Well, this kid's been totally brainwashed. A sad thing what the propaganda is doing to our kids. They don't undertand the science, and therefore believe the GW swindle.
Probably some teacher told him humans cause global warming, and in the hope of getting a better grade, he responded with this. That kind of brainwash-education has got to stop.
Well, kid, if you read this: I don't blame you. But search the thruth next time, don't just try and please your teacher. I'm a teacher myself, btw.
Check the real polar bear stats! They are multiplying in some areas, stable in others and declining in only two areas. If you think polar bears want the north totally frozen you are wrong. Severely cold winters kill off polar bears because the need the open waters to hunt. They can't drill through three feet of ice.
The bears are doing fine but for the ones too close to man who are suffering from loss of habitat by man not by missing ice.
Brainwashing and indoctrination is such a beautiful thing. 2,500 scientists? Evidently it doesn't matter that those at the top have admitted lying. And I guess it's easy to ignore the over 30,000 scientists who publicly reject it. Too bad you didn't research and address both sides of the story.
@GovOfWolves I'm afraid it is thou has been brainwashed. CaptionCron got most of it right except the bit about 2500 scientists. That was how many were involved in writing the IPCC report but they were just summarizing decades of work by 10s of thousands of climatologists.
The 30,000 scientists you refer to I assume is the Oregon petition - that is a complete joke born in a fruad and perpetuated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine ( just 8 people who are pushing home schooling)
@drkstrong So the IPCC scientists who admit they lied and falsified the peer review (among other things) based their lies on 10s of thousands of climatologists. Doesn't say much for your imaginary climatologists. According to you, all we have to do is refer to something as a "joke" to refute it. Brainwashed are the environmental religious extremists like yourself who ignore the facts, use false evidence, or no evidence to support your argument (other than pointing to discredited research).
@GovOfWolves All you have to do to refute it is to check some of the names - I took a random sample of people with unique names & claimed to have doctorates. Most research scientists have publications in the literature citation data bases or CVs on line (I do, for example). Most (98%) of those I could identify had no publication record in climatology or a related discipline. 3rd I could not find any trace (i.e., bogus), the rest were chemical engineers or geologists (ie oil industry scientists)
@drkstrong Goggle "scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers". All the big organizations which you GW extremists rely on have been discredited, and yet you still refer to them as credible sources.
It is rather gullible to not even follow the money behind all this. A good place to start would be the fact that BP was one of the founders of cap & trade (but of course, all the GW activists delude themselves into believing oil companies are against cap & trade and carbon taxes).
@GovOfWolves Yes, I thought that was what you were refering to. Your mistake. Read the actual report. The IPCC issues 3 separate reports: WG1 deals with the science; WG2 deals with the impacts; Wg3 deals with remidies. All the mistakes you refer to are in the WG2 report, not the science report. In fact the GW denial campaign reviewed all 3 sections of the last report and grudgingly gave the science section an A rating. So none of this invalidates any of the scientific conclusions.
@drkstrong That was just one example regarding the IPCC. No matter what you say, it doesn't retract the scientist's admission. And yet, you avoid everything else. Keep using discredited scientists and reports to support your argument - perhaps you'll convince a few peasants to join your environmental religion. And while you still sleep, the rest of society continues to awaken.
@GovOfWolves Nice bumper sticker slogans. You avoid answering the fact that you are trying to smear the science report when nothing has been found wrong with it. Try to understand: a different report, writen by different people, reviewed by different people at a different time. Its like saying that because one author wrote a poor fiction novel that therefore all fiction novels are poor. Please direct us all to an author of the 2007 WG1 IPCC report that has admitted to faking data. Just one.
@drkstrong lol I just did show you. Just because you choose to ignore it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's time you moved out of living in the "hide the decline" past.
@GovOfWolves Good grief you are still hung up omn that? Get a life. Ever asked yourself: hide what decline? Read the whole email string, not just one phrase taken out of context. Look at "Naomi Oreskes on the merchants of doubt" it will be rather eye opening to you.
sexiest guy ever
-LS
cardman800 2 months ago
Well, this kid's been totally brainwashed. A sad thing what the propaganda is doing to our kids. They don't undertand the science, and therefore believe the GW swindle.
