ill be dead before drastic shit happens to me. im not having any children because no one will mate with me so I give two fucks about this gay Earth.
Kointo said:
That's my very point "no vested interests". But the climate scam is a colossal money swindle.
I don't think you clicked the link I pasted earlier.
Grotesque said:
FeminismsCancer said:
Yes, they will most likely profit off of it.
Well, if it's not real, that means either
A). the majority of climate scientists are wrong
or
B). the majority of climate scientists are evil villains
since neither sounds realistic, I'll go ahead and appeal both to consensus and authority and say something is going wrong and it's chiefly anthropogenic
A). the majority of climate scientists are wrong
or
B). the majority of climate scientists are evil villains
since neither sounds realistic, I'll go ahead and appeal both to consensus and authority and say something is going wrong and it's chiefly anthropogenic
A Good Friend said:
The 97% of scientists agree meme is itself a lie.
But it's not easy for scientists to openly speak up against it or they risk losing their job.
FeminismsCancer said:
If the scientists that disagree are in the majority, who would fire them?
what you mean by hoax?
nausea said:
Fake news
A Good Friend said:
OK you seem to believe that govs and media never lie. Stay blue pilled then lol
FeminismsCancer said:
nice argument, doesn't really approach an answer, though
A Good Friend said:nice argument, doesn't really approach an answer, though
Strange how defensive people get on this climate scam.
Pretty sure it'd be easier to convince this board that 9/11 was an inside job or something.
Kinda shows how powerful the daily MSM brainwashing is to make you swallow that lie.
FeminismsCancer said:
>OK you seem to believe that govs and media never lie. Stay blue pilled then lol
haha, yeah, I sure did get defensive alright. Fantastic answer to my original question, btw.
A Good Friend said:
lol
I think the best explanation of it I've seen is from former Apollo Astronaut and Geologist Dr Harrison Schmitt. He actually doesn't believe in human caused climate change at all. What he does say is that most of the people involved in the green agenda are the same people that were pushing Soviet Communism not that long ago and they see it as a way to get their agenda of increased state control and central planning implemented. Which to be honest will probably have disastrous consequences because the government can't do anything. Like wise recently someone also summed up Londons mayor Saddiq Khan who wages all out war against diesel vehicles and wood burning heaters while thinking its "perfectly acceptable" to have to live with daily suicide bombings. They said - "Remember. Before they were Greens they were Reds!"
I'm sure we are warming the planet and its very bad because even if everyone in the west went 0 emission tomorrow it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference as China and India industrialise.
New technology and artificially cooling the planet and managing the climate is the only real hope to minimise the damage. The more energy a civilisation produces the more capabilities they have, we're Type 0.7 on the Kardashev scale, we will be a full fledged type 1 within a century. My guess is deploying large shades into solar orbit between the earth and the sun could reduce solar flux and minimise the warming while certain industrial processes might well start to remove carbon from the atmosphere and use it for certain industrial processes. Seeding the oceans to increase plankton growth and blasting aerosols into the upper atmosphere to increase the reflectivity of clouds might also work.
I'm sure we are warming the planet and its very bad because even if everyone in the west went 0 emission tomorrow it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference as China and India industrialise.
New technology and artificially cooling the planet and managing the climate is the only real hope to minimise the damage. The more energy a civilisation produces the more capabilities they have, we're Type 0.7 on the Kardashev scale, we will be a full fledged type 1 within a century. My guess is deploying large shades into solar orbit between the earth and the sun could reduce solar flux and minimise the warming while certain industrial processes might well start to remove carbon from the atmosphere and use it for certain industrial processes. Seeding the oceans to increase plankton growth and blasting aerosols into the upper atmosphere to increase the reflectivity of clouds might also work.
A Good Friend said:
You sneer and chuckle as if I were the dumb one here but you're the one blindly accepting the official narrative without the slightest amount of skepticism.
Next time somebody sneers at me with science said it so I believe it bro, remember that money corrupts absolutely everyone and govs only fund studies that go their way.
Not related to the climate hoax directly but illustrates the problem in general:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/academic-science-hopelessly-corrupt/
I respect a lot of meteorologists, but 100% of them are gov't employed or at least have constant training by the gov't. While they may not be malfeasant, there is always an agenda at work.
nothing a nuclear holocaust could not take care of anyway
nausea said:
You do realize I was joking with the Jewish statement, right?
Winged Hussar said:
Yes, but I responded as if you were serious.
Bugger off then.
Winged Hussar said:
Quote the posts you reply to bugger.
Too lazy, using quick reply
FeminismsCancer said:
I asked you one question. So far, your only response has been a flowery avalanche of /pol/ buzzwords. If you need me to be some blue-pilled leftist faggot for your argument to hold water, it may just be a shitty argument.
Why, if the consensus among climate scientists is that climate change is bullshit, would they fear losing their jobs?
The government? An evil shadow government pushing climate change why, exactly? Because it's profitable? I can assure you, restrictions on fossil fuel consumption is not in the best interest of the powers that be.
It's what is called an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is therefore on the claimant. I shouldn't have to rework the question until I get something other than the standard litany of batshit YouTube pseudoscience.
Again, why would the majority of climate scientists fear retribution if they largely agree?
Why would the government punish climate scientists whose data would vindicate the burning of fossil fuels?
You couldn't have used a worse example than Flint.
Bad science wasn't at fault, nor corrupt government. We elected an incompetent city council, one with a murderer and another convict. Flint is a city where the IQ has been spiked into the ground over the past 30 years. When I was a boy, we were warned never to eat fish we caught out of the Flint river. Science can't stand up to these levels of retardation. So they bring in Darnell Early to make things worse. The water crisis was just a stepping stone to the destruction of my home town due to reduction to the third-world mean. It's going to happen everywhere eventually, but I've had a front row seat to Flint.
Flint was denied grants for all the right reasons; Because the shitty subhuman population is just going to smoke crack and get their nails done. The water crisis was a result of third-world retardation thrown at first-world systems. Next is the power grid, I'm sure.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
