Red Sun

[attofishpi]

With their list of failed climate predictions and with no way to verify current climate predictions, believers in anthropogenic global warming rely on circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning
Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy is often quite humorous.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... -Reasoning.

Why did God put an 'L' in you name rather than a more suitable 'N'?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

With their list of failed climate predictions and with no way to verify current climate predictions, believers in anthropogenic global warming rely on circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning
Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy is often quite humorous.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... -Reasoning.

Still haven't made up your mind on whether to deny it's happening, or concede it's happening but that it has nothing to do with human activity?
As even the the most scurrilous kristian liars have been forced to admit that the planet is, indeed, heating up, then why bother to bring up the fact that (shock horror), no one can predict with 100 percent accuracy how exactly it's going to affect our weather, in every country and region, along with the exact date and time of every single disaster? But being a religious nut-job then you probably believe in seers and wizards
As it stands they have been extremely accurate (not that difficult, since they already know that times of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide coincide with higher temperatures). Are you disputing that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are the highest (by a lot) than they have ever been in the past 800K+ years? That nature hasn't gone over 300ppm until the period since the start of the industrial revolution? (It's now over 400ppm). Anything above 300ppm is going to build up in the atmosphere.
You really are beyond stupid.



This is all anyone really needs to know. I think even oil company shills like you could understand it. It's now 415ppm, but finding graphs that comply with the 600 pixel limit is very difficult. There are tons of graphs, all showing the same figures. Y'all only have to google it.

[RCSaunders]

Science is a hoax to your ilk when it suits you.

I'd like to ask you, vegetariantaxidermy and attofishpi, a question. I have no interest in convincing you of anything, and am perfectly happy with you believing the world is in imminent danger of terrible disasters. I'm not arguing with your view, but there is something I honestly do not understand about it, and would really like to understand it.

In my eighty years I have seen endless predictions about what scientists, economists, and sociologists have assured the world were impending certain disasters that would happen in the near future, and none of them ever did. When I was young, long before you were probably born, I had a very keen interest in what was, in those days, called, "ecology," out of which the whole modern view of environmentalism has grown. I lost interest in that field when it became politicized. I do not expect you to agree to that, I'm just trying to explain my question.

If you are right about, "climate change," than the evidence that you are right should soon make itself apparent, and no one will be arguing with you then. My question is, how long are you willing to wait, if all the dire predictions of climate change do not occur soon, before you will be willing to question your current views? If in 10, 20, or 50 years none of those disasters attofishpi predicts, "extreme weather, more droughts, hotter summers, colder winters, more earthquakes and volcanoes, ..., tornados etc.," (he forgot coastal flooding) has happened, will you still believe in climate change as it is currently accepted?

I don't care how you answer. I just want to know how you are convinced.

Thanks for explaining.

RC

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Science is a hoax to your ilk when it suits you.

I'd like to ask you, vegetariantaxidermy and attofishpi, a question. I have no interest in convincing you of anything, and am perfectly happy with you believing the world is in imminent danger of terrible disasters. I'm not arguing with your view, but there is something I honestly do not understand about it, and would really like to understand it.

In my eighty years I have seen endless predictions about what scientists, economists, and sociologists have assured the world were impending certain disasters that would happen in the near future, and none of them ever did. When I was young, long before you were probably born, I had a very keen interest in what was, in those days, called, "ecology," out of which the whole modern view of environmentalism has grown. I lost interest in that field when it became politicized. I do not expect you to agree to that, I'm just trying to explain my question.

If you are right about, "climate change," than the evidence that you are right should soon make itself apparent, and no one will be arguing with you then. My question is, how long are you willing to wait, if all the dire predictions of climate change do not occur soon, before you will be willing to question your current views? If in 10, 20, or 50 years none of those disasters attofishpi predicts, "extreme weather, more droughts, hotter summers, colder winters, more earthquakes and volcanoes, ..., tornados etc.," (he forgot coastal flooding) has happened, will you still believe in climate change as it is currently accepted?

I don't care how you answer. I just want to know how you are convinced.

Thanks for explaining.

RC

I didn't say that. But I agree with him anyway. I'm not banging my head against your brick wall any more. If you can't understand the (very easy to understand) evidence then crawl back under your rock.

[RCSaunders]

...

If you are right about, "climate change," than the evidence that you are right should soon make itself apparent, and no one will be arguing with you then. My question is, how long are you willing to wait, if all the dire predictions of climate change do not occur soon, before you will be willing to question your current views? If in 10, 20, or 50 years none of those disasters attofishpi predicts, "extreme weather, more droughts, hotter summers, colder winters, more earthquakes and volcanoes, ..., tornados etc.," (he forgot coastal flooding) has happened, will you still believe in climate change as it is currently accepted?
...

I didn't say that. But I agree with him anyway. I'm not banging my head against your brick wall any more. If you can't understand the (very easy to understand) evidence then crawl back under your rock.

I have no idea why you are offended by my question, and if you are, I'm sorry for that.

