I'm not in the camp that thinks we still have time to act. Humanity is doomed. Proof is that there are people (like you) who are still denying what the rest of us can see with our own eyes (fires in California and Australia, for example). I guess there is not much difference between this and denying Russian interference in our elections. They both involve denying reality. And seriously bad consequences as a result.
I've heard of the climate change denier/conspiracy theorist Tony Heller aka Steven Goodard. The scientists are all lying to us for some reason. Even though it's pretty clear we are not going to do what we need to do to save ourselves. Something they do out of desperation. But there is no desperation if they know they're lying. So... why?
Presenting the complete data set, instead of a more limited partial data set, is lying? I would have thought that "lying" would be the other way around, ignoring the totality of facts to arrive at a partial (and likely false) conclusion.
You responded to something I didn't say. I asked why the consensus among climate change scientists is that they should peddle absurd lies. Because it would certainly be absurd to lie in the manner you suggest they are. Such a lie would be easy to uncover and make all the scientists look bad and get fired. Yet many people continue to believe that climate change is occurring. Even if the consensus opinion among the elites (who are making money off dirty fossil fuels) is that we should do nothing about it. What you want (for us to do nothing). STILL you whine.
So why the f*ck does the Federal Government subsidize Big Oil? PEANUTS compared to what climate change scientists receive. And you say they'd lose their jobs if they told the truth? So why haven't they reversed course now that climate-change-denying Dotard is predisent? Instead "lying" climate change scientists are getting fired for refusing to tell the "truth".
I'm not in the camp that thinks we still have time to act. Humanity is doomed. Proof is that there are people (like you) who are still denying what the rest of us can see with our own eyes (fires in California and Australia, for example). I guess there is not much difference between this and denying Russian interference in our elections. They both involve denying reality. And seriously bad consequences as a result.
ReplyDeleteThe data doesn't lie unless you ignore the parts of it that you don't like.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Does that mean you're going to stop ignoring the parts you don't like?
ReplyDeleteYou obviously failed to watch the video. :(
ReplyDeleteI've heard of the climate change denier/conspiracy theorist Tony Heller aka Steven Goodard. The scientists are all lying to us for some reason. Even though it's pretty clear we are not going to do what we need to do to save ourselves. Something they do out of desperation. But there is no desperation if they know they're lying. So... why?
ReplyDeletePresenting the complete data set, instead of a more limited partial data set, is lying? I would have thought that "lying" would be the other way around, ignoring the totality of facts to arrive at a partial (and likely false) conclusion.
ReplyDeleteYou responded to something I didn't say. I asked why the consensus among climate change scientists is that they should peddle absurd lies. Because it would certainly be absurd to lie in the manner you suggest they are. Such a lie would be easy to uncover and make all the scientists look bad and get fired. Yet many people continue to believe that climate change is occurring. Even if the consensus opinion among the elites (who are making money off dirty fossil fuels) is that we should do nothing about it. What you want (for us to do nothing). STILL you whine.
ReplyDelete. I asked why the consensus among climate change scientists is that they should peddle absurd lies.
ReplyDeleteChicken Littles were never funded by the federal government before.
...or by Ted Turner's IPCC donations.
ReplyDeleteSo why the f*ck does the Federal Government subsidize Big Oil? PEANUTS compared to what climate change scientists receive. And you say they'd lose their jobs if they told the truth? So why haven't they reversed course now that climate-change-denying Dotard is predisent? Instead "lying" climate change scientists are getting fired for refusing to tell the "truth".
ReplyDeleteOver $2B a year just for scientific research is peanuts? Who knew?
ReplyDeleteJust look at what the Euro's subsidize... the Green Energy to Black Energy ration is 20:1/
:P
ReplyDelete