Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    362

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
You do realise that global warming is a science thing not a political thing, don't you?
People who thought it was a political thing must feel really stupid by now for falling for such obvious propaganda aimed at tricking the feeble minded and mean hearted. Don't you agree?

Not worthy of the religious fervor some apply to it.
Sadly the misguided zealots using the issue for their own purposes are making more noise than the realists.
 
Not worthy of the religious fervor some apply to it.
Sadly the misguided zealots using the issue for their own purposes are making more noise than the realists.
Climate change is possibly the biggest threat facing the globe. It is not something to label or to politicise, it it something that MUST be solved quickly and efficiently
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Not worthy of the religious fervor some apply to it.
Sadly the misguided zealots using the issue for their own purposes are making more noise than the realists.
Science isn’t religion.
Quasy religious belief in conspiracy theories isn’t being a realist.
 
Science "thing" is an apt description.
NOAA scientists announced yesterday that, with less than a month remaining in this year’s Atlantic hurricane season, the formation of Subtropical Storm Theta on November 10 over the northeastern Atlantic Ocean made the 2020 season the most active on the 169-year official record.

I can see some anthropogenic CO2 driven climate hypervariability denier person who knows nothing on climatology, say this is not a sign of global hypervariability! There's a conspiracy board here btw, where you can take your s**t to and post all the Heartland crap as you wish.
 
Last edited:
Climate change is possibly the biggest threat facing the globe. It is not something to label or to politicise, it it something that MUST be solved quickly and efficiently



:D
 
Again, is there "some" decent science in the research? Yes.

Is "climate science" as an entire body of work, a reputable display of the scientific method? No. It's massively flawed.

Science ecology = good
Political ecology = bad

If you want another correlating example, then look no further than the covid thread. It's full of ignorant crap.
 
Is "climate science" as an entire body of work, a reputable display of the scientific method? No. It's massively flawed.

And time and time again you have been asked to provide 'evidence' of this and time and time again you have come back with bloggers and Hartland institute. Do you think the 'people' that you quote are 'reputable' in the first place to analyze the 'scientific method' behind climate science ? the last time i exposed you, you quoted someone who argued CO2 results in cooling. You want people to take you seriously, but your counter arguments are either pure trollwork or naive at the very best. You want to quote conspiracy theorists and Anthony Watts wannabes then be my guest but there is a differernt board for that.
 
We'll I was a bit bored the other day so I thought I'd come here and stir the pot a bit to have another laugh at you anti science nutters.

I'm a professional scientist mate. I get paid to do it.

The faux know all act just makes you like like a complete dickhead. Do yourself a favor and drop it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Climate emergency really is down the list these days

So in Sydney, what’s your choice? Encroaching desert from one side or rising sea levels on the other?

 
Last edited:
Depends really - what if they turned it over onto tesla shares
Or what if they put it into bitcoin, a penny explorer or laid on the roulette wheel at a casino and their number came up..

It's irrelevant for what looks quite like it might be a buy high and sell low type decision on a resource company when they claim they are mainly 'focused on returns'.
 
Or what if they put it into bitcoin, a penny explorer or laid on the roulette wheel at a casino and their number came up..

It's irrelevant for what looks quite like it might be a buy high and sell low type decision on a resource company when they claim they are mainly 'focused on returns'.
If you see climate change as a world altering event - what could be worse for “returns”
 
If you see climate change as a world altering event - what could be worse for “returns”
Mate those guys are focused on $$$, they even say it in the article. And funds are all about performance in the now.

I actually considered buying it around $1, but main thing that put me off was the massive negative environmental aspects of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top