Climate Change Deniers running for their Tin Foil Hats

Qed x 11d

Trump says that Israel bombing Lebanon is wrong because too many innocent people are dying.

In Escapee's addled brain because Trump is a "denier", that means anonymous posters on a betting forum in the UK must be as well, even though they have said nothing of the sort. Simply calling out some of the alarmist reporting of the past few days as OTT and relating our own lived experience does not make us "deniers".

Qed x 12

As we see how the tin foil causes the straw men to
be formed by the idiots, who've been transfixed on
the thread unable to gain any traction for their already
Clear denial

qed - tick
tin foil - tick
denial - tick
straw men - tick

BINGO !

change the record ffs

Those of us old enough to remember '76 will know that the great hoax of the time was 'global cooling'. When that lie was exposed, the hoax became 'a hole in the ozone layer'. Again, once we weren't all aerosoled to death by next week, the hoax was changed to 'global warming'. Seeing as we didn't all frazzle up, they've recently had to resort to the latest catch-all phrase, 'climate change'!
Chortle at their ineptness and illogicality!

Tim's a fully paid up climate change denier and proud of it.

Trump calling climate change a hoax gave him a "nocturnal emission"

Qed x 13

Never forget, all good and right-thinking people, that the Latin for 'left' is 'sinister'. No coincidence, fairly obvious and self-explanatory, eh comrades? You lefties know what you are. And so do we.

The sinister left is in full view. It's a dark plot which can't be hidden.

Do you agree with Trump stating that Israel has lost the run of itself and killing a load of innocents RON ?

]Never forget, all good and right-thinking people, that the Latin for 'left' is 'sinister'. No coincidence, fairly obvious and self-explanatory, eh comrades? You lefties know what you are. And so do we.

Left is Latin for sinister!?!?

No, it was a bunch of people 2,000 years ago claiming left handed people were sinister, and possessed by evil.

Stands to reason that a magaloon would not only believe these snake oil salesmen, but take take it to the next level and claim it as a fundamental truth that all things "leftist", like the NHS, pensions, minimum wage are evil.



Never forget my harris, you don't even know what you're supposed not to forget.

lovely week ahead Few showers Tuesday , Handy ,long may it Continue , plenty of Greenery and Flowers Blooming Bees getting busy  ...

Isn't it true lapsy that Hamas killed innocents on october 7th?

Of course it is but magnify that at least 50 fold.

You really haven't answered my question except with another question, is Trump right castigating Israel for indiscriminate bombing?

Your other choices are Trump is wrong or you prefer not to answer.

Yes I think he's right to say that, and there should be consequences.

Indeed, war crimes and genocide falls into what i consider organised terrorism.

The real terrorists are Iran. They have been funding it for years.

Margate was was over the weekend seems the heat got the better of some folks

Sunny but quite cool today in W Yorks, hysteria from the usual suspects has died down somewhat.

Lovely down the south coast , no FILTH either

nice

France records 2,025 excess deaths at peak of heatwave as Europe braces for more extreme weather

Even The Guardian says that 1000 of those were attributable to heat,
but 2000 looks so much more dramatic. He's a habitual Guardian reader

Who is the guardian reader, lol

Qed 500+

it's called Global climate change for a reason

South Korean authorities are deploying drones to issue heat warnings to farmers while residents are taking shelter in airports, as the country battles an unprecedented heatwave.

President Lee Jae Myung has ordered public agencies to mobilise all available resources to deal with the extreme heat, which he has called a "national disaster".

Temperatures in the south soared to a record 42.5C (108.5F) earlier this week.


"Heatwave conditions once seen only in foreign news reports have now become our reality," Lee said on Thursday.

denier  /dɪˈnʌɪə/

A person who questions the current religious orthodoxy in power;
An evil apostate to be opposed.

If we spaff another £2 or 3 Trillion on net zero how much will the temperature go down by?

Nowt , but it will go Down at Some time  regardless

it's irrelevant what the weather/temp actually does


it will always be as hot/cold/dangerous/stormy as they say it is


remember to blindly trust gov/institutions/corporate only


they really are our only source of truth from hereon

It does seem surprising that the very progressive leftie greens are quite happy to allow multi billion companies like SSE renewables to build wind farm cities that will kill tens of thousands of animals each year and destroy the local ecology to make millions for their shareholders whilst not being able to articulate why this will bring down the global temperature.

Sad to see the amount of wildfires in the Midlands this evening. The country is a tinderbox with no rain in places for almost 2 months.

And all because the feckless councils wouldn't clear the scrub. This is why you should never vote for the left.

