https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
>>56749845
Thank you for that. Cruz is always good in this kind of thing.
muh 97%
>>56749845
He is a debate god. He has an audio-graphic memory so it's pretty easy for him to dismantle what people say and destroy them with their own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g6MNWiLSeo
>>56749845
It's not so much Cruz winning the argument against climate change as it is this other guy being completely incompetent and unprepared.
>>56752804
>It's not so much Cruz winning the argument against climate change as it is this other guy being completely incompetent and unprepared.
Such a display of complete incompetence and unpreparedness is the product of the man who knows how to draw it out.
That besides, Cruz isn't attempting to disprove climate change or anything in this clip, just proving one of its institutional backers doesn't give a shit about climate change's scientific basis. Only the political messaging.
>>56749845
>That smug cunt leaning into his ear
>>56749845
Ted Cruz has probably the highest IQ of anyone in the room he shares with. I know /pol/ loves Trump but Cruz would be the smartest President we've ever had in decades.
>>56749845
I can't believe a black guy knows words that big.
>>56754408
It's a white guy in a mask. It gets brownie points.
> "the data are there"
>>56749845
I've seen this 6 times since it happened and I watch it through every single time.
No such thing as too many times seeing the cruiz missle rape a liar with his own words
>>56754515
I thought the same thing. That can't be correct grammatically, right? I've been using 'is' my entire life.
[Deliberation intensifies]
Was that black guy an affirmative action hire or what? He couldn't answer a single question by himself.
>>56754408
He doesn't know what those words mean. He's just pretentiously spouting them like a redneck using the word 'ignorant'.
>>56754708
No, data is plural. Data are there is right. Same thing with media are biased.
>>56752671
damn lp general?
post more
>>56754870
Ah yes, you are right... plural data, as "datas" is not the proper grammar.
>>56754870
That's interesting. I guess I'm retarded.
>>56754870
It's just so ugly though. Who thought it was a good idea to begin a preposition with a vowel?
>>56754408
>I can't believe a black guy knows words that big.
His cue cards have everything spelled out phonetically, and big red x's through the ebonics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peL7Qecg3qQ
>>56755033
I still would have used data is rather than are.
I would have treated it like the word sheep, the sheep is, the sheep are.
>>56755107
> wouldn't have.
>>56755107
more important question
is it day-tuh or dah-da?
>>56755337
It doesn't matter at this point.
>>56755337
デイタ american english ダタ british I think
>>56749845
>MUH GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL
>see there's snow!!!
>>56755491
The first one sounds like day-tuh, the second dah-da. Fuck you, you weeb.
>>56752671
>muh holocaust!
Cruz is a fucking idiot.
>>56754515
Data can be plural.
master debater
but he's lying about the data. the pause isn't even real.
>>56749845
>>56749845
Dat Smirk
His whole YouTube is full of videos blowing people out. It's the best thing ever.
>>56755589
>not using katakana for godly clear phonetics
sorry that nip runes are more useful than IPA runes
>>56749845
It's hard to get through the first three minutes. I never really cared about Cruz, and took him for being dumb, but at least he came to a climate change debate prepared and knowledgable of relevant terms. Hearing the Sierra Club guy lean back to his staff while Cruz was talking was cringe worthy as hell.
>>56755522
>A spic believing in global warming
kek
>MUH 97%
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Its bullshit
Like saying 97 out of 100 people think rape is bad but the "study" actually says 1 says its bad, 96 says not sure, and 3 say not bad then claiming 97% lmao
This is a good one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu1lsw3_Kfo
>>56756283
GLOBAL WARMING
BUY MY CARBON CREDITS GOY
>>56756214
He's far from dumb what are you talking about?
I can understand not liking people but insulting their intelligence because of a differing in opinion is just childish.
I would love to see Hillary handing from a noose like most people here but I know she isn't stupid the woman wouldn't be what she is if she was an idiot
Pick your words more carefully anon
>>56756357
I hate Ellen Page she's such a cunt
>>56756214
The man is blessed with an incredible mind and temperament that allows him to debate without losing his temper. He comes across as very sincere and honest about his opinions. Which rubs people the wrong way I think.
>>56756535
Fuck off homoshill
>>56756896
She got all 12 inches of Ted Cruz's rock hard intelligence and walked away saying thank you.
