Why is being skeptical about global warming considered inquisition-era blasphemy with everyone? I don't deny that global warming exists, I just hate this fucking McCarthyistic horseshit that instantly shames on anyone who has any conflicting logic or evidence.
Also, they never give a solution to the problem at hand, or acknowledge that environmentalism is a luxury of the rich or is a greater issue in the third world. Or how they can supply the entire world with solar panels, or wind turbines that can cause trillions of dollars in investment.
Or why do these people never put their money where their mouth is. It's always some stupid under 20 year old who drives to lunch everyday to get McDonalds or Chipoltle with their shitty iphones born into a lap of luxury with a house with consistent energy source all their life. Or some pot smoking 50 year old leftist hippie hubris cunt who drives an electric car (because that saves the environment, a car fueled by electricity from coal) who is a worthless grateful dead listening asshole, or some millionaire with a 10,000 acre mansion(non-green energy powered) and private jets. Go live in the third world and complain about non-renewable energy
God damnit I hate this hypocrisy and virtue signaling. People say, "Climate deniers are funded by muh corporations maaaaan", I think it's a fantastic possibility that these climate change crusaders are being manipulated by corporations that create green energy, so they can fear people in buying their expensive and less efficient energy sources. Ever consider that possibility? Just look at the thousands of movies and propaganda that install fear, even schools are teaching kids that the US is going to be engulfed by a 50,000 foot tidal wave or thrown into an ice age where we'll all die.
I despise this leftist horseshit, another example of fear and bullying tactics to plow their agendas on people, and I'm not even a strong right-winger either. But leftism disgusts me.
Mostly due to the fact that it is the current scientific consensus. Maybe the lack of refutations that are peer-reviewed and hold weight also contributes to it
William Torres
because liars and frauds do not like their con being exposed.
Charles Taylor
>Mostly due to the fact that it is the current scientific consensus. >Maybe the lack of refutations that are peer-reviewed and hold weight also contributes to it
So science by major opinion? That is not science. Also Peer review is a total scam.
Xavier Brown
Okay I get that as I said that I'm not denying any evidence that climate change exists. But there is conflicting evidence on the specifics that should be discussed, and that's the point I'm driving home here.
Point is, what is the solution to all of this? Because a "climate change denier" doesn't want government policy or action to make us stop driving cars or have no choice in energy sources. They don't see green energy as a majority energy source as a realistic possibility.
Henry Mitchell
The "97% of scientists think it's real" diatribe is false or incredibly misleading too.
I don't care what a majority opinion thinks either, I care about the argument delivered by the person themselves about their knowledge and what we should do about the problem at hand. I'm not devaluing any "scientist" opinion either, I think it's a logical fallacy to site that as the basis of your argument
Lucas Roberts
...
Thomas Morgan
Global warming is real.
What cause humans have is up for debate. It is a fact that we were coming to the end of an ice age. It is a fact that in ages past, it was proven that there are warm and cold spells....Some events are tied to the earth's 20k year wobble.
Acting like the earth is a solid and predictable entity is the first mistake in their logic. The earth was getting warmer, and ice was melting, as it has a few times before. Humans had no impact on that. We just happen to be here to witness it, and assume that every reaction is because of our actions.
They do want you to feel guilt. I know I don't. I love to cook over charcoal and wood chunks. The carbon footprint for a few hamburgers is astounding. I don't care one bit. The burgers are stupendous.
Jack Bell
If climate change is as catastrophic as they say we can't stop it without completely shutting down all of civilization. If it isn't as bad as they say then there's nothing to worry about.
It's a third world problem. Oh no, the ocean goes up a bit and the weather changes. It's a third world and European problem. They'll get fucked by refugees and America will endure.
Ryan Jones
Fuck anybody who voices an opinion going against the scientific consensus, for that's what it is, unless they've done enough hard work studying the science to understand it themselves. I'm all for skepticism, and consider myself a rather extreme skeptic myself. But to voice an opinion without really having any clue, and knowing that you don't have a clue, is dishonest. And being intellectually dishonest is the mark of a fraud and there's no room for fraud's in an enlightened society. Really the lowest level of person imaginable.
Liam Long
The "purpose" of climate change was suppose to form the mechanism to create a new global currency. Just as in 1913, it was necessary to create an income tax law same year as federal reserve act, because it is the income tax that allows debt to be financed, which results in making debt-based currency viable.