The councils involved are Conservative and Reform

You certainly live up to your name

7.26pm, that's what you call an almighty internet clatter!

An almighty internet clatter lapsy ?

"there are currently 2 people viewing this thread ". Not so much a clatter more of a muffle

Conservatives are lefties as far as I am concerned. They brought in lockdowns and furlough pay. Spin that commies!!!!

Awww bless

They love net zero too, all communist policies.

79% of the worlds population follow a Net Zero policy

That's a lot of Commies..

Met Office did a weather map for 23rd of June 2056(easily googled), we know that is a bit fair out for an accurate forecast however it had 45 deg high for that day and their scientists project that.

I never knew I was a commie. You learn something new every day.

Must be by the minute for you.

The bear of little brain trolling again i see

Lapsy, the met office regularly get the forecast for the next day wrong in our region, not sure they can predict it for a day 30 years hence

A lot of past predictions for the future have been somewhat awry, if they hadn't catastrophised erroneously so much in days gone by then maybe people would take more notice. Remember in the 70s some were even predicting a new ice age (even The Guardian went with that).   The trouble is that the media often present worse case scenarios as actual fact, it's a bit like the boy crying wolf if you like. One day the scenario will actually play out, but because so often before it hasn't transpired then people won't be taking notice. The undernoted seems a balanced take imo

The 2020s: Moving Goalposts and the Cost of Alarmism
Now in the 2020s, climate deadlines have continued to shift. The ice-free Arctic is now predicted for mid-century. Glaciers are expected to survive decades longer than originally forecast. Activists still frame action in terms of “last chances” and “points of no return,” but the specific timelines are increasingly viewed with suspicion.

Meanwhile, the underlying science continues to show steady trends. Temperatures are rising. Seas are creeping upward. Glaciers are shrinking. But the apocalypse, as sold by politicians and activists, remains elusive.

This matters for two reasons. First, exaggeration undermines real science. Every failed prophecy provides ammunition to sceptics and makes it harder to rally public support for legitimate policies. Second, it distracts from the actual challenges, which are gradual, complex, and long-term. Climate change is not an asteroid strike. It is a slow-moving, cumulative problem. Addressing it requires honesty, not hype.

I see you had the thread deleted Dixie where you outed yourself..

Wise move..

BOLB - haven't a clue what you are on about, care to elaborate instead of your usual trolling ?

I've only posted on 2 threads, hardly trolling,

How about answering the question instead of that meaningless reply ?

What thread are you on about that you have falsely accused me of getting deleted ?

2 derailments on the hottest ever day recorded in the UK of 38.1 Degrees (100.38F in old money)

Climate Change = Derailed Trains.

After the heatwave comes the the floods, 1 month of rain in 1 hour in japan yesterday.
Nottingham this October?

Escapee14 Aug 26 19:01Joined: 27 Aug 04 |

Nottingham this October?



The Goose Fair will be the main attraction, actually starts 25th September but continues through the first week of October. Enjoy if you are going

Hottest ever day???!!

38 degrees??!!!

Wot a loon, keep believing the rubbish and lies.

Was that the temperature recorded in Kew Gardens where are the glass, conservatory’s and greenhouses are?

Or maybe the Heathrow tarmac???

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?

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

Aug 14, 2026 -- 10:04PM, BennyBinion1 wrote:

Hottest ever day???!!38 degrees??!!!Wot a loon, keep believing the rubbish and lies.Was that the temperature recorded in Kew Gardens where are the glass, conservatory’s and greenhouses are?Or maybe the Heathrow tarmac???

I think there should be a VAR for yesterdays 38c at Kew (and any at Heathrow)...overtaking the 38c set in Norfolk by 0.1c ... 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  .

Where are all these hardcore deniers? I have never once read or heard anyone saying climate change isn't happening.

^ 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ronaldmcdonald 15 Aug 26 11:37

Where are all these hardcore deniers?

Here's one

TheGoldenVision 15 Aug 26 21:51

...Do I believe in man made climate change? No, not at all....

The thread title says 'climate change deniers', find one.

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?

These climate zealots are like chest thumping gorillas, shouting for someone to challenge them.
I don't think they realise how ridiculous they are.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Wrong again, denier was in fact Escapee the name of a French silver coin in the 1400s.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are scientists out there with differing views, but they'll never be on the MSN.

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

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.

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.