Probably some teacher told him humans cause global warming, and in the hope of getting a better grade, he responded with this. That kind of brainwash-education has got to stop.
Well, kid, if you read this: I don't blame you. But search the thruth next time, don't just try and please your teacher. I'm a teacher myself, btw.
darkhairedguy 3 months ago
@darkhairedguy your gay, your probably a shitty teacher too
rolandcardy 2 months ago
Check the real polar bear stats! They are multiplying in some areas, stable in others and declining in only two areas. If you think polar bears want the north totally frozen you are wrong. Severely cold winters kill off polar bears because the need the open waters to hunt. They can't drill through three feet of ice.
The bears are doing fine but for the ones too close to man who are suffering from loss of habitat by man not by missing ice.
buddcinder 1 year ago
Brainwashing and indoctrination is such a beautiful thing. 2,500 scientists? Evidently it doesn't matter that those at the top have admitted lying. And I guess it's easy to ignore the over 30,000 scientists who publicly reject it. Too bad you didn't research and address both sides of the story.
GovOfWolves 1 year ago
@GovOfWolves I'm afraid it is thou has been brainwashed. CaptionCron got most of it right except the bit about 2500 scientists. That was how many were involved in writing the IPCC report but they were just summarizing decades of work by 10s of thousands of climatologists.
The 30,000 scientists you refer to I assume is the Oregon petition - that is a complete joke born in a fruad and perpetuated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine ( just 8 people who are pushing home schooling)
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong So the IPCC scientists who admit they lied and falsified the peer review (among other things) based their lies on 10s of thousands of climatologists. Doesn't say much for your imaginary climatologists. According to you, all we have to do is refer to something as a "joke" to refute it. Brainwashed are the environmental religious extremists like yourself who ignore the facts, use false evidence, or no evidence to support your argument (other than pointing to discredited research).
GovOfWolves 1 year ago
@GovOfWolves All you have to do to refute it is to check some of the names - I took a random sample of people with unique names & claimed to have doctorates. Most research scientists have publications in the literature citation data bases or CVs on line (I do, for example). Most (98%) of those I could identify had no publication record in climatology or a related discipline. 3rd I could not find any trace (i.e., bogus), the rest were chemical engineers or geologists (ie oil industry scientists)
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong PS Whhat are you refering to IPCC scientists lied and falsified the peer review. I think you are mixed up on that
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Goggle "scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers". All the big organizations which you GW extremists rely on have been discredited, and yet you still refer to them as credible sources.
It is rather gullible to not even follow the money behind all this. A good place to start would be the fact that BP was one of the founders of cap & trade (but of course, all the GW activists delude themselves into believing oil companies are against cap & trade and carbon taxes).
GovOfWolves 1 year ago
@GovOfWolves Yes, I thought that was what you were refering to. Your mistake. Read the actual report. The IPCC issues 3 separate reports: WG1 deals with the science; WG2 deals with the impacts; Wg3 deals with remidies. All the mistakes you refer to are in the WG2 report, not the science report. In fact the GW denial campaign reviewed all 3 sections of the last report and grudgingly gave the science section an A rating. So none of this invalidates any of the scientific conclusions.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong That was just one example regarding the IPCC. No matter what you say, it doesn't retract the scientist's admission. And yet, you avoid everything else. Keep using discredited scientists and reports to support your argument - perhaps you'll convince a few peasants to join your environmental religion. And while you still sleep, the rest of society continues to awaken.
GovOfWolves 1 year ago
@GovOfWolves Nice bumper sticker slogans. You avoid answering the fact that you are trying to smear the science report when nothing has been found wrong with it. Try to understand: a different report, writen by different people, reviewed by different people at a different time. Its like saying that because one author wrote a poor fiction novel that therefore all fiction novels are poor. Please direct us all to an author of the 2007 WG1 IPCC report that has admitted to faking data. Just one.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong lol I just did show you. Just because you choose to ignore it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's time you moved out of living in the "hide the decline" past.
GovOfWolves 1 year ago
@GovOfWolves Good grief you are still hung up omn that? Get a life. Ever asked yourself: hide what decline? Read the whole email string, not just one phrase taken out of context. Look at "Naomi Oreskes on the merchants of doubt" it will be rather eye opening to you.
drkstrong 1 year ago