because your theory has some evidence behind it, it does not mean it is now inerrant truth. There is also evidence that climate change is not man-made. Uh-oh, what does it mean for suffolkowner? I guess now he's a science-denier.

I did not say that. I merely contradicted your claim. Contradicting a positive claim is not the same as putting forth one's own positive claim. Therefore, I don't need to prove anything. You, on the other hand, claim that climate change is man-made. This is a positive claim; therefore you...

No. Prove it in your own words. I am having a conversation with you, I am not having a conversation with your links. No sir. Let me try this one more time: If I put forth a positive claim, and say that I am Taylor Swift, and you say, "No, you're not". Then guess what? I need to prove that...

No, you still don't get it. You claim that climate change is man-made. So you need to prove it. I don't need to prove you're wrong or come up with an alternative. You need to prove that you are right. I don't think you went to a university.

And I already told you, if theories explain facts, then this means they are not facts. You people want to base policies on something that is not a fact. You want to base them on a mere theory. You honestly don't see what's wrong with this? No sir, you don't know how a debate works. You put...

If theories explain facts, then this necessarily means they are not facts. Sounds to me like you are the one who's confusing theory with fact. Then prove I am wrong. Warrior is a slightly less bad word for zealot. I hope you enjoy your status.

Why do you so badly want to convince him that climate change is man-made? Why do you care so much? This makes you a climate change warrior.

I don't care how well supported your theory is. It is still not a fact.

Hi GR. Yes, "accelerant" is a very good word. I believe that our activities probably do exacerbate the change in climate, but we don't know to what extent. The question is, are these laws and green initiatives warranted, given that we don't know how much of an impact our activities have on...

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory. There is evidence that supports it, however this does not mean it is now a fact. It shouldn't matter because we might not be the cause of these disruptions and economic losses.