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

Before Galileo there was a consensus that the sun revolved around the earth, but consensus is not science. Before surgeons washed their hands between patients there was a consensus it wasn't needed. The honest punters know the difference between real science and consensus dressed as science.

quite how that is relevant i dont know. 'real science' will tell you extreme weather is becoming the norm and tell you why. you can dismiss it as a gigantic fiction if you please

tim berners-lee, a real scientist who invented the interweb when he was a particle physicist is on the record bemoaning the conspiracy nonsense on the web, particulary climate change as its serious, unlike the mad stuff thats not

theres simply zero evidence of a conspiracy. if there was, youd provide it. the fact the meeja says its a global crisis isnt proof of it

mugs decide theres a conspiracy and find reasons for it. saying the beeb goes on about it isnt evidence of a racket. alternatives to climete change arent heard much but nor are those who question the moon landings

Is it possible that more extreme weather could become the norm as a result of natural climate change? Dismissing that as a possibility is bonkers. We have had much more extreme weather in the past.

If you are really confident, and you shouldn't be based on dodgy computer models, that the climate emergency is caused by man made emissions rather than natural climate change to the degree that the only cure is extreme net zero, then I suppose it would be justified to make it impossible for climate science to change direction away from net zero, but that's not science. Preventing scientific understanding from evolving is completely anti-scientific.

The pandemic should have demonstrated to all that corporations and governments are not always acting on science and not always in our best interests but some will never learn. There are people to this day who worship Fauci despite him funding the gain of Frankenstein experiments which most likely caused the pandemic, and it's largely the same cretins who are completely brainwashed about the climate. Unlike the honest punters they can't be reasoned with.

When science changed in the past it was often because of a small number of renegades like Galileo who attempted to go against the consensus. Now I don't believe anyone can do that with climate science because there is too much money involved, trillions, and where vast amounts of money are involved, no conspiracy is necessary. Human nature dictates that people act in their own self interests. No one wants to end up like Bellamy, not getting any work. Unfortunately it's harder today to go against the climate cult than it was to go against the catholic church in Galileo's time and that's seriously bonkers.

I don't mind doing the nut zero stuff if it's really warranted, but there's no possibility of new evidence taking climate science in any direction other than spending more money and that's the most bonkers thing of all.

i dont. thats projection from you

you divert from the reality. its not about wealth. net zero will come at great cost. the whole climate emergency is costing zillions. western nations ahve handed over fortunes to islamd nations to help them deal with it. why are they doing this?

you say the scientific community is keeping up the pretence because they expect a big pay-off. course they are. all of em at it

unbelievable bollox

well said busy, rub his nose in some facts

These magaloons think they can pick and choose bits of dodgy science like they pick and choose which dodgy PDF files to protect from justice

Are you unable to see how people personally profit from climate science and net zero with the trillions involved? I thought I was supposed to be the clown around here.

Do you think Maxwell will be benefitting from this climate change?
Now that she's out and about on day release etc?

correct at last

of course those who manufacture things that combat the effects of it aint doing so gratis.i dont like wind farms fwiw. some profit greatly and they aint worth the expense imho. but thats not what you claim is it?

thats not why its happening. the old conspiracy trope 'follow the money' is tired and worn out ans misapplied all the time

the fact is its costing all of us plenty and saying a handful are getting rich isnt really the point. the giant majority is poorer for it and nobody wants it

i will take a short price that in say 5 years you will not be saying this because denial cant survive brutal reality indefinitely

Do you think Maxwell will be benefitting from this climate change?
Now that she's out and about on day release etc?

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad

wtf has she to do with it?

This must be wilful blindness, because even a clown can't be this stupid. Corruption everywhere we look but no one is manipulating climate change for profit. You can't possibly be this stupid.

yip. stoopid as

quite how you manipulate climate change for profit i dont understand

if you think all the boffins like berners-lee and co. are in it to make a few quid then you are even ficker than wot i is

wtf has she to do with it?

Long story busy.

But he knows I've just Frangipane'd his eyebrows with an almond crossiant and his copy 'n paste sheets don't cover that sort of custard pieing

I am not accusing Berners Lee of anything I am saying policies are largely driven by profits, eg net zero policy, irregardless of whether it's the best policy to fix the climate. You must be a leftie, they always make arguments as if they have no understanding of human motivation.

irregardless isnt a word

they aint driven by profits. they are driven by scientific advice. and it might be wrong. possible but unlikely

i am indeed a rabid leftist. well spotted

anyway this is toooo boring. ive bored meself and you are a valiant and worthy bore yourself and the audience long-since logged out

i leave the fred to others. no more to add

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
/
Try reading a dictionary before you conversate.

Regardless of that Ron, you are wasting two letters as  it means the same thing

Well I think I will carry on irregardless, which oddly enough was the name of a Sid James movie.