Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. 
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.
How much? Dunno.
It's painfully obvious that you don't know. I would suggest you to study the evidence instead of embarrassing yourself. Here are some basics for you to start with.
It's painfully obvious that your reply "Anything for Trump" has not got a thing to do with anything I said.
Are you able to make that case because until you do I don't much care for you trying to distract me with other bullshit.
/shrugs
I can't help you if that wasn't enough context for you. And no, it's not other bullshit, it's the particular bullshit you posted.
No there was none to be had. You tried for snark to vaguely imply something. When asked to explain, all you had was snark and no argument. It's is weak, but whatever. Not life or death.
Hey, you posted shit that made you look like you denied that the climate change is caused by humans, not me. If that isn't your position, then just say so. Go reread what you wrote instead of evading.
No, no, no, Odeon. It did not look like that at all. This is what people like yourself do. Because you ae sold on your idea that the questions around climate change are completely answered and denying climate change is immoral and stupid and hold a smug and superior position in your own mind, you refuse to question what you believe and anyone not holding the same positions as you will be dismissed as stupid if not immoral as well. It is what I have seen from you a bit in the last 12 months or so.
But no, it did not look like I was denying climate change, at all.....by any reasonable reading.
I WAS stating that I did not have all the answer and more to the point, neither do you - as smug and condescending as you may be.
Now, I am MORE than happy to agree to some base facts. We know that man DOES have an effect on the environment and some effect on the climate ("an effect" and "some effect" being the operative disclaimers). For example: The Great Barrier Reef has beautiful Coral. The government of Australia and State Government of Queensland, beyond all reason, keeps trying to make deals with various coal companies to dump dredgings into the waters near the reef. The Reef is a fragile ecosystem and already has suffered from things like well-meaning snorkellers wearing suntan and sunscreen lotion accidentally and incidentally polluting it. Now they want to dump waste into that ecosystem. For the record I donated to the activism against that. Hell, remember when the Middle East and was lush? No, it hasn't been so for thousands of years. Alexander the Great's rolling armies stripped the of all resources and changed not on the environment but the climate in that area of the world too. Knocking down trees and clearing land will always have an effect on the environment. Releasing pollutants into the air or into the water will always have an effect.
But that does not make this argument an open and shut case at all and pretending it does is stupid and worse, being smug and holding yourself as more superior for having this opinion is beyond stupid.
Between the position of "all the evidence is in and everything is decided on climate change and we know what we pertain to know" (your position) and "climate change is all bullshit and a hoax. None of it is true and it is a monumental scam by stupid Liberals (the position you are stupidly implying that I hold), is a position that I ACTUALLY hold. That is "Not all the facts are known and we do not even know what we do not know. IF the changes in climate are happening, how much of that is CAUSED by man and how much of that is the Earth just being the Earth?
For example: a long season may just be a long season a change in temperature could be just a change in temperature. Melting Ice Caps could be just melting ice caps. We can say "This is caused by man" but it is not proven. The Earth Does change. Continents move. Huge changes in the climate happen and places that were lush and even jungles become frozen and back again. HUGE temperature changes. It does not need man's involvement and it is doubtful man could have prevented it even if he knew how it happened - which he doesn't. But even IF we can say definitively that we know what is exactly caused by man and what is not, how do we measure the degree to which it is affected and by what? But even if we could do this and know exactly what caused what and to what degree, what are we able to do to reverse said damage? Now an argument would be stopping doing all things that have been shown to badly affect the environment BUT what if we cannot and it comes down to minimisation strategies and so we need to know what is negligible and what effect ANY and all reversals of whatever will make."
We do not even know what we do not know and so many people are pretending it is a completely understood and answered concept. It is not even close. Personally, I am happy to listen to all sides of the debate and find them all interesting. People like you are not though are you Odeon? You hear someone not say "I believe in climate change" and you lose your reasoning.
No, what I wrote was NOT difficult to understand and my saying "I dunno" ACTUALLY means "I dunno". It does not imply, infer, suggest or outright state a position in the denunciation or affirmation of a position and saying that it did is REALLY Stupid.
So, back to you and Penty to appreciate why you stated "made it look" that way. It is demonstrably false and stupid to suggest it. So why did you?
