SafeSurfer wrote: » Fair enough. Now can you address Greta’s claims to be able to see carbon and if it effects her credibility at all.
osarusan wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Embarrassing that claims of Greta’s ability to see carbon are not addressed in the same post that questions others credibility. If one studies Soviet era “denouncements” of “counter revolutionaries” one finds striking parallels with the climate alarmists “denouncement” of “deniers”. Any non conformist thought or “collaboration” with the enemy aka industry over a lifetimes work is seized upon to dismiss all the individuals views no matter their validity. It is actually quite frightening. Dismissing all Patrick’ Moore’s views because of one bull**** statement is the same as dismissing all of Greta’s pronouncements as balderdash on the grounds of her ludicrous claims to be able to see carbon. None of that has anything to do with what I said. If you're going to waffle on evidence and rebuttal and what constitutes proper grown-up debate, then practice what you preach and engage with the evidence they provided, instead of some childish response.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Embarrassing that claims of Greta’s ability to see carbon are not addressed in the same post that questions others credibility. If one studies Soviet era “denouncements” of “counter revolutionaries” one finds striking parallels with the climate alarmists “denouncement” of “deniers”. Any non conformist thought or “collaboration” with the enemy aka industry over a lifetimes work is seized upon to dismiss all the individuals views no matter their validity. It is actually quite frightening. Dismissing all Patrick’ Moore’s views because of one bull**** statement is the same as dismissing all of Greta’s pronouncements as balderdash on the grounds of her ludicrous claims to be able to see carbon.
osarusan wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » So basically you dismiss the views of a speaker you refuse to listen to? And you ask others to rebut your swear word laden not arguments? What are the “proven lies” the speaker is “putting out”? You see that’s kind of how debates/discussions work among grown ups. Rather than dismissing arguments with the “because I say so” refrain you present evidence to rebut points and diminish the credibility of the opposing argument. Otherwise one comes across as an ignorant foul mouthed zealot. SafeSurfer wrote: » Says the guy defending a person who claims to be able to see carbon ���� In one post you lament the quality of debate and lack of rebuttal, and then when the other poster provides the kind of evidence you asked for, that's your response? The same childish crap you supposedly are so against? Jesus, that's embarrassing stuff.
SafeSurfer wrote: » So basically you dismiss the views of a speaker you refuse to listen to? And you ask others to rebut your swear word laden not arguments? What are the “proven lies” the speaker is “putting out”? You see that’s kind of how debates/discussions work among grown ups. Rather than dismissing arguments with the “because I say so” refrain you present evidence to rebut points and diminish the credibility of the opposing argument. Otherwise one comes across as an ignorant foul mouthed zealot.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Says the guy defending a person who claims to be able to see carbon ����
SafeSurfer wrote: » Says the guy defending a person who claims to be able to see carbon ����
KyussB wrote: » That poster just regurgitates press releases and easily-outed propaganda from oil industry think tanks (just Google the sources...).People back it with religious fervour, with zero critical analysis and creating a cult-like echo chamber out of the thread.People don't deny this either, they just respond with lame-ass and unfounded "but you do it too!" accusations - which are pretty much an implicit admission.On the other hand of things: Variants of the Green New Deal have already hit the mainstream worldwide. The type of hysterical screeching from climate change deniers, like in this thread, has fuck all effect on that, as the GND already winning popular support - the screeching just attract a toxic echo chamber, it doesn't influence anyones opinion - all it achieves at best, is retarding the debate in a minor way.
KyussB wrote: » The Green New Deal's purpose is to save Capitalism from destroying itself, through gradual climate change - are you a Capitalist, or not? For someone who claims to be a strong Capitalist supporter, and constantly regurgitating the press releases of think tanks that claim the same - you (and they) sure as hell seem a lot more interested in letting Capitalism deliberately self-destruct, rather than preserving it. It's almost as if they don't give a toss about Capitalism at all - just about accumulating and preserving power... You also seem to think there won't be any death toll from this self-destruction, either.
