olofscience

please expand on this in a bit more detail. I'm a secular atheist and am not aware of the arguments you speak of.

This could go under "the definition of irony"...

70? That's bad...if it was 50% less likely to cause hospitalisation like all the news outlets were saying some time ago, then if it was 2x more contagious the health care system would be in exactly the same place. More than that, and the health care system could get overwhelmed. 70 is quite a lot more...

Poor guy is speechless. Oh well. Carrying on, Covid-19 claims another victim, but unfortunately we don't have too many of their kind around: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/08/us/covid-19-snow-leopard-zoo-death-intl-scli/index.html

I know you're not the quickest on the uptake, but this was more than a year ago. And suure, I just keep falling for your clever plans - "maths and scotch don't mix", "didn't look into it deeply it was just a quick google", basically shining a light on your BS was all part of your plan right? I shall continue playing my part then

If I were as insecure as some others I'd be loving all this attention on me right now But anyway, yet another attempt to get back on-topic: Coming back from the holidays, several people I know caught omicron - every single one of them double jabbed and boosted. Close call for me as I had contact with them just before they fell ill. Not serious, but here's hoping that the mRNA vaccines are updated for omicron sooner rather than later.

It was...so, back on topic, do you actually have anything insightful to add? All I commented here was to refute the right's allegation that we don't believe things that "upset our world view", now it's ended up about me? It's quite telling that my original point hasn't been refuted at all...

I said trolling nazis was fun. If I remember correctly, you were defending a trump logo with an uncanny resemblance to the nazi logo. You also missed one of brent's "sources" - Zoe Phin - coming here and getting involved in the discussion about climate change. It was very amusing - although during that time brent was practically begging for attention It didn't end well for her though, she ended up leaving the forum in apparently a very expletive-ridden way.

For pointing something out that upset your world view?

You do know how forum posts work, right? I know you're from another generation, but you should learn the quirks of this thing called the internet

You do know climate change upsets my world view right? I've said it several times - I could definitely do with it not actually happening, one less problem to worry about! So no, you're not upsetting world views - you're just a troll. Edit: Can't speak for everyone here of course, but I suspect most other people here don't like worrying about it either. It would be a very strange person who does...

It's a lot easier to change religions than your skin colour though...

I think this thread should be renamed to "old man yells at cloud".

Definitely believable right? Far more credible than you, and your numerous mistakes here, actually being unable to do maths right? /s

Why don't you leave everything to them and stop posting your terrible "interpretation" of their articles*? We can read their articles just fine. *articles, NOT data - you're not using their data, as their articles are already pre-interpreted from actual data (which you don't bother looking at since you can barely add two numbers together)

That would be "logic fails"

So given your "skepticism", did you root for the deniers?

There's no getting through to brent he needs to believe how clever he is, have you seen how much he praises himself? All I'm doing is showing the planet-sized holes in his arguments, which is pretty easy. So that other people who might be reading the thread don't fall for his crap. (not that there are many people stupid enough for that, but we do what we can...)

Wrong, you just don't want to admit the answer. The answer is yes, the NOAA believes that humans are causing climate change. From their website:

What a childish, lame deflection it's a simple question!

So again, what's their position on climate change? And the only desperate one is you. You simply don't have any answer to my earlier rebuttals - you even rebutted your own argument just now

You know there's this thing you can do to cut through the random google results. It's called statistics and requires understanding numbers. Not that you can (you can't), but you should leave the talking to someone that does.

What, giving up so easily? Just because I can google more record warm areas in December than record cold ones? Now you're saying it's just weather? So by your own admission your own argument was crap. Thanks for playing.

Is that the whole of Alaska? No. Here's more: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/alaska-hits-record-high-temperature-for-december/ https://gizmodo.com/alaska-broke-its-all-time-december-heat-records-1848277124 https://en.brinkwire.com/science/alaska-set-monthly-heat-records-in-december/ https://uk.news.yahoo.com/67-degrees-in-alaska-climate-change-continues-to-topple-temperature-records-193405514.html How about Louisiana: https://www.wafb.com/2021/12/27/record-warm-end-december/ North Carolina: https://www.wral.com/where-is-winter-it-s-been-one-of-the-warmest-decembers-on-record-in-the-triangle/20052344/ Miami: https://www.whio.com/weather/record-warmth-end-december/ZYST4C5VKVGCDA3AH2DIBOT3NE/ Texas and neighbouring parts: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/12/20/Christmas-weather-heat/3091640031450/ https://www.kbtx.com/2021/12/26/will-this-december-be-brazos-valleys-warmest-record/ Tennessee: https://www.wreg.com/weather/december-2021-is-hottest-yet-for-memphis/

Not in Alaska: Alaska experiences record-high temperature for December, freezing rain See, we can play the cherry-picking game too!