Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
I fixed that for you.
I'll be honest, I'm probably no more qualified to understand the science than you (though I do have a science degree). But unlike you, I understand and respect science enough to defer to the scientists that do.
In the handful of posts of yours I've seen, I can only say that you are definitely not a "scientist" type, in fact you are the worst type, someone that thinks they understand but are wignorant of their ignorance. Perhaps you are anti vaxxer, anti GMO too?
|
I love getting my flu vaccine and if they can make a GMO strawberry the size of my fist, I take two please.
Would you like to make any other vile ad hominin assumptions publicly? SMH.
I actually am the best kind of scientist type, as I am willing to express uncertainty. And question consensus. Both are pillars of the scientific method.
I never stated greenhouse gasses are not greenhouse gasses and can have no effect. So your/others use of the term denier is a disgusting tactic.
All I said was there is a weakness in our understanding. The popular media and particularly policy makers deny uncertainty. The schools deny uncertainty.
Here are some facts:
• Canada cannot move the needle on ppm levels, even if we disappear
• A prosperous Canada can help develop technology that helps the world move towards better, more sustainable energy solutions, as well as clean water, agricultural efficiency, etc.
• the BIG LIE in this is that there is a 97% consensus among climate and meteorological scientists. Not even close.
I'll respectfully leave you all to your echo chamber.