George Will on "climate change"

No, they're worse. The think that they are the elite and they want to reduce the worlds population down to a few million. That is their ultimate goal. A few million to do all the hard labor, to keep the elite in their nice comfy lives. They are wannabe slave masters....pure and simple.

You understand you're coming across as a raving cult lunatic, totally detached from reality, right?

If no one has ever broken that news to you before, consider this to be your intervention. You're a flaming kook. Most deniers are to some extent, but you're taking it the furthest.
 
You do not get more research money by saying something is NOT happening. The money flows when you cause a panic.

Bullshit. You get grant money for doing good work. Lying to cause a panic eventually gets you fired, unless you're on the right-wing gravy train.

Remember, just because you think lying for your cause is admirable, don't assume others are like you. Unlike you and your cult, most scientists are ethical and won't lie for money. I know the deniers will find that impossible to understand, since the concept of acting ethically themselves is so completely foreign to them. They lie for their political cult, so they assume everyone must act the same way.

Consider this. Any reputable scientists could instantly double their salary by switching sides and lying for the deniers. But they don't. They deliberately accept a pay cut so they can tell the truth. That gives them more crediblity, the fact that they're taking a pay cut. In contrast, the deniers are taking the easy cash, as almost all the real money comes from the denier side.
 
You do not get more research money by saying something is NOT happening. The money flows when you cause a panic.

Bullshit. You get grant money for doing good work. Lying to cause a panic eventually gets you fired, unless you're on the right-wing gravy train.

Remember, just because you think lying for your cause is admirable, don't assume others are like you. Unlike you and your cult, most scientists are ethical and won't lie for money. I know the deniers will find that impossible to understand, since the concept of acting ethically themselves is so completely foreign to them. They lie for their political cult, so they assume everyone must act the same way.

Consider this. Any reputable scientists could instantly double their salary by switching sides and lying for the deniers. But they don't. They deliberately accept a pay cut so they can tell the truth. That gives them more crediblity, the fact that they're taking a pay cut. In contrast, the deniers are taking the easy cash, as almost all the real money comes from the denier side.

Bull

Bull

And more Bull

These projections are all for so long in the future that the researchers will be long dead before they could be shown frauds.

Researchers are human, and humans are greedy. The smart ones defraud in a way they don't face jail time.
 
No, they're worse. The think that they are the elite and they want to reduce the worlds population down to a few million. That is their ultimate goal. A few million to do all the hard labor, to keep the elite in their nice comfy lives. They are wannabe slave masters....pure and simple.

You understand you're coming across as a raving cult lunatic, totally detached from reality, right?

If no one has ever broken that news to you before, consider this to be your intervention. You're a flaming kook. Most deniers are to some extent, but you're taking it the furthest.
you realize you have no proof right?
 
You do not get more research money by saying something is NOT happening. The money flows when you cause a panic.

Bullshit. You get grant money for doing good work. Lying to cause a panic eventually gets you fired, unless you're on the right-wing gravy train.

Remember, just because you think lying for your cause is admirable, don't assume others are like you. Unlike you and your cult, most scientists are ethical and won't lie for money. I know the deniers will find that impossible to understand, since the concept of acting ethically themselves is so completely foreign to them. They lie for their political cult, so they assume everyone must act the same way.

Consider this. Any reputable scientists could instantly double their salary by switching sides and lying for the deniers. But they don't. They deliberately accept a pay cut so they can tell the truth. That gives them more crediblity, the fact that they're taking a pay cut. In contrast, the deniers are taking the easy cash, as almost all the real money comes from the denier side.
proof?
 
Fellow, Al Gore just put into layman's terms what the scientists were saying. And did it pretty well.

Now, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements to the effect that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

I agree that literacy and economic progress are the greatest tools for reducing population. However, it will take more time for that to happen than we have. There are inevitable consequences to rapidly increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere. We see those consequences in the geological record from periods like the P-T extinction period when volcanics in the Siberian Trapps triggered a very rapid rise in GHGs. And it is the physics of the excess GHGs in the atmosphere that matter, not the source. Physics does not care whether the source is volcanics or the burning of fossil fuels.




JC.....check that statement out dude..........these people are, plain and simple, human racists.


Shocked skeptics took this long to call these people what they are > CPAC panelist accuses climate activists of ?human racism? - Salon.com


We need to put all these fucks on a one way trip to colonize Mars.
I'm at the point that no proof no more discussion. The onus is on them to prove their theory. Hold them to that.
 
We don't manufacture anything anymore.
We have lowered the emissions from cars year after year....

Yet all we hear from the left is that Americans are the biggest scumbags on the planet and this so called climate nonsense is all our fault....

Let Al Gore and the rest go after Russia,China and India and tell them to straighten the fuck out and stop breaking my balls about it.
You're quite right. America is most likely the cleanest country in the world. And the enviro-fascists are ever harassing us to do more, and so casually at our own expense to live comfortably, our property rights, and even at the expense of our survival. Some of them even want us to die (depopulate) or live more like cave-men for the sake of the agenda. Putting everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - on this planet ahead of our needs. It's a control issue

The truth is, climate disruption (the latest label) is a political agenda.It's a front for a totalitarian global govt owning most, if not all property and controlling people, power, and money.

Some things never change - they're just repackaged and marketed to new generations of fools.
 
No, they're worse. The think that they are the elite and they want to reduce the worlds population down to a few million. That is their ultimate goal. A few million to do all the hard labor, to keep the elite in their nice comfy lives. They are wannabe slave masters....pure and simple.

You understand you're coming across as a raving cult lunatic, totally detached from reality, right?

If no one has ever broken that news to you before, consider this to be your intervention. You're a flaming kook. Most deniers are to some extent, but you're taking it the furthest.






Sure thing admiral. Your only problem is I have ample evidence to support my assertion while you have....as usual...nothing..


As the world population reaches seven billion people, the BBC's Mike Gallagher asks whether efforts to control population have been, as some critics claim, a form of authoritarian control over the world's poorest citizens.

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_yl...l+gates+population+control&rs=1&fr2=rs-bottom

A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT



What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least
developed countries?

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/UNPD_policybriefs/UNPD_policy_brief1.pdf

UNFPA - State of World Population 2009

BBC News - Population control: Is it a tool of the rich?



And on and on and on. Face it admiral, I have loads of evidence on my side and you have political propaganda! That makes you a loser!:lol:
 
Let's do some housecleaning first.

Old rocks anyone who thinks democrats are for better education, science, and erudition is brain dead themselves, and the facts are all around us. Teacher unions and ideology are the hallmarks of education today, not a quest for knowledge and tolerance. Because of liberalism this country has fallen behind in education. Remember it was Obama who scrapped the space program and all the science and dreams that went with it. Foreign students who come from strict and goal oriented educational systems are the star performers in higher science ed. Hello!

Mammooth your slip is showing. Let's see, you think liberals who get grants are good scientists and conservatives that get grants are bad scientists. Inotherwords you have already come to the conclusion and now you want the study to be set up to come to that conclusion. Did you go to Rutgers? Memo to M. Intolerance is a sign of a lack of education, no matter who is displaying it.

Old rocks, you and I are probably close to same age. When I was in high school The Population Bomb was published saying that mankind was going multiply by so much that famine, starvation, and ruination were coming to the human race. Crop production would not be able to keep up with the demand. Man I was so brainwashed I repeated this mantra to anyone who would listen. Funny thing, the whole concept was swallowed hook line and sinker by the intelligentsia and it all turned out to be untrue. Ehrlichman sure made a lot of money pushing his idea, he turned out to be a carnival hawker and a scam. Then a few years ago we are pummeled by study after study that says the world is going to run out of oil by 2050, and we must do something big to prepare for this. Another funny thing, it also turned out to be untrue. Are you getting the jist here? Y2K anyone? So in our lifetimes one apocalyptic scenario after another has been offered and they all have fallen short. So can you blame anyone for being skeptical about this latest apocalypse? Should we always do what we can within bounds to reduce our footprint, yes of course, but what goes unnoticed is that we are incrementally doing that. The planet made it somehow before we were born and it will do just fine after we are gone, whether we play god or not.
 
Let's do some housecleaning first.

Old rocks anyone who thinks democrats are for better education, science, and erudition is brain dead themselves, and the facts are all around us. Teacher unions and ideology are the hallmarks of education today, not a quest for knowledge and tolerance. Because of liberalism this country has fallen behind in education. Remember it was Obama who scrapped the space program and all the science and dreams that went with it. Foreign students who come from strict and goal oriented educational systems are the star performers in higher science ed. Hello!

Mammooth your slip is showing. Let's see, you think liberals who get grants are good scientists and conservatives that get grants are bad scientists. Inotherwords you have already come to the conclusion and now you want the study to be set up to come to that conclusion. Did you go to Rutgers? Memo to M. Intolerance is a sign of a lack of education, no matter who is displaying it.

Old rocks, you and I are probably close to same age. When I was in high school The Population Bomb was published saying that mankind was going multiply by so much that famine, starvation, and ruination were coming to the human race. Crop production would not be able to keep up with the demand. Man I was so brainwashed I repeated this mantra to anyone who would listen. Funny thing, the whole concept was swallowed hook line and sinker by the intelligentsia and it all turned out to be untrue. Ehrlichman sure made a lot of money pushing his idea, he turned out to be a carnival hawker and a scam. Then a few years ago we are pummeled by study after study that says the world is going to run out of oil by 2050, and we must do something big to prepare for this. Another funny thing, it also turned out to be untrue. Are you getting the jist here? Y2K anyone? So in our lifetimes one apocalyptic scenario after another has been offered and they all have fallen short. So can you blame anyone for being skeptical about this latest apocalypse? Should we always do what we can within bounds to reduce our footprint, yes of course, but what goes unnoticed is that we are incrementally doing that. The planet made it somehow before we were born and it will do just fine after we are gone, whether we play god or not.



ENVIRONMENT forum post of the year right here s0ns!!! ^^^^
 

Forum List

Back
Top