It seems from your response, that if all that you believe climate change is supposed to cause never happens, you'll still believe in it. I'm sorry, but that sure seems like blind faith to me, and I don't believe it is really true. I think you would change your mind if in twenty or thirty years or so, none of the expected disasters occur, and that you will be honest and change your mind. I know if I'm still around, and they do occur, I'll change my mind. Isn't that reasonable?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Rhubarb rhubarb

[Walker]

Climate models can’t explain the climate that has actually happened but never-the-less, the faithful believe in climate-model predictions, then call the belief science to goose its gravitas.

Dang lunkheads.

“In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age.”
https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming

Speaking of the United Nations, their interest in the weather is to construct a backstory for climate reparations.

[Walker]

Why did God put an 'L' in you name rather than a more suitable 'N'?

Ya dang lunkhead.

‘This is huge’: Locust swarms in Africa are worst in decades
https://apnews.com/3a94858d9ba8c642e80fa3c141c9a8f8

“A changing climate has contributed to “exceptional” breeding conditions, said Nairobi-based climate scientist Abubakr Salih Babiker.”

Brings to mind the ten plagues of Egypt, only now climate change replaces God as first cause.


If a plague of frogs should appear we now know why.
Climate change.

If the waters should turn red we now know why.
Climate change.

We now know the cause of damaging, heavy hail storms.
Climate change.

High-profile hurricanes?
Climate change.

Lots of flies this year? No bees? An outbreak of head lice in the school?
Climate change.

They say bat soup caused the coronavirus to spread, and believers know what caused that.
Climate change.

It's an easy, simple formula.

[Atla]

Oh yeah definitely a straight line.. no doubt about it.. in fact I'm feeling a bit chilly right now, so we might be heading into global cooling

[Walker]

If in 10, 20, or 50 years none of those disasters attofishpi predicts, "extreme weather, more droughts, hotter summers, colder winters, more earthquakes and volcanoes, ..., tornados etc.," (he forgot coastal flooding) has happened, will you still believe in climate change as it is currently accepted?

I don't care how you answer. I just want to know how you are convinced.

Thanks for explaining.

RC

In their silence I’ll explain for them.

Don’t you find it interesting that believers in anthropogenic climate change also hate President Trump.

This indicates that anthropogenic climate change is a political movement rather than a scientific discipline. Calling this political movement settled science is a smoke screen that attracts the minions of group think.

You haven’t heard the false accusations against Trump retracted (Mueller probe, etc.) All you hear from the persecutors is the next accusation, whatever that may be.

The haters have not changed thinking about the unwarranted persecution and prejudice against Trump because the hating is based in belief and propaganda. For those who hate the United States the Trump hatred can also be based on his successful job performance, but this is not likely since Trump has been hated by the swamp since that escalator ride announcing his 2016 candidacy.

Therefore we can say with certainty greater than a shoulder shrug that you will not hear a mind that believes in anthropogenic climate change, changing direction.

At most you'll hear a change in the language, as has already been evidenced in history. Global cooling changed to global warming, changed to climate change, changed to climate crisis, changed to climate emergency.

[Gary Childress]

Don’t you find it interesting that believers in anthropogenic climate change also hate President Trump.

This indicates that anthropogenic climate change is a political movement rather than a scientific discipline.

People wanting to do something about climate change is a political movement based on the findings of various climate scientists. The findings of science are supposed to be apolitical in their truth or falsity, however, that doesn't mean scientists aren't human beings with very human concerns about the future of the species and whatnot and who therefore participate in the political process as voters or advocates. And because scientists may take political stances doesn't necessarily mean that they are all doctoring their findings to support their political agendas. Ideally, they are supposed to be following the facts wherever they lead.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Don’t you find it interesting that believers in anthropogenic climate change also hate President Trump.

I don't hate him, but I also don't believe in the obvious. You can't 'believe' in something that's right in front of your eyes.

And you are so bloody stupid that you don't know what you believe. Some of your posts hold the viewpoint that it's not happening at all and that the global climate is just 'business as usual'. Then you bring in the big words like 'anthropogenic'. Do you even know what that means?

Where do YOU think the extra carbon dioxide has come from (or is that just a conspiracy too?).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Don’t you find it interesting that believers in anthropogenic climate change also hate President Trump.

This indicates that anthropogenic climate change is a political movement rather than a scientific discipline.

People wanting to do something about climate change is a political movement ...

That's ridiculous. People who want something done about global warming are people who want a habitable planet to live on.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If it were not for kunty American kristianity and greed we might well have been on top of the problem by now.

[Gary Childress]

Don’t you find it interesting that believers in anthropogenic climate change also hate President Trump.

This indicates that anthropogenic climate change is a political movement rather than a scientific discipline.

People wanting to do something about climate change is a political movement ...

That's ridiculous. People who want something done about global warming are people who want a habitable planet to live on.

It's a political movement in so far as people engage in political activity such as voting, organizing and advocating to political leaders. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how ordinary people affect politics in democratic countries.