Pepe's Climate Thread

Post Reply New Topic

I concur.

2 points:

1. Those who firmly believe in extensive man-made-climate-change have excuses for everything/k and will rationalise any anomalies to their narrative, or so it seems.
The "Beast from the East" was also due to "Global Warming", "apparently".
Better minds than mine have pointed this out.

2. In America, I believe Trump, a conservative, was responsible for the lowering of the tax scale to stimulate business.
I believe left-leaning/socialistic individuals are the ones who want to increase taxes to homogenise/redistribute wealth throughout society.
I don't know what the situation is in the UK but I suspect the same applies.

1. Climate change deniers can always make things up and then just dismiss the explanation out of hand. If you're interested in truth then doesn't the existence of answers provide some help with that? And of course there's a difference between science and how common people react to the science - it's not sensible to suggest that scientists are lying just because the XR activist got the facts wrong.

2. So the argument is that government-funded climate scientists are lying about global warming in order to give the government an excuse to raise taxes. The suggestion being that scientists are only finding the results they are because that's what their paymasters want, not because they're true. But the government doesn't want to raise taxes, and would much rather cut them or use the money pledged for decarbonisation on vote-winning policies like health, so surely the scientists should be finding that climate change isn't real?

No one denies climate change. People are rightly sceptical about the man made global warming hoax and the end of days style conspiracy theory scare stories. WE HAVE 11 YEARS. Only trouble being that we had '11 years' in 1989


https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

And yet nobody can name the author of the hoax, which is really strange, since all you have to do is find the first scientist to say whatever it is you think is a hoax. It should take under 10 minutes.

Was it Eunice Newton Foote?
John Tyndall?
Svante Arrhenius (Greta Thunberg's distant cousin)?
G. S. Callendar?
Charles Keeling?
Gilbert Plass?

There doesn't need to be an author so cut the strawman arguments.

The UN is part of it as I showed in the article. Al Gore made a fortune with with partner David Blood (Blood & Gore). Gore is a billionaire along with Bill Gates who both support it. As does Soros.

Oh, yes there does. If it's a hoax, there was someone who cooked up the hoax.
And finding his name should take under 10 minutes. There's a reason why scientific journals are organized and indexed in particular ways/

It's irrelevant. The hoax is being pushed and it's a hoax. I don't care who first thought of it.

"It's irrelevant"

How's it irrelevant? A hoax is an attempt by a human to deceive other humans.
If global warming is a hoax, then a specific human started it. And it is trivially easy to figure out his name.

And yet nobody ever does. For 30 years right wingers have been calling it a hoax, and not doing what should take 10 minutes.

Doesn't that strike you as odd?

It could have been a scientific theory by some nobody that gradually manifested. It was once 'global cooling' we were meant to be worried about. Then global warming, but when the predictions missed terribly it turned into "climate change" where you can't go wrong. Any kind of weather can be put down to the general population and we can all pay more taxes. I've given you plenty of names that are involved in this scam.

But it isn't. It's a scientific theory developed by hundreds of scientists over the course of 150 years, using as a starting point the discovery of infrared light in 1790 and spectral absorption lines in the 1810s. These scientists are not nobodies. John Tyndall's work made it possible for the Wright brothers to try flying in higher altitudes. Svante Arrhenius's work is all over the place. G.S. Callendar is the reason the Allies won the Battle of Britain.

And if it's a hoax, one of these people was the hoaxer. It should take under 10 minutes to figure out who. And nobody ever does.

You're not even responding to my posts.

The main point is that the IPCC's solutions don't solve anything. They just mean we all pay more money for an unproven theory.

My point is that you are calling it a hoax, even though you can't even name the person you're slandering.

Specific individuals did the groundwork behind the discovery that CO2 warms the earth.
Specific individuals are being slandered by those who call it a hoax.

Evidently, there are some less sophisticated sceptics, lacking ethical integrity, who do just that.

However,
There are man-made-climate-change "Truth deniers" who do the same thing.

The following is pretty basic:
Not "all people are created equally" in terms of intellectual integrity, acuity/acumen and not all people have a great deal of emotional discipline.
To suggest there is a binary in regards to those involving themselves in the climate change mass-debate is clearly Reductio ad absurdum.

I personally don't believe just any "truths".
The "truths" I am interested in are the ones which have validity and are not fabricated to serve a narrative.
I was young and dumb too at one stage,
But,
I don't believe in everything/k that comes my way these days now that I have considerable life experience under my belt.



I'd be surprised if any non-citizen pretend scientists (I.E. actual climate scientists) give any credence to XR.

The implied premise of your statement seems to be that "scientists" never lie,
And that people in positions of power are never corrupt.
If so, I dispute that assumption/assertion/promulgation absolutely/emphatically.


Not at all.
That is a rather binary position to take.
Rather, in my eyes, it is one consideration which may explain the apparent "fudging" of statistics.

Some see a connection between the man-made-climate-change issue and socialistic machinations.
I am keeping an open mind.

BTW, The 97% consensus figure is questionable when drilled into.
This seems to be another case of presenting a "truth" that has been *created* to support a narrative, based on what I have researched.
I am open-minded on this at this stage, being the perpetual sceptic that I am.

I am no expert in socialist/communist politics but I think it fair to say that wealth distribution is a major focus involving leftwing politics.
I think this is a given.

The information outlets I use and trust to a significant degree have indicated that leftwing groups have admitted directly and indirectly that the climate change question suits their leftwing agenda.


Once again you are providing a binary.
Apparently there is significant "verballing" of what scientists are saying and reporting.
No, I see no evidence of total collusion.

However,
Peter Ridd is a good example of someone who defies the easiest path to take.
I believe he has openly stated that certain modes of political thinking are viewed more favourably than others,
And "diversity of thought" is actively and vigorously discouraged as can be seen in his court case with James Cook University in Australia.

This has been covered many times by many people in many areas.
Even those participating in government-funded grants, or are vying to attain one, have openly admitted the advantages of favouring a certain political leaning.

Incidentally, this sycophantic behaviour can be seen in the education system.
Providing a paper which is sympathetic to the viewpoint of some academics/teachers can/have produced better grades.

This very basic stuff and is in the social mainstream.
I would find it hard to believe that many people are unaware of how the system works.
I am sure you have come across this sort of conversation.

In conclusion:

Scepticism is not a dirty word.
"Don't you believe what you've seen and you've heard.
But perhaps "ego" is,
With its ability to corrupt the Truth through emotional needs.

Scientific methodology is integral/dependant on scepticism,
And those who would deny the employment of critical thinking are servicing something other than the quest for: "Truth, justice and all that stuff."

Freedom of speech and freedom of thought in a community is the hallmark of an individualistic society and the absence of this is indicative of a groupthink embracing collectivist social paradigm.

"Truth" is something not to be feared.
It is something to be respected and embraced.

And, finally: Down with "Truth deniers"!
Vive la liberté and diversity of thought!

Critical thinking isn't about giving credence to things just because they go against mainstream thinking. Critical thinking is about evaluating a position, looking at its strengths and weaknesses, the evidence that supports it, any evidence that contradicts it, and the strengths and weaknesses of other positions.

Obviously not everyone who believes in climate change has engaged in good-quality critical thinking on the subject. However, everyone who has engaged in good-quality critical thinking on the subject believes in climate change.

People who don't believe in climate change are very rarely "sceptics", because that implies a level of engagement with the evidence that they have not attempted. They don't read scientific publications. They don't read the work of climate scientists. They don't check whether the things they have been told are true. They don't look for evidence that contradicts their beliefs, and they don't evaluate the evidence that supports their beliefs. Scepticism isn't about being contrary and treating all views as equally valid, it is about rigour, empiricism, and integrity, and above all else a dogged determination to get at the truth.

In the climate debate, the question isn't "is the world warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?". There is a huge amount of evidence that it is, and no good reason to think that it isn't. The questions are questions of degree. The true climate change sceptics are people who accept that the world is getting hotter due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but disagree on what this means for rainfall patterns in the Sahel, or extreme weather events in the Pacific region, or the gulf stream. They're the people researching methane emissions from reservoirs, or the impact of warmer winters upon migratory birds, or the ratios of oxygen isotopes in ice cores. They're the people advancing the discussion and looking to learn more about the world. They're the people who comprehensively research a topic before adding their findings to it, and can explain how their findings fit with the wider body of research. In other words, they're the experts.

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.