coach
Kennel Legend
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Messages
- 11,447
- Reaction score
- 6,504
Spot onSo there is cycles. Thanks mate
Spot onSo there is cycles. Thanks mate
So it’s a cycle, 120k earth warming according to you graphHow many of thousands of years would you like?
Here is a 9,000 year graph
Here's 150,000 years
Your choice to focus on teenage activists, celebrities and politicians rather than the huge amount of meteorologists and scientists who have produced peer reviewed studies based on accurate facts and data is telling. There's no point ar4guing any more with you. You think it's a cult and no amount of arguing with you will convince you otherwise. Unless you want to answer the longstanding challenge of preventing evidence of peer reviewed, rigorous studies backing your position there is strong science behind the argument against man made climate change, it's not really worth going around in circles.The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses.
Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.
Child advocates such as Greta Thuneberg and the crudely indoctrinated children of the “Sunrise movement” are essentially sock puppets for their shameless activist handlers.
Refuse to bend the knee to these tiny fascists, as Diane Feinstein most recently did, and the mainstream left will relentlessly attack you as an accessory to mass murder.
The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions, eerily reminiscent of the stereotypical bum on the sidewalk with that “The End Is Near” sign. “The world will end in X years if we don’t do X” is the constant refrain.
The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. Interestingly, this is a characteristic of multiple religious cults (such as the Seekers of Chicago, and the Order of the Solar Temple).
At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.
When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.
Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change. No Snow? Climate Change. Too much snow? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.
See how this works?
The path to discovery for the Climate Change movement is an intentionally vague discipline referred to as “climate science.” Did you carry out a study on gender and glaciers? Climate Science. Did you think up the worst possible scenarios that have no actual chance of happening (actual portion of latest National Climate Assessment)? Climate Science.
Any “science” that confirms the tenets of the Climate Change movement is deemed “climate science,” while actual scientific research that disputes their conclusions is derided as “denialism.”
The Verdict: It’s a cult
Coming from you that is priceless lolI'm not hiding, I'm just trying to abide by the requests of mods and to not to get caught up in the game of belittling and caricaturing my ideological opposites. You should try that.
If Greta cant save us, Superman will!Your choice to focus on teenage activists, celebrities and politicians rather than the huge amount of meteorologists and scientists who have produced peer reviewed studies based on accurate facts and data is telling. There's no point ar4guing any more with you. You think it's a cult and no amount of arguing with you will convince you otherwise. Unless you want to answer the longstanding challenge of preventing evidence of peer reviewed, rigorous studies backing your position there is strong science behind the argument against man made climate change, it's not really worth going around in circles.
Nice emotive writing though. You could write political speeches.
Parts of that are almost right. For example, climate alarmists do often ignore research that doesn't support their stance. That's not scientific at all. In fact it spits in the face of the scientific method. It doesn't matter how strongly you support something. If you're not accepting all the evidence then your methodology is flawed.The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses.
Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.
Child advocates such as Greta Thuneberg and the crudely indoctrinated children of the “Sunrise movement” are essentially sock puppets for their shameless activist handlers.
Refuse to bend the knee to these tiny fascists, as Diane Feinstein most recently did, and the mainstream left will relentlessly attack you as an accessory to mass murder.
The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions, eerily reminiscent of the stereotypical bum on the sidewalk with that “The End Is Near” sign. “The world will end in X years if we don’t do X” is the constant refrain.
The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. Interestingly, this is a characteristic of multiple religious cults (such as the Seekers of Chicago, and the Order of the Solar Temple).
At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.
When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.
Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change. No Snow? Climate Change. Too much snow? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.
See how this works?
The path to discovery for the Climate Change movement is an intentionally vague discipline referred to as “climate science.” Did you carry out a study on gender and glaciers? Climate Science. Did you think up the worst possible scenarios that have no actual chance of happening (actual portion of latest National Climate Assessment)? Climate Science.
Any “science” that confirms the tenets of the Climate Change movement is deemed “climate science,” while actual scientific research that disputes their conclusions is derided as “denialism.”