Climate change was meant to be same thing. You can't have an international income tax (2 problems with that, one is lacking global gov framework, and second most nations already have income tax). So, the goal was to choose 'carbon emissions' to be the metric for how it was funded...obviously a huge benefit is that 'carbon emissions' serve as a nice proxy for economic output, therefore richer nations would have more carbon output, etc.
Aaron Brown
that's some nice boomerposting lol You know why they do it, they don't know any better. You also know (((who)))'s behind it.
Daniel Smith
this is one really retarded post see what about the manipulation of climate change data? you don't need to know anything about temperature or the earth to know something is up
Adam Thompson
>is dishonest that's quite the leap m8. Care to expound on what you mean? Where do we draw the line of who's qualified and who isn't? And Science isn't a free enterprise, what if someone "stacks the team" so to speak and puts in people with the qualifications but not the honesty?
Anthony Reyes
Climate change gives more power to the .01 percent.
Rich mans trick
Agenda 21
Cooper Myers
Because it isn't science. It's politics. Club of Rome in the 70s was talking about faking global warming to create cause for global government.
Adam Long
Amen OP. Highly recommended this informational video on climate engineering. I've red pilled a few friends with it.
to be fair, climate science is a bit more nuanced then one may think, and you don't often see things like "this is 100% certain" or "New ice age in 12.45 years". The real problems is the way it's reported on by brainlets with no formal science education who became experts all over sudden.
Gavin Rivera
(((They))) tell us the problem is whites. The solution is glassing India and China. Why the fuck should we tolerate them recklessly polluting an environment we share?
Jaxon Nguyen
You're some provocateur, ain't ya? Who's been brow-beating you? You're full of shit.
Charles Turner
It's real but you're being Jew'd on the truth behind it all.
Green House gases have been present time and time again and the planet has recovered from Nuclear Blasts, CO2/Ash in the atmosphere from super volcanoes/asteroids.
Truth is, there's more radiation penetrating the magnetic sphere and it will continue for a good amount of time as our solar system enters a higher energy region of the galaxy.
CLIMATE CHANGE/PLANETARY CHANGE IS ALMOST ALL ASTROPHYSICAL WITH VERY LITTLE BEING BIOSPHERE ENVIRONMENTAL.
The climate change carbon tax hoax is there to keep eyes away from our weather manipulation technology. It all started back in the Vietnam War with Project Popeye and it is just more widespread and more disruptive. More countries have the tech now and the constant tampering with our environment is irrevocably changing thing. But you can steer the world towards new age feudalism and one world government by blaming the common Joes and telling them only an all powerful bureaucracy and taxes can solve the issue they started.
Isaac Cooper
You forgot to note that we're entering a new phase of activity for our sun and our planet's magnetic field is weakening. That means space weather from the sun has a bigger effect on it.
Wyatt Campbell
Climate change are way way more real than white genocide
Tyler Phillips
I'm going to take the opposing side to yours: I think to call them deniers isn't a slur, it's a very precise description. If you just have a look around what the people in question say (in this very thread for example), almost invariably it comes down to "the scientists are lying/conspiring/inventing data".
Since that's a key characteristic common to all unfalsifiable pseudo-sciences (anti-vaxxers, creationists, chemtrails, flat-earthers, etc.), it's correct to call them deniers. To label them as "skeptics" would mean to tarnish the good name of skepticism - which I'm not prepared to do.
Noah Young
Just clever word play. 97% of scientists are right. Climate change IS real. But the statement is about as useful as saying 97% of scientists think weather is real.
Arguments over the actual speed of it, if humans are effecting it and how much so are always muddied by “much conspiracy” straw men.
What statement are you trying to make exactly? I don’t deny human caused climate change. Does not mean i don’t hate the way it’s discussed. And thanks for the ad homien, you prove my point nicely.
besides, climate 'scientists' don't behave or talk like scientists at all, they are 200% in activist mode. it is revoltingly obvious, climate science is just a meme at this point
Nicholas Peterson
Other planets are changing faster than Earth - in the first link. 88 in your post number. Soros' soy-boi, be my guest and kys today. >I don’t deny human caused climate change. you prove my point nicely
Problem is, there are a lot of scientists who go against the main narrative but obviously it has to be (((reviewed))) first.