>>56756896
She looks like a teenager so she feeds your lust but she hasn't been decent looking for the past decade.
Everything now for her is lighting and camera angles.
You can call me whatever the fuck you want faggot but she isn't that hot and there is no amount of sex appeal that can change the fact that she is a leftist cunt and an overall shit person
Think with your head not with your dick
debates thread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFeoS41xe7w
Buckley was fighting an uphill battle but still prevailed with a few good points.
>>56749845
Cruz looks Pepe as fuck whenever there's a silence
>>56749845
Cruz is a *menace* in debate. He shreds Leftists.
>>56749845
https://youtu.be/ZSPPKV-FZk8
Trump / Cruz 2016!
>>56749845
the scientist are interested in what it true. cruz is interested in what works for him.
winning an argument doesn't mean being right. this is the worst problem that common law has actually.
>>56754870
It's a plural, but it's used as a singular when talking about the collective "data". Like when people use United States as a singular nation (e.g., "The United States is responding to Russia."), even though the term "United States" refers to multiple states.
>>56757759
>scientists
>true
>global warming
Nice keks you are dishing out
about fucking time /pol/ starts liking Cruz
>>56757157
>She got all 12 inches of Ted Cruz's rock hard intelligence and walked away saying thank you.
I wonder if Ted Cruz now features prominently in Ellen and her girlfriend's shared rape fantasies.
What the fuck? I didn't know I would become a Ted Cruz supporter this quickly.
https://youtu.be/OgU4PIErJ4M
>>56757700
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QCbpafD3Pw
I don't even care about his politics, he's sharp as hell and exudes control over his audience
He's the most "presidential" of all the candidates, I think
>>56756052
what? the pause is very much real, and the satellite data proves this. Why do you think its not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu1lsw3_Kfo
>>56756053
>>56749845
Cruz being based as usual
>I don't like the satellite data even though it's way more accurate than land based data
>also as my cuz told me islands can tip over if there are too many people on them
gib my peeples money fo dem programs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q
>global shemperatures are on the rise, sir
"And, I assume, the Sierra Club would issue a public retraction if confronted with the facts that the data are precisely as I described--that over the past 18 years, there has been no signifcant warming, and indeed, that is why global warming alarmists invented the term 'The Pause' to explain what they call 'the pause' in global warming--because they data demonstrate what you just said--that the earth 'is cooking and warming' is not backed up by the data."
>We are concurring with 97% of the scientists that absolutely say the opposite, sir.
"So if the data are contrary to your testimony, would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?"
>Sir, we concur with the 97% scientific consensus with regards to global warming.
"I'd like to repeat the question and get an answer: If the data are contrary to your testimony, would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?"
> Sir, I am an absolute nigger completely incapable of thinking for myself, so I am going to repeat my statement and say that I concur with the 97% of the scientists who say that global warming is real. I can't say anything further than that you are a total racist for grilling me this way, and fuck you, sir.
"That's what I thought. I rest my case."
Cruz is pretty much a BTFO machine. If Trump somehow fails I wouldn't mind him getting the nomination.
>>56756357
Could someone sum this up?
No access allowed for us syrup niggers.
>>56757759
>this is the worst problem that common law has actually.
Activists judges and the "living tree" are the worst problems in Canada's common law.
>>56758746
Islam is worse to gays than christians
It ends with Ellen dropping to her knees and sucking him right in front off the camera
>>56758544
>The pause is real
>The satellites data proves it
>He thinks the science data disproves global worming
>Wants NASA to not spend money on satellites that observe the Earth
Cruz is the ultimate hypocrite. I would expect he would be consistent with his ideas. If he says the data is in his favour, then let the scientist do their jobs and collect the data. Otherwise he looks like a total sham.
I kind of enjoy the whole GW issue, in that I absolutely love the fact that in my golden years(ie 40-50 years from now) These faggots will have been BTFO by the fact that we haven't had a great warming. Yet some faggots might still be arguing with me online that we are in for doom.
These people are literally 2012 Mayan doomsayers at this point.
>Mr. Coons
hahaha
>>56752373
>audio-graphic memory
wut
>>56759078
But you will always win.
1) Global worming is true and people take action, so no global worming
2) Global worming is false, so no global worming
So basically saying that there will be no global worming is a safe bet. I would bet money on it.