KyussB wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » So basically you dismiss the views of a speaker you refuse to listen to? And you ask others to rebut your swear word laden not arguments? What are the “proven lies” the speaker is “putting out”? You see that’s kind of how debates/discussions work among grown ups. Rather than dismissing arguments with the “because I say so” refrain you present evidence to rebut points and diminish the credibility of the opposing argument. Otherwise one comes across as an ignorant foul mouthed zealot. Show me the same views from a speaker worth listening to in the first place. Tell me: What exactly are that persons arguments? Please get back to me when you finish watching the 1h 30m long video, listing all of his arguments. Instead of wasting my time and filling the thread with shite further, why don't you Google his name? This is the type of shite he's known for: During March 2015 in an interview by French investigative journalist Paul Moreira, which was first broadcast on French television station Canal+ in September 2014, Moore was asked about the safety of the herbicide glyphosate. Moore told Paul Moreira that one "could drink a whole quart of it" without any harm. When Moore was challenged to drink a glass of the weedkiller, he refused, saying "I'm not an idiot" and "I'm not stupid" before ending the interview. Monsanto, primary producers of glyphosate weedkillers under the Roundup brand, denied having retained Moore or his PR agency. The interview came shortly after the release of a World Health Organization (WHO) report adding glyphosate to a list of probable carcinogens. You can't be arsed to Google any of the sources you're busy fellating, because you don't give a toss about their credibility - you only care that they push your point of view.
KyussB wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » You dismiss the views of a founder of green peace because you don’t agree with what he says or because he is funded by some carbon crazed evil oligarchs? Uh...yes, of course :rolleyes: Who is going to waste their time watching a 1h 30m video of a known oil oligarch propagandist - known for putting out proven lies and directly working with think tanks that do this? Do you believe the words of paid/proven propagandists - i.e. are you an idiot? There's no conspiring - they are completely out in the open, funding well proven lies and propaganda, on all sorts of things. I suppose you think smoking is good for us (propaganda they produce...) - just like the way that guy thinks carbon emissions are good for us?
SafeSurfer wrote: » You dismiss the views of a founder of green peace because you don’t agree with what he says or because he is funded by some carbon crazed evil oligarchs?
Pa ElGrande wrote: » What about the mortality risk of building your socialist utopia? How many more people deaths are acceptable to you in pursuit of your puritanical ideology?
KyussB wrote: » On the other hand of things: Variants of the Green New Deal have already hit the mainstream worldwide. The type of hysterical screeching from climate change deniers, like in this thread, has fuck all effect on that, as the GND already winning popular support - the screeching just attract a toxic echo chamber, it doesn't influence anyones opinion - all it achieves at best, is retarding the debate in a minor way.
Similarly, environmentalists boast that households in the United Kingdom have reduced their electricity consumption by almost 10 per cent since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a 50% increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of renewables from 1.8% to 4.6%. The poor, no surprise, have reduced their consumption by much more than 10 per cent, whereas the rich have not reduced theirs at all. Over the past five years, heating a UK home has become 63 per cent more expensive, while real wages have declined. Some 17 per cent of households are now energy poor – that is, they have to spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy; and, because elderly people are typically poorer, about a quarter of their households are energy poor. Deprived pensioners burn old books to keep warm, because they are cheaper than coal, they ride on heated buses all day, and a third leave part of their homes cold.source
Exposure to either cold or heat or a large variation in temperature was associated with increased mortality risk in Australia, but population adaptation appeared to have not occurred in most cities studied. Most of the temperature-induced deaths were attributable to cold, and contributions from temperature variability were greater than that from heat. Our findings highlight that, in addition to heat and cold, temperature variability needs to be considered in assessing and projecting the health impacts of climate change.source
There were 6,404 deaths recorded in the north over the winter of 2017/18 - 1,500 more than expected. This was a huge jump from the 960 and 640 the previous two winters. Nisra's new Excess Winter Mortality shows the difference between the actual and expected numbers of deaths in the four month period from December to March. Similar peaks have been seen in previous years. There were 1,230 in 1981/82 and 1,200 in 1975/76. Of the 1,500 excess deaths in 2017/18, there were 1,420 among people aged 65 and over. The Nisra statistics also showed most occurred in the over-85s.source
KyussB wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Are the swear words to stress a point or an indication of a restricted vocabulary? No they're generously placed there, purely so that you to have something to turn to when you lack of any other argument/rebuttal.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Are the swear words to stress a point or an indication of a restricted vocabulary?