The Verdict: It’s a cult
This is true. He'll fly around the earth really fast in the opposite direction and reverse climate change.If Greta cant save us, Superman will!
Yep. But it's never warmed this fast in the history of the earth. At least, not that we're aware of.So it’s a cycle, 120k earth warming according to you graph
Cooled
Now warming again
Cheers for that graph...
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/ab...-worried-about-climate-change-than-wildfires/Yep. But it's never warmed this fast in the history of the earth. At least, not that we're aware of.
Don't get me started on Jo Nova. The amount of junk her and Jennifer Morahasy put out.
That's funny.... But if Superman tried to save you guys, he'd end up in a psych ward.If Greta cant save us, Superman will!
I must admit that it's better than Barnaby's responseThat's funny.... But if Superman tried to save you guys, he'd end up in a psych ward.
Scientology?The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses.
Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.
Child advocates such as Greta Thuneberg and the crudely indoctrinated children of the “Sunrise movement” are essentially sock puppets for their shameless activist handlers.
Refuse to bend the knee to these tiny fascists, as Diane Feinstein most recently did, and the mainstream left will relentlessly attack you as an accessory to mass murder.
The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions, eerily reminiscent of the stereotypical bum on the sidewalk with that “The End Is Near” sign. “The world will end in X years if we don’t do X” is the constant refrain.
The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. Interestingly, this is a characteristic of multiple religious cults (such as the Seekers of Chicago, and the Order of the Solar Temple).
At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.
When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.
Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change. No Snow? Climate Change. Too much snow? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.
See how this works?
The path to discovery for the Climate Change movement is an intentionally vague discipline referred to as “climate science.” Did you carry out a study on gender and glaciers? Climate Science. Did you think up the worst possible scenarios that have no actual chance of happening (actual portion of latest National Climate Assessment)? Climate Science.
Any “science” that confirms the tenets of the Climate Change movement is deemed “climate science,” while actual scientific research that disputes their conclusions is derided as “denialism.”
The Verdict: It’s a cult
Thats my biggest issue, there is no silver bullet out there to fix everything. Alot of the advocates, particularly the younger ones seem to see everything in black and white, thats not the reality unfortunately.I think the main issue i have with climate change advocates, is not that they believe the climate changing is causing trouble, its that they dont have any realistic solutions or timeframes to execute them. I am all for the government putting more money into alternate/cleaner fuel research, but outside that, what else is realistic?
-Carbon taxes do nothing positive. All they do is make goods more expensive to produce and makes imports from places like China more attractive as they are cheaper. And there is no way China look like doing anything to reduce their massive carbon production.
-Removing mines in Australia is a ridiculous idea. It would put tens or hundreds of thousands of people out of work, since mining is our largest export, which would flow on to all other businesses as there is less money to spend around. It could make us a 3rd world country.
-Timeframe. Most of them want us to stop mining and using fossil fuels RIGHT NOW. Apparently the world will die SOON if we dont. Ok so we stop mining fossil fuels. Then what do we use for power? Can the country afford enough solar or wind powered power stations to service everybody, considering how much it costs? And if they could, could it be installed quickly? No, not at this time. And again it would put the cost of producing anything up, making imports more attractive, making us poorer.
We would only end up importing the things we stop mining anyway, because we need them. Or are people happy to live without power? There is no way we can afford the more climate friendly alternatives right now, on a large scale.
And everyone using electric cars is unrealistic too currently. And a fools contribution to helping the environment. This is because electric cars need to be charged to work. Where do people think the power comes from the charge the cars?
In time and with more research we may be able to afford to do things like only use friendly fuels, but this cannot happen overnight, which is how fast some expect it. Most climate protestors ive seen have the problem, but no realistic solutions. But they expect the government to magically have these solutions, and they want it yesterday.
When you leave out the facts, and dribble on about a political agenda like global warming which they’re doing, that is insinuating. What else are people going to think who are just reading these msm articles 90% left wing.Not really. I mean, you just threw out the se strawman there again as they're really not even insinuating that climate change started the fires.
That said, ignoring the arsonists is a problem and provably driven by an agenda. It's not a strawman but it is still a deception problem.