>>56759056
NASAs research on climate is heavily favored towards anti science/anti satellite research.
NASA hasn't liked their satellite department since the truth started to come out.
They literally have nothing to do with science at this point.
If its warm its because of global warming. If its cold, its because of global warming. If it rains a lot, its because of global warming. If there is a drought it's because of global warming.
This sounds like the ravings of a madman from the middle ages!
>>56759482
True for the long haul, but every individual debate will end with the left saying "WE'RE NOT DOING ENOUGH". And each of those people will have been wrong.
>>56759278
It's like a photographic memory, only with the spoken world. He can recall conversations word for word. This is partially what lies behind his so called 'fake' sounding speech patterns. If you've ever seen him do one of those odd pauses in interviews, it's him remembering related content and trying to factor for it in his response.
>>56759108
>Trump
>6'2
simply untrue
>>56759703
Yet he is citing that same NASA satellite data to back up his claims, hence the hypocrisy. That's not based at all.
>>56759926
Sorry, what's not based about it?
>>56756108
Goddamn I just realized that you're completely right, using katakana makes pronunciation of english words a breeze.
>>56759482
>but you always win
There is literally zero chance the world will change it's greenhouse gas increase in at least the next 50 years.
so right there your first point is bogus. CO2 concentration will increase for AT LEAST the next 50 years and more likely for the next 200 years desu.
absolutely nothing the UN or anyone does will change that. You realize this right? The poor people of this world don't like being poor.
global warming is literally at the bottom of the list of the worlds problems, as has been shown by polls
>>56754515
Data is plural. The data are well researched and studied.
>>56754708
It's the data are correct
While in singular, is referred to the datum it's correct.
>>56752373
It's because he's a fucking sephardim
>>56759482
Was that a Romanian-tier attempt at Pascal's Wager on global warming?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
>>56749845
Jesus Christ that dipshit got BTFO.
All he can do is repeat the same shit over and over to every question, why doesnt he just stick his fingers in his ears and go LALALALALALALALA
>>56759926
OK. so you agree that NASA is infallible. but somehow because the data comes from a satellite its shit?
You do realize that all the real hard global warming bobos hate satellite data, just because right?
also I'm not sure how much funding this group gets from the university vs the funding they get from NASA, but you are sure as shit it has decreased in the recent years since they haven't shown as much warming as NASA would have liked
>Cruz shillling
He is more unlikable than Hillary you dumbfucks
>>56760012
>Using NASA data to prove climate change is not real in one debate
>Saying we should not use NASA data in another debate
>Not consistent with his ideas
>Not based IMO
>>56754328
This. Plus Trump makes Cruz look like a moderate in comparison. The more I see of Cruz, the more I'm convinced that he would make a great prez.
where the hell did all the birthers go, cruz is a god damn canuck.
>>56760565
I'm not saying anything about NASA.
Cruz uses NASA satellite data in his favour, hence thinking it is of good quality.
Cruz wants to stop NASA from producing satellite data.
These things contradict.
>>56754328
True. I was at my parents house going into trump shill mode and they mentioned they supported cruz. Being in texas, i honestly could not find a reason to take trump over cruz. He is definitely my second choice .
>>56758651
Hahahaha
>uhhh we don't anticipate that
>>56756357
Looks based as fuck eating his pork sandwich while destroying dyke logic
>>56756357
Ellen used to be attractive and then she opened her fat mouth.
>>56754328
>wants gold standard
>smart
kek
god dammit, cruz fucking destroyed that leftist mouthpiece.
there was nothing left of that man. he was just... tatters.
>>56754328
I like how he's so smart he has to be coached to pretend to be dumber to win votes.
Literally half his air time he is struggling with making shit easy for the peons to understand.
>>56752671
Cruz sucks the Israel dick.
>>56754328
I'd like a Trump/Cruz tag team for the next two terms followed by two terms of Cruz as President.
Trump is the hammer that can get things started and set an awesome foundation, and Cruz is smart enough to use the 16 years he's working with and as president to get the maximum benefit.
We'd possibly be able to route the progressives enough to prevent the U.S. from going into a major dark time for the next century.
>>56760801
>literally the exact same thing could be used as a point against you.
satellites absolutely have better coverage than land based data.