KyussB wrote: » What 'research'? It's a fucking hour and a half long YouTube video of some speech, from a known propagandist/bullshitter. Why don't you fucking watch it and rebut it then? Oh wait...it agrees with your side of the argument, so you're perfectly fine with ignoring conflicts of interests and known bad-faith-propaganda, then.
KyussB wrote: » Oh look, yet another propagandist with direct ties to the Libertarian oil-oligarch think tank network, including think tanks with a seasoned history of denial of the negative health effects of smokng...
KyussB wrote: » Oh look, another propaganda article sourced from another oil-industry-aligned think-tank (which was gradually uncovered despite their attempts to hide that funding/influence) - why are the zealots not rushing to thank that post?
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore gives a keynote address to the Economic Education Association of Alberta's 6th annual "Freedom School" conference, on "Things that Matter: An Agenda for Alberta", about changing the world by speaking the truth - in this case about the science, policy and politics of man-made global warming
suicide_circus wrote: » The correct term for those who deny the CLIMATE EMERGENCY is "heretic". Any attempt to query the severity of the CLIMATE EMERGENCY is "blasphemy".
Pa ElGrande wrote: » The conspiracy theorists on this thread are those promoting alarmism aka catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), despite decades of abusing the science to predict impending doom nothing of the sort has happened and the further back their predictions go the more out of line with reality they are. This alarmism is a fundamental problem for Greta Thunberg and those who back her, she is destroying the credibility of those around her which is why you see the recent attempts at damage limitation that I highlighted above.GLOBAL WARMING and the irrelevance of science Richard Lindzen
jackboy wrote: » The part about climate activism being like a religion is certainly true. How often we have seen religious language such as 'deniers' in this thread.
Matt Barrett wrote: » You could say the same in regard to flat earthers. They deny it's round like a globe. Is believing the world is a globe because science, like a religion too? I'll jump in for the loonies: Columbusts : People who believe the world is round.
The implausibility or even outright silliness through which global warming be-came global warming catastrophism is so extensive that one hardly knows where to begin. It is crucial to emphasise catastrophism because the situation is made even more incoherent by the intentional conflation of simple basic results that are widely agreed upon, but which have no catastrophic implications, with catastrophism itself. Currently, there really is quite a lot of basic agreement within the climate science world: climate change exists there has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended around the beginning of the 19th century (well before emissions are regarded as contributing significantly) human emissions can contribute to climate change levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been increasing. None of this is controversial and none of this actually implies alarm. However, in the policy world, as emerges from virtually any reading of the current political discourse and its attendant media coverage, the innocuous agreement is taken to be equivalent (with essentially no support from observations, theory or even models) to rampant catastrophism.there is more
jackboy wrote: » As I said, with climate activists, the ‘denier’ thing dominates.
Matt Barrett wrote: » I take it you're not a flat earther. They have a lot of the same rhetoric and conspiracy theories as climate change deniers.
jackboy wrote: » The small few debates I have experienced about flat earthers have not resorted to calling them 'deniers'. Instead, it usually involved people explaining why they were wrong, from a scientific point of view. The majority of climate activists do not do this, the 'denier' thing dominates.
The Flat Earth Society values scientific integrity and demands direct, conclusive, and repeatable evidence that our Earth is a globe.https://www.tfes.org/
There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort. There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy#Motive_of_the_Conspiracy
