Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
PurplePangolin said:
PastelNata said:
Blib said:
I'm old, I'll be dead long before anything happens that would affect me. So, ultimately, I don't care either way, when it comes to the climate.
But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Ah yes, the 'stuff everyone else' view of the World. But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Have you not considered that the businesses who are the main drivers behind Global Warming in the first place have more to gain by continuing as they were than those trying to prevent it?
If you want to follow the money, follow it straight to those who don't want the gravy train to stop or tool up to adapt to greener practices. Greedy, selfish human nature.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
PurplePangolin said:
PastelNata said:
Blib said:
I'm old, I'll be dead long before anything happens that would affect me. So, ultimately, I don't care either way, when it comes to the climate.
But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Ah yes, the 'stuff everyone else' view of the World. But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Have you not considered that the businesses who are the main drivers behind Global Warming in the first place have more to gain by continuing as they were than those trying to prevent it?
If you want to follow the money, follow it straight to those who don't want the gravy train to stop or tool up to adapt to greener practices. Greedy, selfish human nature.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
If that's true (and the jury is still deliberating on it due to the fact that the numbers are being measured using different criteria in almost every study) then please explain why almost no climate scientists and absolutely zero scientific institutions are trumpeting that?
"Yay! Climate Change/Global Warming is here to save us all, rejoice" said nobody of any scientific repute ever.
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
PurplePangolin said:
PastelNata said:
Blib said:
I'm old, I'll be dead long before anything happens that would affect me. So, ultimately, I don't care either way, when it comes to the climate.
But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Ah yes, the 'stuff everyone else' view of the World. But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Have you not considered that the businesses who are the main drivers behind Global Warming in the first place have more to gain by continuing as they were than those trying to prevent it?
If you want to follow the money, follow it straight to those who don't want the gravy train to stop or tool up to adapt to greener practices. Greedy, selfish human nature.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
If that's true (and the jury is still deliberating on it due to the fact that the numbers are being measured using different criteria in almost every study) then please explain why almost no climate scientists and absolutely zero scientific institutions are trumpeting that?
"Yay! Climate Change/Global Warming is here to save us all, rejoice" said nobody of any scientific repute ever.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
PurplePangolin said:
PastelNata said:
Blib said:
I'm old, I'll be dead long before anything happens that would affect me. So, ultimately, I don't care either way, when it comes to the climate.
But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Ah yes, the 'stuff everyone else' view of the World. But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Have you not considered that the businesses who are the main drivers behind Global Warming in the first place have more to gain by continuing as they were than those trying to prevent it?
If you want to follow the money, follow it straight to those who don't want the gravy train to stop or tool up to adapt to greener practices. Greedy, selfish human nature.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
PurplePangolin said:
PastelNata said:
Blib said:
I'm old, I'll be dead long before anything happens that would affect me. So, ultimately, I don't care either way, when it comes to the climate.
But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Ah yes, the 'stuff everyone else' view of the World. But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Have you not considered that the businesses who are the main drivers behind Global Warming in the first place have more to gain by continuing as they were than those trying to prevent it?
If you want to follow the money, follow it straight to those who don't want the gravy train to stop or tool up to adapt to greener practices. Greedy, selfish human nature.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
If that's true (and the jury is still deliberating on it due to the fact that the numbers are being measured using different criteria in almost every study) then please explain why almost no climate scientists and absolutely zero scientific institutions are trumpeting that?
"Yay! Climate Change/Global Warming is here to save us all, rejoice" said nobody of any scientific repute ever.
I eagerly await your next "I'm just asking a question" interjection
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
PurplePangolin said:
PastelNata said:
Blib said:
I'm old, I'll be dead long before anything happens that would affect me. So, ultimately, I don't care either way, when it comes to the climate.
But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Ah yes, the 'stuff everyone else' view of the World. But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Have you not considered that the businesses who are the main drivers behind Global Warming in the first place have more to gain by continuing as they were than those trying to prevent it?
If you want to follow the money, follow it straight to those who don't want the gravy train to stop or tool up to adapt to greener practices. Greedy, selfish human nature.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
If that's true (and the jury is still deliberating on it due to the fact that the numbers are being measured using different criteria in almost every study) then please explain why almost no climate scientists and absolutely zero scientific institutions are trumpeting that?
"Yay! Climate Change/Global Warming is here to save us all, rejoice" said nobody of any scientific repute ever.
I eagerly await your next "I'm just asking a question" interjection
And again, I'm just drawing attention to highly prestigious, peer reviewed, science. If you think you know better than the authors of the paper you should contact them with data from your reSeArcH. I am sure they will be vEry iNterEsted in what you have to say.
remedy said:
This morning I started listening to a James English podcast with David Weiss on flat earth. My god it was hard work but it made the walk to work enjoyable.
The amount of people in the comments siding with Weiss tells me enough about who James English seems to be appealing to now so I'll be unsubscribing soon.
However, the comments did steer me to this; professor Dave dismantling Weiss's arguments. It is so entertaining I just wish they had more time together, and a working IT system.
Please spare an hour.
I had some monotonous tasks to do at work so listened to this. As expected, Prof Dave is being a dick. Yes, he's correct but my god he winds me up. You win no hearts and minds by beating people over the head with stuff.The amount of people in the comments siding with Weiss tells me enough about who James English seems to be appealing to now so I'll be unsubscribing soon.