If you don't think satellites provide superior coverage than you are literally retarded.
to provide the train of thought for these tards.......
>I think people in the desert of sudan take better temperature records than satellites.
>>56759056
>guys Jesus is totally going to return tomorrow
>tomorrow
>guys its a just a pause in when hes going to return Im still right now give the money
nice religion you have there
>>56760801
He questioned the logic of investing so much of NASA in non-space stuff. He never mentioned satellites, and I think that satellites would fall under the "aeronautics" he mentioned.
Plus, that NASA guy explained himself well. Cruz went in with some misgivings, and that NASA guys assuaged his fears. Perfectly respectable outcome.
>>56761564
>Being this lazy to read the thread
I was referring to satellite data all the time.
Cruz uses satellite data in one debate
Cruz says NASA should stop building Earth observing satellites in another debate
Inconsistent, hence not based.
>>56749845
Trump/Cruz 2016
I do not usually pay much attention to amerikirk shit, but I watched this for some reason.
Holy shit, bljad. He whipped that bitch so fucking hard, fucking hell
>>56759056
Dude, the whole impetus to the anthropogenic global warming narrative from the scientific arena are scientists who exist to live off of research grants. Keep handing them money hand over fist and they will only ever confirm with dire certitude that they need to conduct ever more research into this most important topic. Which is an awful misuse of the term 'research,' being that all the proofs anthropogenic global warming has to it is confined to the computer models of AGW proponents. NASA brings back with data which directly counters the narrative, but still ends up supporting it. You know, because muh 97%.
At some point you have to recognize that the only thing you're subsidizing with all that public money is hyperbole.
>>56757798\
>Australia not shitposting
WW3 confirmed
>>56761939
>Cruz says NASA should stop building Earth observing satellites in another debate
can you point out where/when he said that?
I like Cruz, but the sophism here is palpable and paltry. First, he asserts, without citation, that there is a pause in the past 18 years in global warming. Then, when a number comes his way that says the consensus is directly opposed to that, he completely disregards it and makes it a theoretical argument. By the way, I'm not saying the 97% number is correct. The surveys I've seen are more around 80%. But Ted Cruz says "If the data showed". It became a meta-scientific error here. There is no one satellite labelled 'data' that measures these things. The closest thing to that satalleite is the scientific community. The nignog thought Ted Cruz knew this on some level, but he didn't. It was actually Cruz's ignorance or appearance of it that made him look like he actually had a point.
I am no expert of science or politics. In this situation if I am asked who is most likely to fund essentially what is conspiracy and lies to everyone about Climate Change, petroleum companies, and all other companies that are related to the creation of massive human Carbon Dioxide emissions, and which make profit doing so, seem the first people to point at.
Of course, this doesn't move my support to democrats. They have no solid plan to combat global warming. If man made climate change is real, do not mistake me: democrats without a believable solution to thus problem, from a change in government policy, rather than the usual "you are a bad person because your car gets bad mileage", are as useless as Republicans who don't believe in it at all.
Redpill me on this please, I'm not an expert. My questions:
What is wrong with the 97% survey?
Where is the evidence that there has been a pause in global warming?
What is the motivation to lie that climate change exists, is man made, and is harmful for the biosphere and mankind?
I just think that blindly following conservatives here could be incredibly blue-pill.
>>56761893
Earth observing satellites fall under Earth Science.
IDK, but I think you guys are blue pilling yourself about his debate skills.
Ellen Paige is obvously only a "lesbian" just to try to stay relevant
>>56762387
Some anon posted it here, and went by unnoticed.
>>56755101
>>56762422
>What is wrong with the 97% survey?
Of the 12,000 documents studied, only 41 explicitly admit that anthropocentric climate change is real.
>>56762573
Citation needed.
>>56761939
NASA absolutely does not support the satellite research anymore. They may throw them a few bucks here and there, but NASA literally hates the satellite data at this point.
It's kind of embarrassing really.
NASA hates science. It's plain as day
>>56762573
I would add that it was not "97% of scientists", it was "97% of papers published in climate science journals," which adds publication bias and scope into the mix
>>56762620
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=24FB57FEDE6AF363DFB1859C43E447C3.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Read the paper yourself. It's right in the abstract.
The paper isn't bad, but it doesn't prove anything like what the media says it does.
