Editing Talk:164: Playing Devil's Advocate to Win
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:The science of global warming is irrelevant. Every posed ecological disaster hasn't been an effort to advert it, but a political ploy to shift money from earners to consumers. Why did plans like putting windmills everywhere (which requires a lot of oil and oil burning, and uses up natural water supplies) get all the government funding, while actual solutions like fuel cells and nuclear got shut down (which CAN solve our dependency on oil if they only had the same funding as the wind/solar groups)? Because the top liberals were heavily invested in wind/solar, and were using politics as a way to give that group more financial success than the market would naturally allow. Why did they invest in such failures? Because they didn't understand the technology and science of the problem. If liberals had invested in fuel cell and nuclear, they would have won.[[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 15:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | :The science of global warming is irrelevant. Every posed ecological disaster hasn't been an effort to advert it, but a political ploy to shift money from earners to consumers. Why did plans like putting windmills everywhere (which requires a lot of oil and oil burning, and uses up natural water supplies) get all the government funding, while actual solutions like fuel cells and nuclear got shut down (which CAN solve our dependency on oil if they only had the same funding as the wind/solar groups)? Because the top liberals were heavily invested in wind/solar, and were using politics as a way to give that group more financial success than the market would naturally allow. Why did they invest in such failures? Because they didn't understand the technology and science of the problem. If liberals had invested in fuel cell and nuclear, they would have won.[[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 15:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
β | |||
β | |||
:Might want to look at the last 17 years and 6 months or maybe even 7 months. {{unsigned|Flewk}} | :Might want to look at the last 17 years and 6 months or maybe even 7 months. {{unsigned|Flewk}} | ||
I suspect that this is the ONLY scientific question referenced in this comment that cites a percentage of people who agree with your position as a scientific argument. Just sayin'. Signed, [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.230|108.162.216.230]] 15:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC) | I suspect that this is the ONLY scientific question referenced in this comment that cites a percentage of people who agree with your position as a scientific argument. Just sayin'. Signed, [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.230|108.162.216.230]] 15:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC) |