Pepe's Climate Thread

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sure the brainwashed children playing in the streets while they should be at school are great critical thinkers. I'm sure the imbeciles pouring fake blood over buildings are great critical thinkers. I'm sure the guy lying under a fake hearse crying like a maniac is a great critical thinker.

To be clear,
I never suggested that it was.


We are in agreement.


Incorrect.
I think you have just provided an "Own Goal" with that comment.
You are absolutely in no position to make such an assertion,
And your usage of the term "good-quality" is simply subjective.


By your custom made definition perhaps, but not the way I use it:
I am a sceptic in the sense that I am sceptical about human motives.
I doubt the opinions of people who are incapable, or are not inclined to use critical thinking.
I doubt people who embrace groupthink to service their emotional needs.
I am inclined to "question" rather than blindly accept what is said, particularly in a political context,
And I am very aware of the perversion of truth/the-facts through the principle of: "Lies, damn lies and statistics."

You are aware that not everyone has "integrity"?
You are aware that there are "quality" (your word, not mine) critical thinkers who disagree with what is being said in regards to mankind being totally responsible for climate change?
Are you also aware of the principle of employing "Useful Idiots" to attain a goal?


I beg your pardon?
Are you applying this definition of scepticism to me?
I have a sceptical attitude rather than a defensive one.
I.E. "Give me a better answer and I will listen."
I have said a number of times I can't see why mankind can't be affecting the climate.
But I have also mentioned that I am not a catastrophist.
I am interested in the Truth, no matter where it may lie.
I am not defending an anti-man-made-climate-change position
You may be projecting your mindset onto me. <shrug>



Why are you telling me this?
This has no relevance to my position.

It should also be about open discussion but it isn't since the advocates demand that "the science is proven" which it simply is not.



In your mind, and a very arrogant position, may I add?
Denying the Truth that there are "quality" critical thinkers who disagree with your point of view does you little credit.



"In other words, they're the experts.", you say.
So you dispute the position regarding the infamous 97% figure.
I hope you don't consider the "citizen scientists" as "experts".
Have you investigated the claim?
Have you any evidence that only bonafide climate scientists where involved?
Could you provide some if you do?
And can you verify that the evidence is bonafide rather than a "Truth" created to serve a narrative?

You see,
I am a true sceptic when it comes to a humanity which embraces corruption so easily.

BTW, you also had a closed mind when it came to historic revisionism.

They critically damage their cause by their virtue signalling,
But they lack the intelligence/wisdom to realise what they are doing.

This does not say that Climate change is not happening. No, it is saying that there may be a small reduction of temperatures that will give some extra time to do something, while making it super clear that it will do little to actually compensate human made climate change, and can be expected the reverse is likely to happen in the future where instead of being colder it will be the other direction. If anything it is a warning not to be too surprised by world temperatures not being as high in a future period, but not be mistaken that climate change is not happening, and if course is not corrected things could get much worse.

Damn,
Snap out of it!
I'm *not* a climate change "denier".

Do you actually think I didn't appreciate the significance of the section I posted and you re-quoted? <sigh>
I posted the entire section, erm, in its entirety for a reason.
I am spreading lies and deception.
Hang on, that isn't right.
Ah, yes,
I meant to say, I am disseminating information, which is what I do.

"Truth Seeker" ----> Moi.

You have a fixation on me that is scary.
What do I have to do or say to get you off my butt!

<kiss kiss>

Then actually give your takeaway from an article rather than simply post it. Remember what I said about what I have seen of you simply linking something rather than saying what you think it means, like are afraid? How am I meant to know what you are saying when you just paste someone's words and then respond after someone says something about it? This is a Politics, Philosophy and Religion section of a forum, not a link random news articles that you find interesting.

Look, I am not meaning to come across as aggressive and attacking you. I am sure that you like to think of yourself as a big thinker that finds the truth of a matter. But above you just post articles, one being about the economic requirements of clean energy in resources, which as far as I know you want to bring it up to show clean energy as economically infeasible. And an article about forecasts of possible drop in global temperatures, which as far as I know is you saying there is evidence against global warming, like it is equitable to climate change.

Not like it is your only source, but sometimes you link the foulest news sources like Breitbart, and take it as a good take on something like a hit piece against a climate activist. I have difficulty making heads of what you post because it feels like you default so often to saying you are joking, you make it seem ridiculous that someone saw you in such a critical way and just appoint yourself the title of truth seeker. It isn't like I am humorous, I am one of the most sarcastic people I know, but half the time I don't know whether you have a conservative or progressive point of view.

Sorry if my posts have felt like harassment. I did not take well when you "agreed" with me that I was a dumb kid in my late 20s, defaulting that you must be right. I will discuss views after I know what your point is on them.

Erm,
No.

So we understand each other:
"You have been weighed,
You have been measured,
And you have been found wanting.
Welcome to the new world."

https://youtu.be/Py-97WfTLTw

Editorial (if I may):

The "progressive"/Labor opposition leader of Australia:
Is he embracing common sense,
Is he being pragmatic,
Is he engaging in politics,
Or is it a bit of all of the above?

Personally speaking (if I may),
I am impressed.

OMG, it's December 29th, 2019! We have only two days left before complete societal collapse!!

News report from 2004:


Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

First published on Sat 21 Feb 2004 20.33 EST

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents....

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... heobserver

I'd better put the heating up.

Nice talking with you, friend. Hope you'll post again after the spring thaw.

I'll do my best amid the water shortages, famine, pestilence and of course climate refugees zombies.