>>56762620
please enter the real world. That "study" might be the least scientific thing to ever grace the inter webs
Correct me if I'm wrong here but don't the 97% of scientists only agree on the earth getting warmer?
I'm pretty sure that if the question was "Is global warming caused by man?" the statistics would be a lot different.
>>56762620
>The Legates et al (2013) review of the paper reveals that only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.The 41 papers that supported the consensus as defined by the IPCC declaration represents only 0.34% of the papers examined, not 97%.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf (29)
>>56758609
Ive never liked Ellen Page. Now I know why,
How can you deny global warming in 2015?
>>56750441
>>56752373
>>56752804
>>56755522
cruz is just toying with an unprepared guy. Anyone who had any experience discussing the issue could have at least said something back.
>>56762894
modern science is the laziest thing I've ever seen. I'm pretty sure scientists from like the 50s earlier would have literally laughed at these fags in their face.
They already knew the scientific principles involved. They also knew that CO2 has a diminishing effect the higher the concentration was.
People knew this literally 2 centuries ago
>>56757798
this is anti shitposting: the next level of meta shitposting
kangaroos always shitpost. always.
>>56762804
I have been using the former as shorthand of the latter, but I'm glad you pointed out that this is misleading.
You left out, however, a more objective alternative to surveying papers publishes in climate science journals
>>56762894
Yeah, you're wrong. The claim of the 97% survey is that it's man made.
>>56762894
forget my post.
to say the field of climate science is fractured is kind of an understatement....
there are zombies all around desu.
they're not even trying are they? why would they have a black "scientist"? at least make it somewhat believable
>>56762674
Well, Cruz does not support it as well. He liked, and used the satellite data in his favour. But in another debate he told NASA to not spend any more money on satellite data.
He should encourage NASA to produce more satellite data on Earth, but he is doing the opposite.
He does not inspire trust IMO.
Threw down his cookies and ran out of a christian convention crying when they booed him over Israel though.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-walks-out-of-christian-event-after-being-booed/
>>56762894
Literally almost 100% of movies would agree that who cares.
suck on this faggots
>>56763156
"There is something happening. It's probably out of our control."
This goes through the liberal narrative machine and comes out as:
"There is a disastrous event occurring and it is YOUR FAULT rethuglicans we need to RAISE TAXES and spend that money on BLACK BABIES and STUDENT LOANS and--"
Never trust the Democrats. Always oppose their narrative. When the actual effects become apparent we will deal with them. It's pretty funny that the greatest step forward in "going green" has been the free market's development of truly efficient and high-powered electric cars. Liberals didn't do shit except whine, while the free market fixed it.
What a surprise.
Ted Cruz is the candidate that makes me think, if he ever gets the nomination, he would destroy anybody in 1v1 debate. He's just too good with words.
>>56762422
This is literally a case of if the party says 2+2=5 then it equals 5
>>56761340
I watched the whole video just staring at the sandwich and wishing I had one
>>56763835
>Free market economy
This so f'cking much. This is how things should be done. Create new and better technologies, reduce costs, create jobs, and clean the air (because you don't want to end up with air like China), and not "OMG global worming, increase taxes, because just giving us money is going to make global worming go away".
I personally love the Teslas. High performance, great build quality, amazing safety. I want to buy it because it's good, and not because "I have to save the planet".
>Graduated from Princeton
>Graduated from Harvard Law School (magna cum laude)
>Primary editor of the Harvard Law Review
>Executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
>Founding editor of Harvard Latino Law Review
>John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics
You have one second to name a smarter politician than Ted Cruz.
Protip: it's impossible.
>>56763835
How many pills have you taken?
>>56757759
>Sierra Club
>dindu nuffin, gud bois
>>56752373
Phonographic. Phonographic memory.
Beck uncovered his eidetic memory for the spoken word, but Glenn's vocabulary is shit.
Cruz seems like a really shifty guy. I kind of like that for some reason
>>56765666
Ironically he's the most honest politician I've seen, and I remember Reagan fessing up to fuckups.
>>56761476
This is a task that really is harder than it sounds because, there is a lot of specific language that is tempting to use, but you cannot, as it may be vernacular that will fly over the head of people. I give him my props for that.
