If ever a story summed up climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 40920
  • Start date Start date
superspread said:
Yea cos that’s real!!!!
Click to expand...
Sorry scientists all your data, decades of education and research is no good even though it all points to one conclusion. "Whys that" some plasterers shared a picture of some snow
 
Robbo123 said:
Sorry scientists all your data, decades of education and research is no good even though it all points to one conclusion. "Whys that" some plasterers shared a picture of some snow
Click to expand...
superspread said:
Yea let’s all believe a scientist cos he’s got a phd :risas: :risas:

Take the blinkers off:tonto:
Click to expand...

one doctor tells me to take statins, wgixh I declined, then low and behold experts saying don’t take statins , I’ve got my own mind , I suggest you do the same
 
This is what your paying for these
Clowns to predict


Wrong every time
Here is this clowns credentials
Link Removed

Here is just one of his predictions
All fooking lies
Fooking wake up
If ever a story summed up climate change
If ever a story summed up climate change

Your welcome
 
'Science' is all about the money, these days. Scientists have families and running labs full of expensive equipment costs a lot.
Whoever is willing to provide 'research grants' always has an agenda they are seeking to advance, whether it be for good or bad - very few organisations or individuals are willing to throw hundreds of thousands, or millions, of dollars at research they stand to gain nothing from. Even fewer organisations or individuals are willing to throw hundreds of thousands, or millions, of dollars at subsequent research, if earlier research they financed failed to provide the 'evidence' they were hoping for, and consequently, almost all scientists realise that their job probably depends on satisfying those financing their research grants, by providing them with the evidence they seek to advance their agenda.

A case in point is the rise of GMO, and the 'scientific studies' supposedly backing up it's proposed 'harmlessness'. That house of cards has taken quite a beating, recently.


Follow the money.

Who stands to gain from the demonisation of fossil fuels?

Who stand to gain from weakening the dominance of the petro-dollar? (not that I am a fan of that system, but the question itself still stands, nonetheless)

Who stands to gain from brainwashing the public into (soon) accepting the asserted 'legitimacy' of carbon taxes? Such taxes are on the way - just wait and see.

Who stands to gain from demonising countries who are struggling to lift themselves out of poverty, necessarily increasing their fossil fuel usage in order to undertake infrastructure development?


FWIW, I actually would like to see humankind using natural resources more responsibly, and reducing their reliance upon fossil fuels, but not because of the 'global warming' brigade.

I don't get wound up about it, personally, as I take a broader view of life, but I will admit to being a bit irritated by how much the public is being endlessly conditioned to believe in the supposed 'scientific factual basis' of this agenda - and make no mistake: that's what it is - an agenda.
 
Last edited:
I’ll simplify and sum it up.
The whole worlds financial system relies on growth without this the world would crash and go into depression.
The only way to maintain this growth is for the population to grow.
Our whole system of life is flawed and isn’t sustainable for future generations.
 
MakeItSmooth said:
'Science' is all about the money, these days. Scientists have families and running labs full of expensive equipment costs a lot.
Whoever is willing to provide 'research grants' always has an agenda they are seeking to advance, whether it be for good or bad - very few organisations or individuals are willing to throw hundreds of thousands, or millions, of dollars at research they stand to gain nothing from. Even fewer organisations or individuals are willing to throw hundreds of thousands, or millions, of dollars at subsequent research, if earlier research they financed failed to provide the 'evidence' they were hoping for, and consequently, almost all scientists realise that their job probably depends on satisfying those financing their research grants, by providing them with the evidence they seek to advance their agenda.

A case in point is the rise of GMO, and the 'scientific studies' supposedly backing up it's proposed 'harmlessness'. That house of cards has taken quite a beating, recently.


Follow the money.

Who stands to gain from the demonisation of fossil fuels?

Who stand to gain from weakening the dominance of the petro-dollar? (not that I am a fan of that system, but the question itself still stands, nonetheless)

Who stands to gain from brainwashing the public into (soon) accepting the asserted 'legitimacy' of carbon taxes? Such taxes are on the way - just wait and see.

Who stands to gain from demonising countries who are struggling to lift themselves out of poverty, necessarily increasing their fossil fuel usage in order to undertake infrastructure development?


FWIW, I actually would like to see humankind using natural resources more responsibly, and reducing their reliance upon fossil fuels, but not because of the 'global warming' brigade.

I don't get wound up about it, personally, as I take a broader view of life, but I will admit to being a bit irritated by how much the public is being endlessly conditioned to believe in the supposed 'scientific factual basis' of this agenda - and make no mistake: that's what it is - an agenda.
Click to expand...
That's well written. Still a problem with it though. It's all your opinion. There's nothing in there with any substance. Other than every scientist, with decades of education have all graduated and decided to ignore everything they've learnt in relation to fair testing etc. You've got no basis for your belief that what they're saying isn't true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top