Politics
There are currently 2 people viewing this thread.
These 307 comments are related to the topic:
Climate Change Deniers running for their Tin Foil Hats
Climate Change Deniers running for their Tin Foil Hats
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 307
|
By:
Hi Benny, I noticed a post of yours the other day, it was about DEI and you went off on a tangent mentioning DEI's link to astrology, I didn't understand.
What brand of (Is "brand"? the right word ) Astrology do you follow? Do you have a full time afterlife consultant? |
|
By:
there will come a time, unfortunately, when even hard core deniers will have to accept the reality
its getting worse folks and denial aint going to stop it but they will more likely just stop talking about it as they do when other conspiracy nonsense is exposed what should be said louder is that everything we do is a drop in the ocean and worthless while others like china and india pay lip-service but dont do much at all |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Where are all these hardcore deniers? I have never once read or heard anyone saying climate change isn't happening.
|
|
By:
^ One lad says 'they love net zero too,all communist policies.' Isn't that lad some hardcore denier who thinks any effort at attempting to lower greenhouses gases is in fact a communist?
|
|
By:
Net zero is communism, how is that denying climate change is happening? It requires Soviet-style central planning where the state—rather than consumer demand—decides what is produced and consumed. We have to accept crappy electric cars that burst into flames and trap people inside.
|
|
By:
I see the bear of little brain has scurried away without providing proof of his accusation against me.
Maybe he's gone in to early hibernation  As for his claim that "79% of the worlds population follow a net zero policy" - how is that remotely provable ? It's true that many countries have agreed to follow net zero aims or pledged to do so, but they could be doing next to nowt at the moment and anyway it's those countries governments that have signed up, doesn't mean the actual population has. |
|
By:
Net zero never going to happen totally unrealistic for certain industries. Was possibly a stupid two word Policy, Should everybody be working towards reducing emissions, of course I don’t think anybody disagrees with that but timescales too short, and I take the argument on tough objectives within the plan, but they need to be realistic.
|
|
By:
Climate is changing. Throughout the billions, millions of years of the Earths existence this has been the case. It's cyclical. We're in the beginnining of a rise in temeperatures. It'll probably finish mankind although it may not. Do I believe in man made climate change? No, not at all. Do I believe in climate change per se? Course I do. It's obvious, but it doesn't matter what efforts mankind undertake to change/alter the cycle.... it wont work. It's cyclical and been happening for eons. It's the planet Earth.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
The thread title says 'climate change deniers', find one.
|
|
By:
The first sentence of GV's post Escapee was Climate is changing. That doesn't sound much like climate change denial to me. Are you feeling alright?
|
|
By:
These climate zealots are like chest thumping gorillas, shouting for someone to challenge them.
I don't think they realise how ridiculous they are. |
|
By:
It's like a religion for them. Everything is so black and white and can't have any degree of nuance to it.
Even people who start a post with "the climate is changing" are hardcore climate change deniers according to nuts like Escapee. He can't even read the full post and process it. It's just he is a Denier. |
|
By:
Back in the 14,15,1600's when "Denier" came into use, it was used to describe those who believed in logic, reason & science, instead of defering to a fairy tale book club's view of reality.
Now it's the opposite, A denier is someone who believes in a cult or a book club over logic, reason & science. How turn tables over time.  |
|
By:
You are the one just calling people a "hardcore denier" Escapee even though they said they believe in climate change. I was referring to your use of the word calling people a denier even though he has literally said "climate is changing".
|
|
By:
Comprehension is not Escapee's strong point Shrewd. And that's being kind.
Deliberate misrepresentation of other's views may be an alternative take for those less charitable than myself. He has undoubtedly become more unhinged in recent times and is now the forum's number one attention seeker. |
|
By:
Wrong again, denier was in fact Escapee the name of a French silver coin in the 1400s.
|
|
By:
utter bollox all round
there are some who say its a hoax. cant say much for them. they are also likely to be moon-landing deniers or jfk loons also but those who accept theres a change but hedge by saying its been going on for millions and is not anthropogenic are worse, because they are superficially reasonable the sheer number of studies from very serious scientists not prone to hyperbole or wild speculation, combined with conclusive evidence from every part of the planet and every scientific institution, every university, every govt. including the bad ones like russia and china, the volume of is simply overwhelming. its unprecendented which is why its hard to say with absolute certainty but its 1.01 i have a stack of new scientist magazines that are stuffed with info about this and will send them to anyone who is interested (nobody) why are all these boffins so united in determination to fool the whole planet with this monstrous idea? and at such great cost, contrary to what the mugs will tell you it would be nice if those who say its not what is claimed put up any evidence to support their anti-theory |
|
By:
If a climate scientist were to say publicly now that I have studied this, it's nothing like the emergency the alarmists say it is, and we don't need any of these net zero type remedies, do you think they would still have a job and a pension given the trillions of vested interests involved? At this stage I don't see how it's even possible for the science to be followed independent of the money.
|
|
By:
the sheer number of studies from very serious scientists not prone to hyperbole or wild speculation, combined with conclusive evidence from every part of the planet and every scientific institution, every university, every govt. including the bad ones like russia and china, the volume of is simply overwhelming. its unprecendented which is why its hard to say with absolute certainty but its 1.01
i have a stack of new scientist magazines that are stuffed with info about this and will send them to anyone who is interested (nobody) why are all these boffins so united in determination to fool the whole planet with this monstrous idea? ............................................. As with covid, any scientist with a differing view will be deplatformed,or out of work. If there is only one opinion published there is no conversation to be had, so we have none. You regard yourself as an expert because you read the only information out there. I'll be kind and regard you as a bit naive rather than stupid. |
|
By:
It seems to me that science is not capable of backing off from net zero even if science indicated that's what we should do because of the huge paydays expected with net zero. Science should be able to change direction with new information and climate science can't because it's a religion, or a cult.
|
|
By:
We are no better off for science than Galileo was in the 1600s. He found evidence the earth revolved around the sun and the catholics showed him the instruments of torture, and he recanted. Galileo had to kneel and formally renounce his own findings, and that's not science, just like today with climate science.
|
|
By:
There are scientists out there with differing views, but they'll never be on the MSN.
|
|
By:
An interesting and balanced take imo :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl__O_QGIR4 Everything you think you know about Climate Change vs. The Truth |
|
By:
Several years ago all BBC employees, including one known to me, were sent a directive which said that
man made climate change was a given. That made it impossible for any scientist with an opposing view to ever be on the BBC. If only one opinion was allowed in the Oxford union society there would be no debates. |
|
By:
I don't think it would be wrong to say climate change is a given because it is changing, but climate alarmism, and net zero communism as the solution shouldn't be a given, that would be anti-scientific. David Bellamy challenged it and never got any work again from the BBC.
|
|
By:
now then. never have i said i was an expert. thanks for your kindness. but im naive for not believing something that is wildly implausible. an inversion of logic
this conspiracy has so frightened all of science into submission that the 2% who doubt it are rigth and hold more truth than the giant majority who weigh the evidence daily. is that it? its entirely possible that its a blip and will iron itself out but a betting person would take a very short price on it not being so, as would deniers, given the choice. the evidence is there, and its very strong those who study this to the nth degree are adamant but interweb loons who know nothing know better you can have an opposing view. david icke has one. david irving has one. richard d hall has one. alex jones has one i await sadcakes evidence against it being a big problem |
... i hate the London stations with a passion always sticking their nose in ...there are around 8 in total in a smallish area of greater London ,yet only 4 in Suffolk,and 4 in Essex which is a massive area and often is hotter than London in summer . It was 35-37 in plenty of places outside London yesterday .