Fake News Reporting Thread

[Proteus_MST]

How do you know what I know about God? And what does that have to do with you believing that Santa gives you back things that you have lost of you have faith in him?

I know that, if you believe that god is some magic genie that fulfills your earthly wishes if you believe in him, then you know not all too much about god

[Kidlicious]

I think by, hacked the data, Kid means you used the data to prove him wrong.

So you think forests don't exist except in those three regions too?

[Proteus_MST]

I think by, hacked the data, Kid means you used the data to prove him wrong.

Ah thanks ... I already was wondering what he means by this term

[Kidlicious]

Ah thanks ... I already was wondering what he means by this term

You know damn well what it means. It means that you are a political operative, NOT A SCIENTIST!

[Kidlicious]

I know that, if you believe that god is some magic genie that fulfills your earthly wishes if you believe in him, then you know not all too much about god

When did I say that God is a magic genie you twit? And further more, why do you believe the same about Santa?

[Proteus_MST]

When did I say that God is a magic genie you twit? And further more, why do you believe the same about Santa?

You wrote that, "if you have faith, you get everything".
That is a good indication that you believe god is some kind of wish fulfilling genie, at least if you believe in him strong enough

[Kidlicious]

You wrote that, "if you have faith, you get everything".
That is a good indication that you believe god is some kind of wish fulfilling genie, at least if you believe in him strong enough

No wonder you swear by CNN.

[Aeson]

So you think forests don't exist except in those three regions too?

You were cherry picking of a few years out of a graph to try to deny the obvious trend in the graph. Then you acted like that proved your point. So by transitive property you must also admit John T cherry picking forests where deforestation has increased proved you wrong. You both !hacked the data! the same way.

[Aeson]

As for the effect of deforestation, you are obviously wrong to try to downplay it. While rates have dropped worldwide, part of that is you can’t deforest a forest that was previously deforested. In many places in the world, the forests are almost completely gone. The cumulative loss of forests has continued unsustainably.

The loss of forests has not only lead to the loss of the forests themselves, but has contributed to groundwater depletion, aquifer depletion, increased erosion, waterway pollution, droughts, fires, floods, desertification, and yes ... increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Kidlicious]

You were cherry picking of a few years out of a graph to try to deny the obvious trend in the graph. Then you acted like that proved your point. So by transitive property you must also admit John T cherry picking forests where deforestation has increased proved you wrong. You both !hacked the data! the same way.

No it's not the same thing. This is a ridiculous accusation. I didn't cherry pick anything. Maybe you don't know what cherry picking is or maybe you want people to believe a bunch of crap without providing a reasonable argument.

[-Jrabbit]

"Maybe" is such a convincing argument.

[Kidlicious]

As for the effect of deforestation, you are obviously wrong to try to downplay it. While rates have dropped worldwide, part of that is you can’t deforest a forest that was previously deforested. In many places in the world, the forests are almost completely gone. The cumulative loss of forests has continued unsustainably.

The loss of forests has not only lead to the loss of the forests themselves, but has contributed to groundwater depletion, aquifer depletion, increased erosion, waterway pollution, droughts, fires, floods, desertification, and yes ... increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm not down playing anything. I'm saying that there are more trees now than there were in 1975, and yet we have higher temperatures. You are downplaying the effect that trees have.

So then the question is why do environmentalist oppose cutting down trees, even in areas that have been forested previously. Double-talk.

This is why people don't believe what you say.

[Proteus_MST]

No it's not the same thing. This is a ridiculous accusation. I didn't cherry pick anything. Maybe you don't know what cherry picking is or maybe you want people to believe a bunch of crap without providing a reasonable argument.

So far you haven't provided any reasonable counterarguments regarding the speedup of global warming over the last few decaded ... or the rising rate of deforestation in the most wooded regions on earth (Brazil (= Amazonas region) for example, has ~60 of its land area covered in forests ... the USA (just 10% larger than Brazil) has just 30% of its area covered in forests)

[Kidlicious]

So far you haven't provided any reasonable counterarguments regarding the speedup of global warming over the last few decaded ... or the rising rate of deforestation in the most wooded regions on earth (Brazil (= Amazonas region) for example, has ~60 of its land area covered in forests ... the USA (just 10% larger than Brazil) has just 30% of its area covered in forests)

My argument is

1) We don't know how much we have contributed to climate change.

2) We can't control temperatures.

3) You are hacking.

So it's no surprise that I haven't provided a reasonable argument where I haven't provided an argument.

[-Jrabbit]

I know the word "hacking" sounds great when making random accusations, but you should probably learn what it means before using it.

[Kidlicious]

1.
cut with rough or heavy blows.

[Kidlicious]

There were a lot of factory jobs created between 1943 and around 1978, but NO INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE. Don't ignore the facts!

So for everyone that didn't get the point of this, I was not arguing that greenhouse gases (manmade) do not contribute to climate change. I was accusing Proteus of cherry picking.

[Proteus_MST]

My argument is

1) We don't know how much we have contributed to climate change.

2) We can't control temperatures.

3) You are hacking.

So it's no surprise that I haven't provided a reasonable argument where I haven't provided an argument.

The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is very well understood.
And regarding CO2 levels, here 2 graphics:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm

https://cleanet.org/clean/literacy/principle_6.html

I know that it won't persuade you, as no argument, whatsoever will ... nevertheless, for completeness sake ... the graphics well show how over the top mankind has pushed CO2 levels´and how huge the increase was, especially during the last ~50 years