The big issue of our time: Climate Change

Why do you speak in terms of belief and who you should believe? Isn't this a fact, like the first law of thermodynamics? If so, then why the need to believe in this?

english is not my native language hence my wrong usage of word "belief"
but you get the point, no?

How is it a proven fact if (a) there is dispute (no one disputes the laws of thermodynamics), and (b) you spoke above about believing in this or that?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

so, if 97% of scientific community agrees on the findings, we can safely say global climate change is a fact

i havent noticed any dispute among the reputable scientists, that is, scientists that are actually relevant

The rapper?

oh you

You do realize that climate and weather aren't the same thing?

my mistake, i meant climate
 
Look at the report and others. The predictions are that dire, I'm not making this up. Don't take my word for it, read what experts have to say.

So, do you only support that it's happening and don't think it's a big deal?

Climate change/global warming predictions have pretty much all been inaccurate thus far. That's why some people are skeptical of some of the findings. A lack of predictive success and an inability to falsify "climate change", as well as rampant political bias and number fudging makes some people skeptical and with good reason.
 
My point was that it seems as though you are talking about the weather in your area as proof of changes in the climate.

floods are now a standard, winters are either extremely short and mild or short and with lot of snowfall, summers are bitching hot and dry

ofc all of this wasnt unusual 20-30 and more years ago, whats unusual is the rate at which all of this is happening
its now on yearly basis

what am i to deduct of that?
 
floods are now a standard, winters are either extremely short and mild or short and with lot of snowfall, summers are bitching hot and dry

ofc all of this wasnt unusual 20-30 and more years ago, whats unusual is the rate at which all of this is happening
its now on yearly basis

what am i to deduct of that?

I'm not sure where you live and what effects your local weather. Here in the states - La Nina/Nino's can change our weather a great bit.
 
Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif

What's your point? To show us that you can be duped by fake images and post them without taking 2 minutes to look into it?

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...th-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/
 
What's your point? To show us that you can be duped by fake images and post them without taking 2 minutes to look into it?

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...th-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

Lol.
The sad thing is even after being exposed, I would be shocked if he actually came back and had enough dignity to admit he was deceived and re-evaluated his position. He will probably continue to get misinformation from whatever propaganda source fed him that fake image.
 
Last edited:

Lol.
The sad thing is even after being exposed, I would be shocked if he actually came back and had enough dignity to admit he was deceived and re-evaluated his position. He will probably continue to get misinformation from whatever propaganda source fed him that fake image.

Lol, the dude is a hack.

I don't even care if he admits he's wrong (but like you I would be shocked if he did). It would be much better for the WR if he (and this applies to others) cared more about accuracy.
 
This thread reminded me of that guy Gotti McCarran. He would always argue against anthropomophic climate change. And he reminded me of Galachobar. Those two apparently hated each other. LOLZ
 
In 1991, the Club published The First Global Revolution.[7] It analyses the problems of humanity, calling these collectively or in essence the 'problematique'. It notes (laments) that, historically, social or political unity has commonly been motivated by enemies in common: "The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself - when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing."[8] "Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe, that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised."[8] "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome


If anyone doesn't know what the Club of Rome is, it's one of the top globalist think tanks that create and sell global policies.

You can see in their own writings they were talking about using global warming (now climate change) to act as an external enemy to control people.

Weather you buy all of what is coming down the pipe or not, this is clearly what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
Lol.
The sad thing is even after being exposed, I would be shocked if he actually came back and had enough dignity to admit he was deceived and re-evaluated his position. He will probably continue to get misinformation from whatever propaganda source fed him that fake image.

It doesn't even require the class to admit he was wrong. He trusted the source. It's not his fault, but why wouldn't he be upset at them lying to him? Why not think, "fuck those guys--they made me look like an idiot for believing that they were trustworthy" and then dismiss them? That would be my response if a source lied to me.
 
It's just political talking points. Activism. I don't think they care about accuracy.
The whole "science predicted global cooling in the 70s", "what about the other planets warming" or "it's been warmer in the past, the planet will be fine" have been debunked again and again for years and years, but still get repeated ad nauseum.
Simplistic arguments that make an impression, but which any detailed knowledge quickly reveals to be nonsense.
 
climate change is a fact. look at us destroying the amazon rainforest. look at a picture of the sky in the cities of china. shit is so polluted with smog you cant see 100ft in front of you. these are examples of climate change it is a fact. all brought on by us humans. global warming is a totally different matter. it deals strictly with the heating of the climate thru human actions. there are many things that can cause this, but yes humans are the biggest factor. increased sun activity can cause temps to go up. the mass deforestation can cause temps to go up, the billions of metric tons emitted thru vehicles definitely causes temps to go up. shit needs to be regulated. denying the obvious is ignorance.
 
It's just political talking points. Activism. I don't think they care about accuracy.
The whole "science predicted global cooling in the 70s", "what about the other planets warming" or "it's been warmer in the past, the planet will be fine" have been debunked again and again for years and years, but still get repeated ad nauseum.
Simplistic arguments that make an impression, but which any detailed knowledge quickly reveals to be nonsense.

But I'd think that anger is a natural human reaction to being lied to. These guys don't show that; they get mad at the people who tell them they were being lied to. I guess that's natural too, but I'd think it would be secondary.
 
Back
Top