Currently interning as a pharmacist, and there is a lot I could say, but I actively had to really dumb down a lot of what I want to get across to a patient, because a lot of people are either ignorant or dumb. Even within my own family, the only person I can talk at roughly my level is my brother-in-law, as he's a dentist.
>>56762422
>First, he asserts, without citation, that there is a pause in the past 18 years in global warming
You don't have 'citation' because, looking into the conversation, you don't have a proper frame of reference. "The pause" comes straight from the IPCC's own analysis. The implication is that there should be a significant temperature increase as their models predicted, but for some inexplicable reason that hasn't happened, a condition they suspect is temporary (via another implication that they can't possibly be wrong).
>But Ted Cruz says "If the data showed". It became a meta-scientific error here. There is no one satellite labelled 'data' that measures these things.
Actually, that exactly what the satellites do. Return real-time temperature readings from any point at which they're pointed.
>It was actually Cruz's ignorance or appearance of it that made him look like he actually had a point.
No, what happened was that when pressed on an issue, Dr. Mair retreated to the safety of a political stance. But what's important was that he was there in the capacity of scientific expert.
>I am no expert of science or politics. In this situation if I am asked who is most likely to fund essentially what is conspiracy and lies to everyone about Climate Change, petroleum companies, and all other companies that are related to the creation of massive human Carbon Dioxide emissions, and which make profit doing so, seem the first people to point at.
Become just a little more versed in the subject. Linear CO2 production isn't central to the scientific debate (that's only for the political shits to demagogue over, for media shits to confuse the public on, and with which communist shits use to attack the economic success of western industrialization and capitalism). The debate is over what amplification effect there is to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>56762422
>Redpill me on this please, I'm not an expert.
One doesn't need to be an expert to grasp the fundamentals of the dispute. Only a basic understanding of the scientific method, and perhaps a good deal of awareness as to how political narratives are shaped. But you seem not to have looked much into the whole debate at all at this point. Have a link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
>What is wrong with the 97% survey?
It's all over the thread.
>Where is the evidence that there has been a pause in global warming?
This is the essence of what the satellite data shows.
>What is the motivation to lie that climate change exists, is man made, and is harmful for the biosphere and mankind?
So you're telling me you've never heard about carbon credits? That wondrous scheme borne of the UN (a world body primarily made up of dictatorships, kleptocracies and human rights abusers) to "sell" their non production to the industrialized world in the form of credits (ie global redistribution of the west's wealth)? That's . . . expected. As a layperson, you're not supposed to look too closely at the thing, you're only supposed to care about 'going green' as the media propagates and pressuring your political leaders to "do something."
>I just think that blindly following conservatives here could be incredibly blue-pill.
Blindly following any bandwagon would be incredibly blue-pilled, yes. And yes, this also neatly describes 97% of people who have an opinion on global warming based only on what others have tweeted about it on social media.
>>56761476
>I like how he's so smart he has to be coached to pretend to be dumber to win votes.
I been pulling for trump, but if this is true Cruz has my vote 100%
>>56760862
>liking Donald Trump
It's like you want Hillary in office.
>>56749845
>>56768227
>The pause" comes straight from the IPCC's own analysis. The implication is that there should be a significant temperature increase as their models predicted, but for some inexplicable reason that hasn't happened
Please adjust your right wing talking points. The "pause" disappears once you factor in deep sea ocean warming. Considering that the Earth is about 70% water, this is
1) entirely forseen
2) a really really bad sign
Please await word for the next set of bullshit that Fox News is telling you "disproves" something that the entire world scientific community accepted en masse.
>>56749845
>WE CONCUR WITH 97%...
Jesus Christ what a broken fucking record
>>56771077
I just read a bit on the whole 97% statistic, and apparently it was brought into the picture by an Ausralian blogger and left-wing environmental activist named John Cook who aggregated 11,944 peer-reviewed articles from the last thirty years about climate change with his friends, but threw out the 66.4% which didn't mention human activity impacting it in anyway.
>>56770340
And how do you factor in deep ocean warming with the satellite data? and if you factor that into the current data, you need to factor that into the past data to get a real comparable picture. Do you know of any sources who have done so?
If this was entirely forseen, why are the IPCC models not indicative of this? Can you point me to a single source that claimed that there would be a "pause" in global warming because of deep ocean warming from 18+ years ago(the time of which the pause began)
