@vivify saidI am not asking you to agree with what I am saying but please do not try and miss my point. Why bother with climate change initiatives, waste of time, focus on new and better energy sources. Same, same but different.
What climate change initiatives can you name that have been pushed by right-wingers? Think about why you can't name any.
I have met no-one that does not agree with moving away from fossil fuels, WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. Not now, we are NOT ready.
What exactly would indicate when we're "ready" to move away from fossil fuels? And why aren't we "ready" to start moving away now?
We will be ready when and only when better alternatives are in place. (Not the toxic car batteries, thats for sure, nor wind nor solar, though that is the least worse.) Sort of thought that point had already been made. Nought to do with the scaremongering trigger points the nutters keep spouting and keep getting wrong.
@kevcvs57 saidWhat man made climate change, what did I miss??
Oh goody it’s that famous centrist non right winger arguing that man made climate change is having no impact on humanity, in fact the climate is getting better for humanity, is this your stance oh centrist non aligned one.
Whilst there might be many scientist on the climate payroll that go along with the propaganda, even amongst those, what % impact do " you "suspect we have .0.00005% 0.5% What? 95%, ave a guess, I means thats what most of the climate nutters do.
@jimmac saidShut up halfwit you cannot even lie well.
What man made climate change, what did I miss??
Whilst there might be many scientist on the climate payroll that go along with the propaganda, even amongst those, what % impact do " you "suspect we have .0.00005% 0.5% What? 95%, ave a guess, I means thats what most of the climate nutters do.
@kevcvs57 saidLol, well done, I asked a question, what % do the scientists believe we have effected climate change. And what lie?, I have missed it, oops there it goes, and it was you lot that suggested that the majority of scientists agree, not me, I am simply asking exactly what do they agree on., or rather I am asking what % you agree on.
Shut up halfwit you cannot even lie well.
I am simply stating that I do not see what you "think" you see, that cannot be a lie.
@kevcvs57 saidAs our planet gets greener, plants are slowing global warming
Oh goody it’s that famous centrist non right winger arguing that man made climate change is having no impact on humanity, in fact the climate is getting better for humanity, is this your stance oh centrist non aligned one.
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-planet-greener-global.html
@jimmac saidI didn’t suggest anything, man made climate change is a fact.
Lol, well done, I asked a question, what % do the scientists believe we have effected climate change. And what lie?, I have missed it, oops there it goes, and it was you lot that suggested that the majority of scientists agree, not me, I am simply asking exactly what do they agree on., or rather I am asking what % you agree on.
I am simply stating that I do not see what you "think" you see, that cannot be a lie.
Some here might enjoy constantly running around the houses with you climate change denying liars but it’s a proven scientific fact that you can choose not to believe if you want.
I refuse to live in your post truth world I’ll just content myself with calling out the lies of big oil bitches.
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidLove your sense of humor, you keep panicking, while I wait for the next failed prediction that your UN funded scientists get wrong, yet again. Always good for a laugh. Each time it happens you lot just do not seem to realize that you was wrong, yet again. Rather weird, like living in alternate universes at the same time, totally unaware or your other self.
I didn’t suggest anything, man made climate change is a fact.
Some here might enjoy constantly running around the houses with you climate change denying liars but it’s a proven scientific fact that you can choose not to believe if you want.
I refuse to live in your post truth world I’ll just content myself with calling out the lies of big oil bitches.
@kevcvs57 saidI will answer this bit separately, I will go with that you believe that I am mistaken, but to accuse me of lying, sigh, what is the world coming to.
I didn’t suggest anything, man made climate change is a fact.
Some here might enjoy constantly running around the houses with you climate change denying liars but it’s a proven scientific fact that you can choose not to believe if you want.
I refuse to live in your post truth world I’ll just content myself with calling out the lies of big oil bitches.
@jimmac saidWho's payroll? Who is paying the the vast majority of the world's scientists to all agree on the severity of climate change?
What man made climate change, what did I miss??
Whilst there might be many scientist on the climate payroll that go along with the propaganda
More importantly: why? What does anyone get out of paying all these scientists if it's not true? It makes sense why the fossil fuel industry would use their money to cover up global warming: to protect their profits. But what does anyone get by pushing man-made global warming if it's not true?
@vivify saidYou don't seem to know the difference between scientists and climate scientists. You assume scientists mean climate scientist and it does not. What does a metallurgist know about climate science? Nothing.
Who's payroll? Who is paying the the vast majority of the world's scientists to all agree on the severity of climate change?
More importantly: why? What does anyone get out of paying all these scientists if it's not true? It makes sense why the fossil fuel industry would use their money to cover up global warming: to protect their profits. But what does anyone get by pushing man-made global warming if it's not true?
That is exactly why you were duped and continue to be duped.
@vivify saidDeep state. Greta thunberg's father was in the illuminati at the same time Hillary's step-brother Roger Clinton flew to Wuhan in 1976. They wanted to tank the oil companies because the shape of oil derricks were too similar to the pyramid symbol so the plan was to pay off 30,000 scientists for the next 50 years to conduct research they knew was false and promote alternative energy. The only good news is a small handful of scientists slipped through the cracks and, in the absence of data, were able to use speculation and doubt to convince large cohorts of people that there was no anthropogenic climate change.
Who's payroll? Who is paying the the vast majority of the world's scientists to all agree on the severity of climate change?
More importantly: why? What does anyone get out of paying all these scientists if it's not true? It makes sense why the fossil fuel industry would use their money to cover up global warming: to protect their profits. But what does anyone get by pushing man-made global warming if it's not true?
That's why and what. I think the Clinton foundation might be paying for it but the emails were deleted.
@wildgrass
From the link below:
"Fossil records reveal that atmospheric CO2 levels around 600 million years ago were about 7,000 parts per million, compared with 379 ppm in 2005. Then approximately 480 million years ago those levels gradually dropped to 4,000 ppm over about 100 million years, while average temperatures remained at a steady 72 degrees. They then jumped rapidly to 4,500 ppm and guess what! Temperatures dove to an estimated average similar to today, even though the CO2 level was around twelve times higher than now. Yes, as CO2 went up, temperatures plummeted.
About 438 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 dropped from 4,500 ppm to 3,000 ppm, yet according to fossil records, world temperatures shot rapidly back up to an average 72 degrees. So regardless of whether CO2 levels were 7,000 ppm or 3,000 ppm, temperatures rose and fell independently."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/05/03/breaking-news-the-climate-actually-changes/?sh=2f4b6c2a7376
The hypothesis that CO2 drives temperatures has been debunked. Temperatures drove CO2 levels prior to the industrial revolution. The ice core samples proved that. CO2 levels lagged behind temperatures. So did methane, another greenhouse gas.
Oh, and BTW. The Rockefellers funded the global warming movement.
That is a fact. Big oil is behind the climate change agenda.
@metal-brain saidWere the Rockefellers in the illuminati? I would not be surprised.
@wildgrass
From the link below:
"Fossil records reveal that atmospheric CO2 levels around 600 million years ago were about 7,000 parts per million, compared with 379 ppm in 2005. Then approximately 480 million years ago those levels gradually dropped to 4,000 ppm over about 100 million years, while average temperatures remained at a steady 72 degrees. They then jumped ...[text shortened]... s funded the global warming movement.
That is a fact. Big oil is behind the climate change agenda.