climate catastrophe

rickyb

Well-Known Member
I think I said this before but that makes no sense LOL, religious but don’t believe in God or heaven or hell or afterlife? Do you just like to go for the potluck dinner?
i might be mistaking religion for spirituality.

1659278893034.png


so i could believe in things being out of my control, which i obviously do, and it would apply

definition of superhuman is "exceptional powers". i could just say thats anything thats beyond any 1 person's ability to control.

heaven and hell is here, choices we make will decide which way we go. afterlife is people resurrecting the good you do.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
i might be mistaking religion for spirituality.

View attachment 394145

so i could believe in things being out of my control, which i obviously do, and it would apply

definition of superhuman is "exceptional powers". i could just say thats anything thats beyond any 1 person's ability to control.

heaven and hell is here, choices we make will decide which way we go. afterlife is people resurrecting the good you do.
The matrix has you!
 

Next Day Error

X - Other
I'm glad you admit that you think the people who fund scientists is meaningless, right after saying, twice, that you can't trust a scientist who was funded by the energy industry. Have you admitted your hypocrisy to yourself yet?
Money from governments to study an issue which affects national security vs. money from an industry or industry group which affects shorter-term profits through pushing demonstrably provable lies about the science is different. I think you can understand that. But you won't. Because you're needlessly contrarian.

Governments and intergovernmental organizations are only about 1/2 the funding total recently, by the way.
 

Non liberal

Well-Known Member
Money from governments to study an issue which affects national security vs. money from an industry or industry group which affects shorter-term profits through pushing demonstrably provable lies about the science is different. I think you can understand that. But you won't. Because you're needlessly contrarian.

Governments and intergovernmental organizations are only about 1/2 the funding total recently, by the way.
I’m curious, in what way does What’s happening or not happening now affect national security, lol. Also, if it’s such a big problem, why is government funding only half of the total funding? And so what if the funding is coming from oil companies? Are you saying our scientists are corruptible??
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
Money from governments to study an issue which affects national security vs. money from an industry or industry group which affects shorter-term profits through pushing demonstrably provable lies
Like arctic sea ice being completely gone in the summer, snow being a thing of the past in the UK, or Miami being under water by now?

about the science is different. I think you can understand that.
Yes, governments actors are all completely neutral and have no vested interest in obtaining particular outcomes from the "science" that they approve the funding for.

But you won't. Because you're needlessly contrarian.
No such thing. Especially when there are people who mindlessly and passively accept whatever their Lord and savior, the government, tells them.

Governments and intergovernmental organizations are only about 1/2 the funding total recently, by the way.

Oh? You don't say? Where's the other half come from? More corrupting industry influence? Do you even read what you post?
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
Like arctic sea ice being completely gone in the summer, snow being a thing of the past in the UK, or Miami being under water by now?


Yes, governments actors are all completely neutral and have no vested interest in obtaining particular outcomes from the "science" that they approve the funding for.


No such thing. Especially when there are people who mindlessly and passively accept whatever their Lord and savior, the government, tells them.



Oh? You don't say? Where's the other half come from? More corrupting industry influence? Do you even read what you post?
Its not all govt funded anyways.

Not all govt info is bad anyways
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
And @Next Day Error (a fitting name BTW) says if the government Isn't funding it, the science can't be trusted. Now we find out that it's not all government funded, so, even by his logic, it can't be trusted.



Just the stuff that confirms your bias is good, right?
you have 98% or whatever of scientists saying its here and human caused

theyre not all govt lol not that it really matters anyways
 

Non liberal

Well-Known Member
you have 98% or whatever of scientists saying its here and human caused

theyre not all govt lol not that it really matters anyways
Yet for the last 52yrs the”98”% have been wrong. Doesn’t that give you pause and make you think that either 98% don’t really believe that or are just going along with the consensus so they don’t get blacklisted OR… the science is wrong and being misinterpreted?
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
Yet for the last 52yrs the”98”% have been wrong. Doesn’t that give you pause and make you think that either 98% don’t really believe that or are just going along with the consensus so they don’t get blacklisted OR… the science is wrong and being misinterpreted?
i doubt its been 98% for 52 years. weve had a consensus like that for at least 10 years, not sure how much longer.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
Whatever, go ahead. Move the goal posts again.
the 1.5 degrees above celcius has been that number for at least 20 years now if not longer.

were currently at 1.3 degrees. it keeps warming. when the planet is trashed at 2 or 2.5 degrees many in the right wing will probably clue in that something isnt the same
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
Science by manufactured consensus and self-fulfilling prophecy. People have such low standards for what they will accept as true. When someone tells you "the experts agree" they are selling you snake oil.
 
Top