I understand and believe in global warming, but...

[Muhammed]

Survival is a deep and powerful motivator.

No climate crisis, no need to waste billions of our limited scientific research dollars. No reason to hide the decline. All of that money could have been spent on actual scientific research.



So Mr. doomsday cultist, what reason would there be to hide the decline, or hide ANYTHING, if it was not to deceive?

 

[xband]

Survival is a deep and powerful motivator.

No climate crisis, no need to waste billions of our limited scientific research dollars. No reason to hide the decline. All of that money could have been spent on actual scientific research.



So Mr. doomsday cultist, what reason would there be to hide the decline, or hide ANYTHING, if it was not to deceive?

Global warming is a forgone conclusion and why spend more scientific research money on something that can't be changed? Scientific research money should be spent on reducing global population.

 

[IanC]

Survival is a deep and powerful motivator.

No climate crisis, no need to waste billions of our limited scientific research dollars. No reason to hide the decline. All of that money could have been spent on actual scientific research.



So Mr. doomsday cultist, what reason would there be to hide the decline, or hide ANYTHING, if it was not to deceive?

Global warming is a forgone conclusion and why spend more scientific research money on something that can't be changed? Scientific research money should be spent on reducing global population.

My,my. That certainly is the elephant in the room that everyone takes great pains to ignore.

 

[Muhammed]

Survival is a deep and powerful motivator.

No climate crisis, no need to waste billions of our limited scientific research dollars. No reason to hide the decline. All of that money could have been spent on actual scientific research.



So Mr. doomsday cultist, what reason would there be to hide the decline, or hide ANYTHING, if it was not to deceive?

Global warming is a forgone conclusion and why spend more scientific research money on something that can't be changed? Scientific research money should be spent on reducing global population.

You go first.

 

[Crick]

Another addition to my collection of denier suicide requests.

 

[jc456]

Another addition to my collection of denier suicide requests.

Huh

 

[Crick]

After SSDD took a quote from me out of context, attempting to suggest I was making death wishes for deniers, I began a collection of quotes from deniers actually doing so.

 

[jc456]

After SSDD took a quote from me out of context, attempting to suggest I was making death wishes for deniers, I began a collection of quotes from deniers actually doing so.

I thought the answer that he gave was appropriate for the discussion of reducing global population. it was the other dude's idea. Make sure your collection gets it straight on who actually wanted the elimination of population.

 

[Crick]

I advocate for population reduction. I don't do so by suggesting others commit suicide.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you understood global warming you would realize it is a money making UN scheme. Don't take mt word for it. Take theirs:

Listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

It is a redistribution of our wealth scheme.

It is not. Edenhofer is describing how nations are acting to reduce global warming. He is not describing IPCC behavior, policy or viewpoint. It would be helpful were you to read the entire exchange (a magazine interview with Stern, I think) rather than this wee soundbite deniers like to pass around.

Quit lying crick...

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare



For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."

Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate."

"What if global warming isn’t only a crisis?" Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. "What if it's the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?"

In her mind, the world has to "change, or be changed" because an "economic system" -- meaning free-market capitalism -- has caused environmental "wreckage."

 

[jc456]

I advocate for population reduction. I don't do so by suggesting others commit suicide.

what is it you are advocating? Why are you always vague in your posts? What is your proposed plan?

 

[Crick]

I advocate the Golden Rule. I advocate minimizing our consumption of irreplaceable natural resources. I advocate the development of technologies that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and all other pollutants. I advocate for a government whose sole responsibility is the welfare of its people, guided by objective knowledge. Why do you ask? I should have thought all of that was quite obvious.

 

[jc456]

I advocate the Golden Rule. I advocate minimizing our consumption of irreplaceable natural resources. I advocate the development of technologies that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and all other pollutants. I advocate for a government whose sole responsibility is the welfare of its people, guided by objective knowledge. Why do you ask? I should have thought all of that was quite obvious.

 

[Crick]

I'll tell you what's stupid jc: you thinking I take anything you say on this topic as possessing merit.

 

[jc456]

I'll tell you what's stupid jc: you thinking I take anything you say on this topic as possessing merit.

ditto

 

[SSDD]

Another addition to my collection of denier suicide requests.

When are you going to get it through your idiot skull that there is a vast difference between suicide and the suggestion that skeptics be killed, as you suggested.

 

[SSDD]

After SSDD took a quote from me out of context, attempting to suggest I was making death wishes for deniers, I began a collection of quotes from deniers actually doing so.

Not out of context...that is just more lying on your part....I copied the entire sentence as it was posted....

 

[SSDD]

I advocate for population reduction. I don't do so by suggesting others commit suicide.

No...you suggest that those who disagree with you be "offed"

 

[Crick]

Actually, it was Stephanie who suggested that. I only commented on her logic. And, of course, you don't seem to speak English well enough to understand the meaning of the word "hypothetical", so there's really no point in discussing this with you.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, it was Stephanie who suggested that. I only commented on her logic. And, of course, you don't seem to speak English well enough to understand the meaning of the word "hypothetical", so there's really no point in discussing this with you.

You just can't stop lying can you crick...ever ponder why?

Doomsday, nothing you can do to stop it, but off yourself before it happens you're so worried over it
damn the cult of global warming are scary people

Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers.

Are you unable to grasp a quantitive difference between a suggestion of voluntary suicide and deliberate targeting and killing of a particular group that is politically troublesome?...or is your character really just that broken?