Climate change is one of the most natural things on earth and its been happening almost constantly since earth existed. This isnt even close to the most drastic change either.
My question is why is THIS one cause by humans but all of the thousands of instances of climate change in the past were "just natural"
Daniel Wilson
dumb goyim doing the bidding of their masters as always. it's all about moving all industry to the developing world. it's climate change, goyim! that's why we're cutting your country of its industry and moving it to china!
Mason Barnes
because there is vested interest behind the narrative
Luke Gomez
I don't get how this is supposed to help your case. In the very first search result, the actual quote is given:
>In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics[sic] and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.
so let's take the very first entry on the peer-review list as an example. The most apparent question you have to ask is What do they mean with "this" in "if we can find documentary evidence of this". And it becomes obvious when you actually read the e-mail exchange (which I have done). They refer back to the publishing of the Douglass et al. and Soon & Baliunas papers in GRL, which was a notoriously bad paper (flawed methodology, incorrect statistics, fallacious reasoning etc.). Now because James Saiers allowed the publishing of embarrassingly bad papers, while (according to Tom Wigley), trying to keep otherwise acceptable papers from being published. So he suggests that they should "record their experiences with Saiers" and look for "a clear body of evidence that something is amiss", so it can be taken through official. "proper channels" at the American Geophysical Union.
So they were concerned that an editor at GRL was selectively publishing nonsense while keeping out good papers - and they tried to find hard evidence of it to make an official complaint. I fail to see anything sinister in that.
Ayden Williams
Oy vey The stupid goys are getting more stupid.
Caleb Morgan
Some of you might meme on Joe Rogan but listen to what his guest has to say about it
watches joe rogan and alex jones. what a good goy.
Zachary Gray
tedious rationalization, faggot. shows clearly an activist us v. them mindset, very unscientific naturally, we're the righteous ones, of course, and justified in defending a self serving peer review cartell.... >notoriously bad paper that is the usual standard in climate scientism
>I fail to see anything sinister in that. >I fail to see sounds right
Tyler Collins
I said listen to his guest you idiot.
Joe is ignorant on some topics but that doesnt make him a jewish puppet lmao
Evan Nguyen
Will have a watch.
It can be both humans and other factors stupid. It’s retarded to think humans don’t effect the environment as is thinking the cause is only humans.
Grayson Perez
so you can present a single sentence from a lengthy e-mail exchange and when someone comes around to actually explaining what the context are and they are even talking about - then that's 'tedious rationalization' and 'unscientific'. I think anyone can see what's going on here.
I'm 100% certain that you have no idea what the Douglass and Soon & Baliunas papers are, but as long as people like think they have *anything* they can point to, they will run with it forever.
Luis Powell
rogan is probably a stoner, so he can be a bit slow-whitted at times
Jacob Diaz
the sentence speaks for itself, anyone can see that it is about activism in favour of a particular narrative doesn't even matter what ze deal with Soon & Baliunas in particular
>I'm 100% certain ah, there is your problem
Samuel Peterson
I maintain that background, context and demonstrably incorrect papers matter. You seem to think that it doesn't. But then again - so you would.
what, are you advocating the retraction of 97% of climate scientism papers now? way to go, faggot. start with mann's drivel
Jayden Bell
There we are then. Call it what you will, it's not skepticism.
Leo Russell
Because if we put more CO2 in the atmosphere, which we are doing, it gets warmer.
The science has been known for over 100 years and is not in dispute.
Juan Carter
no, it is just to refuse > confirmation bias for whatever opportunistic reason > snooping and data dredging rampant in 'peer reviewed' climate scientism publications
yes, here we are, the adjustocene is upon us indeed
Luke Bailey
Yeah it's become less about solving the issue and more about pinching money out of you for the le greater good. Give us real progress towards getting rid of this problem. If solar panels and other memegreen can REALLY power whole cities and areas efficiently I'd be for it but at this rate I have my doubts.
Jaxson Baker
So who put all the CO2 in the air before man industrialized, you know when temperatures were hotter?
Jace Morris
Argumentum ad populum: "People believe it so it's true"
Jose Mitchell
mainly arc volcanism
Jason Wilson
(((They))) fear not the Chink or the Poo as they're not what they consider dangerous, both nations of large populations have been ruled with an iron fist for centuries. They fear individualism and the legal rights of free men, there's no power over them, only the power of deceit and illusion.