However, the comments did steer me to this; professor Dave dismantling Weiss's arguments. It is so entertaining I just wish they had more time together, and a working IT system.
Please spare an hour.
Climate change is real. People arguing against it often have alternative motives. They’re not your friend.
Conspiracy theories are created by people that gain from them.
The word for people that propagate them is suckers.
The premise that your silly opinion requires me to refute it is how they get away with stupidity. Relax and know that outside the wingnut bubble most people are sensible.
Conspiracy theories are created by people that gain from them.
The word for people that propagate them is suckers.
The premise that your silly opinion requires me to refute it is how they get away with stupidity. Relax and know that outside the wingnut bubble most people are sensible.
GroundEffect said:
I had some monotonous tasks to do at work so listened to this. As expected, Prof Dave is being a dick. Yes, he's correct but my god he winds me up. You win no hearts and minds by beating people over the head with stuff.
I can see both sides. On the face of it he was too abusive and this detracted from his arguments. Although I did laugh, lots.However, he has pinned a comment explaining why he kept insulting him, and I do see his point.
Weiss just squirmed, waved away and disregarded science and wanted to jump around his script. And it is a script. It was the exact same points he tried to argue 11 months ago in this podcast as he did a few weeks ago when he filmed with JE.
Kawasicki said:
I don't claim to know why various scientific organisations haven't mentioned it. It's great news, really!
And again, I'm just drawing attention to highly prestigious, peer reviewed, science. If you think you know better than the authors of the paper you should contact them with data from your reSeArcH. I am sure they will be vEry iNterEsted in what you have to say.
The problem for you is you know where that particular line of reasoning ultimately leads you don't you? Back into your CT loop. And again, I'm just drawing attention to highly prestigious, peer reviewed, science. If you think you know better than the authors of the paper you should contact them with data from your reSeArcH. I am sure they will be vEry iNterEsted in what you have to say.
Such a shame that you ignore the tens of thousands of similar peer reviewed papers that explain how and why the planet is heating up and the negative effects this will have on us all.
Even AI must be in on the conspiracy!?
Come on now Gadgetmac, AI? Really? That´s all you have? It´s not peer reviewed and can therefore be discounted. Other sources of "science" that you should avoid are cereal packets, tv advertisements and tabloid newspapers.
Basically, stick to peer reviewed science, from respected journals.
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.
What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
Basically, stick to peer reviewed science, from respected journals.
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.
What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
Kawasicki said:
Come on now Gadgetmac, AI? Really? That´s all you have? It´s not peer reviewed and can therefore be discounted. Other sources of "science" that you should avoid are cereal packets, tv advertisements and tabloid newspapers.
Basically, stick to peer reviewed science, from respected journals.
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.
What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
An alternative AI peer reviewed it, so no problem. Basically, stick to peer reviewed science, from respected journals.
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.
What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
Kawasicki said:
Come on now Gadgetmac, AI? Really? That´s all you have? It´s not peer reviewed and can therefore be discounted. Other sources of "science" that you should avoid are cereal packets, tv advertisements and tabloid newspapers.
Basically, stick to peer reviewed science, from respected journals.
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.
What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
I'm demonstrating what a small a minority you're in when even basic AI doesn't agree with you. Basically, stick to peer reviewed science, from respected journals.
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.
What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
But here's some peer reviewed science for you...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/...
"The results indicate that global warming might slightly reduce the net temperature-related deaths, although, in the long run, climate change is expected
to increase mortality burden."
Perhaps you have some peer reviewed science that says increasing temps will continue to lead to a decreased mortality burden?
Kawasicki said:
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.
What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
You can’t possibly be this stupid.What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Come on now Gadgetmac, AI? Really? That´s all you have? It´s not peer reviewed and can therefore be discounted. Other sources of "science" that you should avoid are cereal packets, tv advertisements and tabloid newspapers.
Basically, stick to peer reviewed science, from respected journals.
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.
What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
I'm demonstrating what a small a minority you're in when even basic AI doesn't agree with you. Basically, stick to peer reviewed science, from respected journals.
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.
What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
But here's some peer reviewed science for you...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/...
"The results indicate that global warming might slightly reduce the net temperature-related deaths, although, in the long run, climate change is expected
to increase mortality burden."
Perhaps you have some peer reviewed science that says increasing temps will continue to lead to a decreased mortality burden?
Regards your second point, nobody knows what the future will bring. The projections forward from today show that the lower mortality from cold will continue to swamp the increased mortality from heat. At what point in time and and at what temperature that balance changes are not known, but the same (peer reviewed) projections show it is decades away.
PurplePangolin said:
No. Those businesses “behind” global warming have made your life comfortable. And those businesses will just adapt to make money off the green revolution.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
I grew up with Apartheid - it made my life as a white person in South Africa very comfortable. Did that make Apartheid right? Instead of being a CT Subcriber Deluxe, try to actually use your brain and think logically. Or, just continue being ignorant and being led by those who profit from your type.
andyeds1234 said:
Kawasicki said:
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.
What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
You can’t possibly be this stupid.What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
PastelNata said:
PurplePangolin said:
No. Those businesses “behind” global warming have made your life comfortable. And those businesses will just adapt to make money off the green revolution.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
I grew up with Apartheid - it made my life as a white person in South Africa very comfortable. Did that make Apartheid right? Instead of being a CT Subcriber Deluxe, try to actually use your brain and think logically. Or, just continue being ignorant and being led by those who profit from your type.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff