And furthermore, can you ask these questions which you have so far neglected to so, after a long time trying. Thank you
1) Given the evidence I showed you that many more scientific papers in the 1970s supported global warming than cooling, and there was no consensus over the climate in this period unlike today, do you still maintain the view that scientists believed in global cooling during this decade?
2) What scientific, not political, objections do you have to global warming?
@TheGamanic It's well known fact that governments, corporations, etc have blogging units with paid shills, fake personas & "debunkers' that troll the internet & write comments in defense of their agenda, to manipulate public opinion..While slandering anyone who opposes as "paranoid conspiracy theorists"
Confirmed: government employing Internet Trolls, Shills, PR Agents for YouTube: watch?v=VpVUYGcgtjw
@rg2027x Before you say anything , the first link is for people in Canada, but it didn't say how widespread and you just inferred that it was malicious. For the second, this is targeted at extremist groups, and they said it wouldn't be used against . But how exactly does this prove I myself am a shill, they merely show shills are out there. This is ludicrous, for example, in a murder trial, if you were prosecuting someone, and you said "well there are other murders therefore you murdered X"...
@rg2027x you would be quite rightly annoyed because there is no evidence of your direct involvement. I could just as easily claim that you are a shill of Big Oil, WITH JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE. The thing is, who cares? Climate change is a scientific issue and should be taken as fact or not if the science stands up. So far you have just given me political reasons for why I shouldn't "believe". Now show me scientific facts which contradict climate change, it should be easy
@TheGamanic "I could just as easily claim that you are a shill of Big Oil"
I find it peculiarly interesting you assume I'm with the oil industry, a "shill of Big Oil" because I oppose your "global warming" farce. Of countless industries, institutions & organizations to choose, you specifically target oil and name only the oil industry. I wonder why that is?
@rg2027x Note I didn't say you were a shill of the oil company, I'm just they are one of the many groups who would benefit if climate change were not real, I never said you were one. Unlike you, I only make the claim if there is enough evidence that it is true.
@TheGamanic Hey, look at that. We're both online simultaneously. What are the odds?
Note: I didn't say you 'said' I was a shill of the oil company. You picked them of all things, to "just as easily claim' that I am "a shill of Big Oil".
Now of all industries, you named big oil. I wonder why that is?
@rg2027x Because I know that it is one of the biggest industries who have admitted to funding people to go out and speak against climate change to try and muddy the waters on the scientific consensus and so one of its biggest opponents, in the same way that tobacco companies denied a link between smoking and cancer. I could have chosen natural gas, coal, logging, free market thinktanks, frankly the industry doesn't matter. What does is the fact you can't answer my simple questions!
@TheGamanic "in the same way that tobacco companies denied a link between smoking and cancer" straw man argument..Speaking of cigarettes, Al Gore apparently informed UN delegates that cigarette smoke contributes to global warming..LOL.Ah geez what next, outdoor barbeques? Does he feel guilty when he farts?
"I could have chosen natural gas, coal, logging, free market thinktanks"
But you didn't
"frankly the industry doesn't matter"
It matters. The industry is everything. Come on, you know this
@rg2027x How exactly is that a strawman, I am merely drawing a comparison, both fund people to muddy the waters of the science, both have a lot to lose out in the face of progress etc. If you want to join these anti-science lot, be my guest
So instead of answering my questions you have to resort to childish antics. This is what climate scepticism has come to.
@TheGamanic "How exactly is that a strawman, I am merely drawing a comparison"
There is indisputable proof that smoking causes lung cancer. Your statement is an informal fallacy, a form of strawman argument.
"a lot to lose out in the face of progress"
This isn't about "progress", it's about creating a govt subsidized "crisis" for more control, a money making scam they tried to get everyone to fall for, to charge everyone carbon credits, roughly 3k a year for a single car in the driveway..
@rg2027x As there is indisputable proof of climate change, according to 98% of experts! The only ones still clinging to inane skepticism are those funded by automobile and the like industries. So no, it is not a strawman.
"This isn't about "progress", it's about creating a govt subsidized "crisis" for more control"- again you need to divorce climate change the political issue from the scientific one, which is settled and was settled many years ago.
@TheGamanic was it really settled? 98% experts? You are just making this shit up as you go. You havent found any cos you didnt do any research in it. Politicians are saying climate change is man made idiot. You know why? They will get filthy rich on a global carbon tax. That tax will put a strain on the global economy and countries will have to borrow and get enslaved by the world bank/IMF
The figure is around 97-98% of climatologists, an overwhelming majority. As for whether certain politicians get rich, that is irrelevant to whether the science is correct or not
@TheGamanic "The only ones still clinging to inane skepticism are those funded by automobile and the like industries"
?
Please provide evidence the only ones skeptical of "climate change" agenda are funded by automobile and like industries. Cite specific examples and studies.
@rg2027x I've got one here, a fairly recent one actually. Willie Soon, one of the foremost skeptics, admitted to being paid over $1 million in the past decade by oil companies, including ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute
@TheGamanic "I could just as easily claim that you are a shill of Big Oil. The thing is, who cares?"
Who cares? uhh...Maybe not you, considering..But most normal, good humans who want the truth, do care.
Who in their right mind wants to dialog with fuckin shills? Who wants to waste time arguing with some dubious "debunker" whos mission isn't to be "convinced', but namecall, deny & 'explain away'.
"Climate change is a scientific issue"
LOL
My farts are a scientific issue. See how that works?
@rg2027x The thing which I don't get is that you believe so vehemently against global warminig yet unable to give any reasons for it. If the science holds up, then climate change is happening, therefore what's your problem? You say it is a fraud yet the science is clear. If it isn't, explain away.
Odd coming from you, a global warming evangelist who reacts so personally to "climate change" scam scrutinized..Enough to spend weeks of your time here, flailing away defending the agenda like your life depends on it.
You react so vicious to "global warming" objection as if someone was criticizing your mother! or close family
What's it to you someone criticizes "global warming" on the internet? You have obvious vested interest defending this scam. Wonder why?
@rg2027x Again, as I have said many many times before (it isn't going in, is it), I am not a "global warming evangelist", if you could find me some convincing evidence against it, I would consider changing my stance, nor do I react "personally", just a complete strawman of my views and ad hominem.Your last question I have answered many times, I am interested about what other people think and actually challenging people to think about what they actually believe.
@TheGamanic "if you could find me some convincing evidence against it, I would consider changing my stance"
LOL! You'd consider you're entire stance on this sham just on what I find? That's not why you're here. I'm supposed to be baited to throw something out, your mission is "debunk" it, explain away, make excuses & deny. With your usual side order of "conspiracy nutcase" namecalling for added effect.
Plenty of convincing evidence. The fact you need me to "provide" for you, speaks volumes..
@rg2027x Well I haven't found anything which contradicts the view proposed 98% of climatologists. Your excuse that you don't need to provide answers because there is a load of "convincing evidence" is just an excuse to say you have nothing!
"That's not why you're here"- yes, because you can clearly tell someone's inner beliefs when you have met them over the internet...
@rg2027x You clearly don't want the truth, otherwise you would answer my simple questions on why you object to climate change as a scientific phenomenon. Your inability to do so weakens your case dramatically.
@TheGamanic "You clearly don't want the truth, otherwise you would answer my simple questions"
Logical fallacy. Not answering questions (which are nothing but shill bait to launch a platform of namecalling, coverup & denial) means someone doesn't want truth? Only in your mind. Please don't assume the rest of good humans live there.
@rg2027x Logical fallacy my arse. Don't you think it is suscipious that you so vociferously deny climate change happening, yet when you are asked what you actually object to, you don't say anything? If you wanted to find out the "truth" through a discussion, you need to put forward your actual arguments, not just assertions. And how exactly is asking you a question on your objections and about global cooling a platform for "coverup" or "denial". You are putting forward the argument!!!!
@TheGamanic Your obsession here "debunking" is more suspicious than anything..
"If you wanted to find out the "truth" through a discussion"
Huh? Who said I wanted to do that? You making blind assumptions & putting words in my mouth. I don't need "discussion" with you to find truth.
"how exactly is asking you a question on your objections"
Not about "asking a question". Get real! Whatever I type, your standard response is attempt to "debunk", minimize information, run interference & downplay
@rg2027x So you don't want to actually find out whether the evidence is pointing for or against the climate change, despite the fact that a wrong move could cost us billions of pounds or the other threaten the existence of this planet? Or do you just listen to any old conspiracy theorists who peddles this shit?
@TheGamanic "despite the fact that a wrong move could cost us billions of pounds or the other threaten the existence of this planet?"
What exactly would that "wrong move" be, failing to pass carbon tax legislation? Not approving a cap&trade program?
Look at all the REAL disasters threatening existence of this planet. Japan Fukishima nuclear meltdown..spreading radiation across the world..BP oil catastrophe..oil+deadly corexit flowing in gulf stream. Yet, you're panicking over "global warming"
@rg2027x What exactly would that "wrong move" be, failing to pass carbon tax legislation? Not approving a cap&trade program?
No, not necessarily, although clearly something would need (has) to be done if climate change is true, which the overwhelming amount of scientists in the fields agree on.
@rg2027x I have already said what I think about Fukishima, and do think it is very bad. However, action of Climate Change and Fukishima are not mutually exclusive. You say Climate Change is not real, well, how do you know that?
@shithappens667 Scientists, not climatologists, or people. They are frankly not better qualified to talk about climate issues as me or you. Repeat surveys have shown that over 95% of climatologist consider that man is contributing to the recent warmth in the Earth's climate
@TheGamanic wtf? I just showed you a link to a peer reviewed study that shows over half do not endorse that global warming is man made. And it was made by one of the most reputable scientific organizations. They have way more credibilty than the IPCC. Do you know that CRU, one of the biggest organizations that was looking into global warming and how it was man made got hacked and there were emails that spoke of fiddling with graphs and charts to make the man made warming idea more beleivable.
@shithappens667 The researcher assumed that because some papers don't explicitly endorse climate change they therefore are against it. However, this is certainly not the case, as shown by various surveys which show that over 95% of climatologists consider climate change a fact. Hence, there is a shift within the scientific community not to prove that climate change is real but to work on what should be done to curb its impact, how fast before the real dangers set it etc. The research was...
cont. was over a three year period between 2004-2007 when the climate science has been more or less been settled since the '90s. Scientists take the theory for granted and so don't seek to prove it per se as much. More reliable studies, conducted over a 10 year period, before show a significantly greater consensus among climatologists, that is when more were trying to "prove" climate change
As for the CRU, they were acquitted of all wrongdoing by three independent investigations. There was no fiddling of data, merely taken out of context quotes and misinterpretation of scientific terms which so called "skeptics" rushed to show was evidence of climate conspiracy.
@TheGamanic right so..tell me, you know since mars's ice caps are also melting is that also man made? No...its is not man...it is more solar activity. I see you get your ''facts'' from wikipedia.
@shithappens667 The fact that in one part of Mars ice caps are melting does not accurately reflect whether the temperature of the whole planet is increasing . The cause of heating there is currently unknown, it can't be the sun as activity has decreased in the last years; you will probably say this is down to natural CO2 levels but that is merely an argument from incredulity.
@TheGamanic actually every 11 years solar activity reaches a ''solar maximum'' then cools down again but NASA found an increasing trend in solar activity. So, no it has not decreased as a whole except for the few years of cooling when it cools down. They found that every decade the average ''activity'' would increase by 0.5 percent. And historical records suggest it has been increasing since the late 19th century.
@shithappens667 I realise the Sun has cycles. However solar activity has decreased slightly whilst warming is continuing since the mid 1970s, so the recent warming trend is not due to the Sun and by another factor. This was the conclusion drawn in many papers, including Usoskin 2005, which compared solar activity and climate for the last 1150 years, and found a close match until 1975 when no trend occurred.
@TheGamanic It's called "cover up". Look it up sometime. I suppose you want people to believe the '9-11 Commission' was to bring us the truth too? LOL!
@TheGamanic The climate is always changing or we would have no need for weather forecasters..No reason to make a religion / political agenda out of it. Wanna know the "prime mover" behind Earth's climate? It's called THE SUN!
@rg2027x The Sun is of course a big factor in the Earth's climate, but it is not the only factor that affects it. The world has been warming for sometime, yet solar activity has decreased. Therefore the recent warming trend cannot be attributed to the Sun but by another cause. The fact that the climate has changed in history is neither here nor there, and it doesn't mean we can't affect it now
G W is the new religion. The fact that climate change exists is moot. The weather does what the weather does. The fact that humans can affect the weather is the part where people are told to “believe”.
This is the same crowd that said the said the world was going to end in Y2K!
@TheGamanic Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere including temperature, rainfall and humidity...that contribute to climate. Basic common sense!
"Global warming" is the core belief in a new eco-theology. Term is used as shorthand for "man made' global warming." It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering. Cap and trade is such a scam it's not even funny.
@rg2027x ""Global warming" is the core belief in a new eco-theology"- is there really any point with some person who calls a scientific phenomenon a "religion"? Come on, come back with some real arguments, not just cheap shots
"Cap and trade is such a scam it's not even funny"- you can "believe" in climate change and still think cap and trade isn't a good idea, you know?
@rg2027x I am a student, I don't work for anyone (although that is very unlikely to sway you from believing that I am a government shill but hey), but how exactly does that mean you can't answer my simple questions, which would be easy for you to answer if indeed you were skeptical of AGW? From your reluctance to answer these, it can be inferred that infact you have no SCIENTIFIC objection to climate change, and so just as brainwashed as you purported me to be
I think it is best to err on the side of caution so that we do not do irreparable damage to our only source of life. I do however think it was extremely distasteful for lord monckton to equate students concerned with climate change and possible global catastrophe with hitler's genocide training program for kids. I also feel that the major contributor to starvation in third world countries is the political factions and despots that rule them using food, or the lack thereof, as a weapon in their
These simple minded fools are classic examples of our school systems. Today from 3 years old our kids are having these Ideas rammed into there heads no wonder when they get out into the real world people like Monckton make them look just what they are Stupid Kids without the brains to work out that they are supporting a campaign that will have horrendous affects on poverty stricken countries
God, when I was a kid, I would have bullied these kids mercilessly, they are pathetic geeks! Look at the little somalian kid thinking, oh yeah, maybe I shouldn't be supporting people who killed my African family! Monckton is correct
The creators of the global warming scare are cunning terrorists, they know that by making people feel guilty they are making them more easily controlled, submissive and willing to throw money at a "crisis".
The same was done with witch hunts and Jim crow laws.
Biofuell is a consequence of oil race price,enormous demand for energy,not an GW scam result. Hunger in the world is just another accomplishment of savage corporate capitalism politics . One word ...Globalization. Better...Globalization with no rules. (ethic and moral ones). As about the GW, maybe is a scam but thereality is that the climate change is a fact. Come and see Sicily now, and then come back after 15 years to see a desert. Man made? don't now.
@seaplaneguy1 Do you believe the planet is not getting hotter and sea levels are rising? Or do you just not think it's caused by man and is happening naturally?
Not trying to pick an argument just trying to understand what your saying.
Climate changes...rate of increase 1600-1800 same as 1880 to present. We are coming out of ice age...warm is good. Cold...bad.
Co2 residence time is days to ten years at most, not 50-200 years. Earth oceans buffer co2. Mauna Loa tells us what the ocean buffer and largest volcano in world is doing...nothing about man.
CO2 increase will turn down in 3-5 some say. New Sat data will show man has near zero effect.
The hundreds of refugees that come into my country every year from pacific islands that are disappearing due to rising sea levels might disagree with your "warm is good. cold bad" remark.
sea levels are not rising any more than they were from the days of captain cook of pacific fame... Check the real data, not the fixed and fudged data. Search for truth.
The refugees are likely political or economic refugees. Sea levels have zero to do with it. This GW hoax is about population control...wake up.
Trust me these refugees are because of sea level rise, I've seen a video of the tide coming in on these islands and they disappear under it on the highest tides, what few houses are left have been lifted on stilts.
Lol, ground level dropping, sure mate. I never said anything about taxation, I don't give a shit about what anyone "claims" to be trying to do to stop GW.
My opinion (keyword is "opinion", they just like noses everyone has one) is that GW is happening and were not going to stop it, and when it does cause a major f*ck up you and your crowd of nay sayers and going to look like a pack of muppets.
Why do they say these policies kill millions of people in the third world? Where is the evidence for this? These policies are not even yet agreed upon, much less implemented, and assistance for the 3rd world is one of the primary components of a potential treaty.
Well food prices have doubled in the last 5 years. That means some people will only eat half as much. Others can aford to buy the same amount. And still others will, unfortunately, starve. Food prices have doubled as the climate change movement has picked up steam. More enviromental regulation on emissions, manufacturing and transportation drives up the cost of getting the food from the field to the market. Get it?
Farmers stopped planting food crops to grow bio-fuel crops due to government incentives given them due to the global warming hoax. Less food being grown has resulted in people starving to death in the 3rd world countries.
By doubling food prices when crops are substituted for bio-fuels through government subsidy (to become carbon-neutral) making bio-fuels more lucrative to grow.
This reflects a poor understanding of the third world, where 1. most food is produced locally outside of lands used for corporate crops, and 2. They people have dealt for decades with luxury export crops (e.g. shrimp, chocolate) that they do not consume or benefit from in the least. Meanwhile, we're stealing all of their fish to feed chickens and farmed salmon.
But it is a valid reason as it is easy to quantify the amount of land turned over to biofuels. You saying that biofuels are not grown on their 'food' land? Anyway is 'CapN'Trade' going to 'help' them? How? By being able to pay for/import heavily subsidised USA wheat/Rice/Soya? You best stick to the fishes Pal! Why r u not protesting the UN's disasterous CFP?Or the hoovering of the sandworms from the seabed for fertilizer so fish have no food? Now there are some great causes!
because he was the adviser to Thatcher and supports insane policies.. he is too connected... I looked him up and made up my own mind.. at this point I feel Monckton is classical controlled opposition.. he speaks the truth about one topic to gain your trust then steers in the way of his bosses interest.. hope that helps.. peace bro!!
I know he worked for Thatcher but what did he do for/under her? Has he genuinely changed his mind about any of the things he did in the past if he did do anything?
I would say Farage wouldnt of hired him if he didnt trust him. Farage is an amzing guy and everything ive seen him do in EU parliament makes balls of steel seem ball-less.
I mean Farage hates commies and the NWO, so why hire one? If he has these bosses so far everything ive seen would be counter productive for them
the lord? LOL. Gotta love these stuffy elites their self flagellating titles. He's a person just like you and me. He puts his clothes on in the morning the same as the rest of us.
Why place blind trust in these elitists? just because they happen to agree with your view. Do you really believe they care about you? Or are they controlled opposition on someone elses payroll serving an agenda.
I for one would never trust any mortal with lord in his title who insists that people address him as such.
Well start telling me bad things that hes done? Cause someones got a title it doesnt make them evil! Obama, Mccain, Bush are all the exact same to me(evil).
I try and judge people by their actions. I watch EU parliament regularly and i must say that i love UKIP and Daniel Hannah(a conservative) But mostly UKIP MEPs.
Lord Monkton doesnt seem like an elitist to me. So what he worked under Margret Thatcher?? Her government didnt do only evil and did some good things.
The sons of the dark know that when you indoctrinate them this young, they are easily kept under control. That first programming really sticks. Their faces remind me of the Manson girls. They are trying to scream and overtalk people in these comments, but that type of boot camp control doesn't work well in type. The Goracle is naked!
do you know who monckton is? he is not a scientist himself. if you look up his biography you will notice he once wrote an article saying that all people with AIDS should be locked up.... I wonder who has been brainwashing you? do you know the CEI is behind denialist adverts in the states. It has become Monckton's job to act as a denier. it makes me really sad people in america have been deluded into thinking that greenhouse gases are harmless. have you ever read any scientific papers?
@helala That's a flagrant misrepresentation, and such attempts at deceit does not in any way help your cause.
Back when there were very, very few people with AIDS, he advocated them being quarantined. Which, of course, is a very different thing than being "locked up" with all of the connotations that term brings with it. And, of course, If that policy would have been followed, it very likely would have saved the lives of millions of people.
yes that's true he did and "lord" monckton is not to be trusted .. he tells the truth and then attempt to sabotage.
He has been exposed. This video with the new title will have a far longer life here on youtube than it did with the previous naive title.. thanks so much and CAN WE ALL HERE IT FOR HELALA!!!
yes that's true he did and "lord" monckton is not to be trusted .. he tells the truth and then attempt to sabotage.
He has been exposed. This video with the new title will have a far longer life here on youtube than it did with the previous naive title.. thanks so much and CAN WE ALL HERE IT FOR HELALA!!!
The so-called "lord" is somebody elses bitch. Likely an 'intelligence agency' asset. Controlled opposition on demonic network payroll.
You can be assured that when any of these stuffy ass "elites" leave their hovels & confines to go out in public & bark at people, they are doing so following crime syndicate orders with an agenda.
None of them should be trusted. NONE. They are so far removed from the common peoples plight & struggle it's disgusting.
That may be so...but so is Obama, Brown & the UN! I agree, don't trust them, it's all a con. I liked the 'George Carlin doesn't vote' in your fav's. I think we should follow his advice...he was a smart guy.
Puppet "politicians"+ elites that operate as prostitutes for multi-national corporate criminals are never to be trusted. ESPECIALLY those who support your position & agree with your views. Question them, most of all. What is their real agenda? Are they truly sincere? or controlled opposition$
They all talk a great game about this & that ad nauseam. Meanwhile, nothing changes for the better for US or our families. We continue to be defrauded, lied to & SCAMMED at every turn. It's all bull shit..
"Sooner or later the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a FUCK about them. Government doesn't care about YOU or your 'children' or your 'rights' or your 'welfare' or your 'safety.' It simply doesn't give a FUCK about you. It's interested in its own power - that's the only thing - keeping it & expanding it where ever possible" ~George Carlin
When you vote, you are saying that you consider this rigged system to be legitimate.
Those voting for "lesser" of 2 evils" every few years should really consider if "the choice of the people" has anything to do whatsoever with our said "democracy" & how it runs.
All of this back & forth debate "left vs right", voting etc implies that there are really choices in this country-that we truly have choices. It's an illusion.
If voting really changed things for the better FOR US, it would be illegal
Look you clown if your smart that is the only qualification you need are you now claiming that people do not have the abilty to spot lies and bullshit what utter. drivel. Most propoganda is sales and marketing tactics so what mind manipulation studies have you done what qualifies you to make comments on mind control. What experience do you have I have plenty and unlike you I spot the lies with ease. ps dont ever buy a used car you have mug written all over you
Very few people at Cop15 were scientists...only a select few on the UN payroll that toe the line were invited...and those Nazi teens are not scientists either..
@democratickindeling i know man, of the ''2500 scientists'' who came to a consensus, only 15-20% of them were actual scientists, the rest werent. shits all political. The scientists on the IPCC are chosen by the government, so i definitely rest my case on it being a big political sham! Good point demo!
I don't get it was those kid against global warming or where they for it? couldn't really here what they were saying because of all the background noise & talking over one another.
True Monckton has no science degree, but rather a Classical Liberal education which includes above all reason at its core. Mr Gore was not very successful at his studies, his average was C+ at best. Monckton is rather skilled at mathematics and science and could debate Al Gore any day and make him look like the scam artist he is. This is why Al has not accepted the challenge to debate for over two years running. If he were competent and not a scam artist he would accept the challenge and debate
these fucking not, lol "as a jew" no one gives a shit u little fucking Hitler prick! they are so offended, as millions of people die, jesus what sick buncn of fucks.
Hitler youth is right. These robots are products of the public "education system". They fall for any sham the crime syndicate gargoyle overlords dump in their faces. What ever happened to questioning & RESISTING this shit? EVERY TIME a "politician" gets behind something, you can be assured it's a SCAM.
I love how they hedge their bets by saying "climate change" now instead of "global warming." Like the climate has ever not changed. What's with the twisting of language, and the meaning of words?
@rg2027x Global warming is an inaccurate term since it will affect different areas of the world differently. As for it being a scam, that is surely why dozens of peer reviewed papers in respected scientific journals and it is supproted by 99% of climatologists?
@rg2027x That's brilliant. The first video is pretty much scaremongering the whole way through (which oddly enough is something climate deniers often accuse their opposition of), whilst the second features video from ages ago, and since then many of those skeptic of climate change have been won over by new evidence in the field. As for Al Gore, his hypocrisy doesn't discredit climate change since the science still holds up.
@TheGamanic "Scaremongering?" It's called truth. LOL I see they got someone like you DUPED and regurgitating their propaganda. Scaremongering comes from "Global Warming" propagators & politicoids intent to sucker willing dupes into their agenda. Doesn't take much to chump someone like you in to anything. Probably a shill anyway..Your "global warming" & "green economy" bull shit are scam intended for implementing carbon taxes + "cap and trade" sham that directly benefit Central Banks & Wall St.
@rg2027x I find it weird that you know about me yet we have never met. Care to explain?
Equally, I could claim that you are regurgitating the propaganda fed to you by big oil companies, intent on downplaying the impact of climate change so that they can line their own pockets, and so you are no more than a puppet for Big Oil. However, one thing is known for sure, the science of climate change is unequivocal hence why 97% of climatologists consider it a real threat to humanity.
@TheGamanic Real threat to humanity= organized crime in power, their murderous wars & bull shit agendas..that you buy into
"global warming" (FRAUD)=basis of their cap&trade+ carbon tax schemes. In 1970s there was a "global cooling" scare (where the world was going to 'freeze back to the ice age'..LOL) the polar opposite of 'global warming" "climate change' BS going on right now. Criminals are just recycling their best scare tactics to impose an agenda..More power, more control & taxes. Same ol'
@rg2027x Ok, in that case, could you be willing to refute the arguments of top climatologists who consider it real then? Since you are so informed on the subject and they clearly aren't. As for the global cooling, although the 1970s were an unusually cold decade, only 7 papers in the scientific literature said we were heading for an ice age, whilst 44 for warming. There was hardly the massive consensus on it unlike what we have with global warming, supported by 97% of climatologists.
@TheGamanic It's called common sense (which isn't at all common in these media mind control programmed, "politically correct" times of massive deception. Whenever "elites" get behind ANYTHING, be assured it's an epic scam
We were supposed to believe earth was freezing back to ice ages in 1970s.."GLOBAL COOLING"..Now look where we arrived: "GLOBAL WARMING".."CLIMATE IS CHANGING!" they say. As Gore+associates count their $millions
Recycled scare tactics for a new dumbed-down decade, nothing more
@rg2027x Unfortunately for you, "common sense" doesn't equal science. As for your claims that scientists thought the earth was cooling, I have debunked that claim already, stating that there was no consensus behind a global cooling frenzy, and instead many more scientists in the 70s were predicting warming, which is what has happened.
@TheGamanic You didn't "debunk" anything, only deny it. You ought to try "debunking" propaganda from your TV news & what your government is feeding you sometime.
Unfortunately for you, you don't realize your "global warming" politician sponsored rich elitist co-opted agenda has already been proven fraud. Research Climategate
@rg2027x I have researched climategate, both sides of arguments, which I assume you have neglected to do, and found nothing damning about the case for climate change. To a layman, like yourself who is all too willing to gobble up the random ramblings of paranoid conspiracy theorists, it can sound like a conspiracy, but to rational people there is nothing which debunks climate science . Hence why the UEA has been cleared of everything.
As for the "global warming" thing, you made the claim that
@rg2027x cont. there was a global cooling scare, implying that this was supported by the majority of scientists and this was a conspiracy for whatever and/or to show incompetences in climate research; however I pointed out to you that this was by no means the predominant view., that is that the Earth was cooling. Therefore, you can accept that you are wrong, amend your argument or refute one of my points with reason. Please do one of the three
@TheGamanic Therefore, you can accept you are a shill assigned here to defend a proven FRAUD "global warming" scam, a programmed dupe reciting talking points of elitist politician/criminals agenda. You pointed out nothing and only propped up establishment propaganda. You can amend your "argument" to include all you did is deny my points, ridicule video evidence of global warming hoax & regurgitate pseudo 'scientific" soundbites to sound "intelligent" Tell your handlers you need better training.
@rg2027x So do you or don't you accept that the majority of scientists didn't believe that the Earth was cooling in 1970s? I'm asking you a relatively simple question. Please provide an answer. Furthermore, can we stop with "ad hominem", it is frankly rather childish and boring.
@TheGamanic What's truly childish and boring is someone like you who spends their precious time & energy online frantically defending govcorp establishment "global warming" agenda...Spouting all the typical paid agent/ "debunker" shill "CONSPIRACY THEORIST" ad hominem...While running interference for agenda of rich elitists with more money than they know what to do with.
Please provide an answer why you defend the politicians "global warming" sham like your life depends on it.
@rg2027x Do you know what "ad hominem" means?I am looking for civil discourse, not a match to see who can come up with exaggerated spurious lies.I don't often debate climate skeptics, it is not the subject I am most interested in, and in fact I used to be relatively skeptical myself. I doubt this will actually convince you that I am not a government shill, but it is worth a try I guess. As for my question on your claim about scientists supporting global cooling, you still haven't replied
LOL! Right.."civil discourse"..after namecalling me "gobbling up the random ramblings of paranoid conspiracy theorists"
You shills are too much.
"not a match to see who can come up with exaggerated spurious lies"
Speaking of exaggerated lies, you're the one spending a weekend frantically defending establishment "climate change" agenda & trying desperately to hoodwink people into believing politician propagated "global warming" scam. Why is that?
@rg2027x I am not frantically defending the establishment. I merely interested in why people are skeptical of AGW and trying to refute their points. As I said, I don't usually do this. And as I said, I don't "believe" in climate change because a politician says so! And please answer my question, accept you are wrong or rather refute my points. I will try to put to bed this old myth that the majority of scientists thought the Earth was cooling in the 1970s, it is just not true.
@TheGamanic You are here to prop up establishment "climate change" agenda and "global warming" scam.
The fact politicians support, fund & propagate the "climate change" agenda should ring alarm bells. LOUD....alarm bells. But it appears the lights are on but nobody's home.
When was the last time they cared about the environment? much less the "climate" is "changing"..that wasn't a premeditated setup for more power, control & taxation. That should tell you something...
@rg2027x cont. By that logic, I assume that you think that gravity is not real, the earth is flat, guitars cause cancer, any number of wacky things, just because some politicians believe that aswell. That is absurd my friend. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter who says a statement as long as it is right. If a junkie says that "Drugs are bad", his claim still holds despite him clearly not taking the advice. This is simple logic.
@TheGamanic You still don't get it...You have been well programmed.
Problem-solution conspiracy, they create the 'problem', they solve the problem, and they reap the profits.
Science in & of itself is pure & incorruptible. Shame the same cannot be said of scientists...Many scientists are married to govcorp (their only source of funding). If they don’t join the bandwagon, they’d be out of money + out of a career due to the system of control in place they work under..This is basic common sense.
@rg2027x But there are actually some skeptics, not the majority, but some prominent scientists nonetheless. You still have not answered my question. DO NOW or this is over
@TheGamanic Your desperation demanding me "DO NOW" "or this is over", flailing & pleading me to 'answer you' (after I've already made my position clear) makes me wonder if you get compensated when you bait someone to respond specific questions...
@rg2027x Again, evading the question, it is quite sad really.. I think you are turning into one of those politicians you so deeply hate with all this. And no, you have not made your position clear, you just asserted I was wrong without actually giving any reasons for why that was. This is your opportunity. But for some reason your squirming...got you on the run maybe? See your views are crumbling against an avalanche of rationality
@TheGamanic My "opportunity"? LOL! What is this, Wheel of Fortune? You gonna miss your weekend bonus or what. Awww poor thing. Just because you don't have true wisdom to grasp what I expressed doesn't make it 'unclear", it means you don't get it. All part of the routine isn't it. What's next for you, more name calling & "whacky conspiracy nut" soundbite 101?
As for evading questions, you still haven't answered why you spend a weekend here defending "global warming" like your life depends on it
@rg2027x cont. "True wisdom", what sort of bullshit is that? In my mind, just an easy way to say I have no answer. You could just say that, but instead you have to retain your pride and somehow make up crap about me "missing my weekend bonus". How old are you? I can see why people actually believe many conspiracy theories; it gives them a belief that they know more, are better and everyone else is retarded. Unfortunately, the seduction is detrimental to their critical thinking skills...
@TheGamanic Wisdom= something you lack, as demonstrated here.
"I can see why people actually believe many conspiracy theories"
This coming from you, a staunch believer in the "global warming" conspiracy, the greatest scam in history. LOL.
"Unfortunately, the seduction is detrimental to their critical thinking skills..."
Who is someone like you to lecture about "thinking skills" when you buy into the politicians "climate change" agenda. And spend your weekends here defending it..
@rg2027x But as I have already told you, I usually don't do this. I only occasionally debate nutters like yourself. Again, I don't "buy" into the politicians "climate change agenda"; I couldn't give a shit if no politicians believed it, the science unfortunately does not lie. And just as I said, even if a politician believes something does not make it not true. For example, I'm pretty sure Obama thinks the world is not flat, yet by your logic, we should believe it is. See how irrational that is?
Comment removed
micmachack 3 months ago
that's hilarious
dreadedoc 4 months ago
Long time environmentalist speaks out on Climate change scam
watch?v=kU_AZ--tg7Y
rg2027x 6 months ago
OBAMA's GLOBAL ‘climate change’ watch?v=pv9JN2XjB8o
WAKEY WAKEY PEOPLE.
rg2027x 7 months ago 2
@rg2027x The climate science is still sound. What are your actual scientific problem with it?
TheGamanic 7 months ago
And furthermore, can you ask these questions which you have so far neglected to so, after a long time trying. Thank you
1) Given the evidence I showed you that many more scientific papers in the 1970s supported global warming than cooling, and there was no consensus over the climate in this period unlike today, do you still maintain the view that scientists believed in global cooling during this decade?
2) What scientific, not political, objections do you have to global warming?
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic
What agency are you working for?
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x I HAVE ALREADY SAID THE BLOODY GOVERNMENT. Now please, answer my questions
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic It's well known fact that governments, corporations, etc have blogging units with paid shills, fake personas & "debunkers' that troll the internet & write comments in defense of their agenda, to manipulate public opinion..While slandering anyone who opposes as "paranoid conspiracy theorists"
Confirmed: government employing Internet Trolls, Shills, PR Agents for YouTube: watch?v=VpVUYGcgtjw
Shills, Trolls & Sock Puppets online: watch?v=x_W8Auv72-w
Sock Puppets: watch?v=12_tsowgA9Q
rg2027x 7 months ago 3
@rg2027x Before you say anything , the first link is for people in Canada, but it didn't say how widespread and you just inferred that it was malicious. For the second, this is targeted at extremist groups, and they said it wouldn't be used against . But how exactly does this prove I myself am a shill, they merely show shills are out there. This is ludicrous, for example, in a murder trial, if you were prosecuting someone, and you said "well there are other murders therefore you murdered X"...
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic LOL. "Debunker"s getting nervous!
rg2027x 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rg2027x Yes I am bloody trembling! Trembling over the fact that you can't answer any of my questions!
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@rg2027x you would be quite rightly annoyed because there is no evidence of your direct involvement. I could just as easily claim that you are a shill of Big Oil, WITH JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE. The thing is, who cares? Climate change is a scientific issue and should be taken as fact or not if the science stands up. So far you have just given me political reasons for why I shouldn't "believe". Now show me scientific facts which contradict climate change, it should be easy
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "I could just as easily claim that you are a shill of Big Oil"
I find it peculiarly interesting you assume I'm with the oil industry, a "shill of Big Oil" because I oppose your "global warming" farce. Of countless industries, institutions & organizations to choose, you specifically target oil and name only the oil industry. I wonder why that is?
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Note I didn't say you were a shill of the oil company, I'm just they are one of the many groups who would benefit if climate change were not real, I never said you were one. Unlike you, I only make the claim if there is enough evidence that it is true.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic Hey, look at that. We're both online simultaneously. What are the odds?
Note: I didn't say you 'said' I was a shill of the oil company. You picked them of all things, to "just as easily claim' that I am "a shill of Big Oil".
Now of all industries, you named big oil. I wonder why that is?
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Because I know that it is one of the biggest industries who have admitted to funding people to go out and speak against climate change to try and muddy the waters on the scientific consensus and so one of its biggest opponents, in the same way that tobacco companies denied a link between smoking and cancer. I could have chosen natural gas, coal, logging, free market thinktanks, frankly the industry doesn't matter. What does is the fact you can't answer my simple questions!
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "in the same way that tobacco companies denied a link between smoking and cancer" straw man argument..Speaking of cigarettes, Al Gore apparently informed UN delegates that cigarette smoke contributes to global warming..LOL.Ah geez what next, outdoor barbeques? Does he feel guilty when he farts?
"I could have chosen natural gas, coal, logging, free market thinktanks"
But you didn't
"frankly the industry doesn't matter"
It matters. The industry is everything. Come on, you know this
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x How exactly is that a strawman, I am merely drawing a comparison, both fund people to muddy the waters of the science, both have a lot to lose out in the face of progress etc. If you want to join these anti-science lot, be my guest
So instead of answering my questions you have to resort to childish antics. This is what climate scepticism has come to.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "How exactly is that a strawman, I am merely drawing a comparison"
There is indisputable proof that smoking causes lung cancer. Your statement is an informal fallacy, a form of strawman argument.
"a lot to lose out in the face of progress"
This isn't about "progress", it's about creating a govt subsidized "crisis" for more control, a money making scam they tried to get everyone to fall for, to charge everyone carbon credits, roughly 3k a year for a single car in the driveway..
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x As there is indisputable proof of climate change, according to 98% of experts! The only ones still clinging to inane skepticism are those funded by automobile and the like industries. So no, it is not a strawman.
"This isn't about "progress", it's about creating a govt subsidized "crisis" for more control"- again you need to divorce climate change the political issue from the scientific one, which is settled and was settled many years ago.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic was it really settled? 98% experts? You are just making this shit up as you go. You havent found any cos you didnt do any research in it. Politicians are saying climate change is man made idiot. You know why? They will get filthy rich on a global carbon tax. That tax will put a strain on the global economy and countries will have to borrow and get enslaved by the world bank/IMF
shithappens667 7 months ago 2
@shithappens667
logicalscience. com / consensus /consensusD1. htm
sciencemag. org /content /306 /5702 /1686. full
climatesciencewatch. org /2010/06/21/new-study-finds-striking-level-of-agreement-among-climate-experts-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/
The figure is around 97-98% of climatologists, an overwhelming majority. As for whether certain politicians get rich, that is irrelevant to whether the science is correct or not
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "The only ones still clinging to inane skepticism are those funded by automobile and the like industries"
?
Please provide evidence the only ones skeptical of "climate change" agenda are funded by automobile and like industries. Cite specific examples and studies.
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x I've got one here, a fairly recent one actually. Willie Soon, one of the foremost skeptics, admitted to being paid over $1 million in the past decade by oil companies, including ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "I could just as easily claim that you are a shill of Big Oil. The thing is, who cares?"
Who cares? uhh...Maybe not you, considering..But most normal, good humans who want the truth, do care.
Who in their right mind wants to dialog with fuckin shills? Who wants to waste time arguing with some dubious "debunker" whos mission isn't to be "convinced', but namecall, deny & 'explain away'.
"Climate change is a scientific issue"
LOL
My farts are a scientific issue. See how that works?
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x The thing which I don't get is that you believe so vehemently against global warminig yet unable to give any reasons for it. If the science holds up, then climate change is happening, therefore what's your problem? You say it is a fraud yet the science is clear. If it isn't, explain away.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "whats your problem"
Odd coming from you, a global warming evangelist who reacts so personally to "climate change" scam scrutinized..Enough to spend weeks of your time here, flailing away defending the agenda like your life depends on it.
You react so vicious to "global warming" objection as if someone was criticizing your mother! or close family
What's it to you someone criticizes "global warming" on the internet? You have obvious vested interest defending this scam. Wonder why?
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Again, as I have said many many times before (it isn't going in, is it), I am not a "global warming evangelist", if you could find me some convincing evidence against it, I would consider changing my stance, nor do I react "personally", just a complete strawman of my views and ad hominem.Your last question I have answered many times, I am interested about what other people think and actually challenging people to think about what they actually believe.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "if you could find me some convincing evidence against it, I would consider changing my stance"
LOL! You'd consider you're entire stance on this sham just on what I find? That's not why you're here. I'm supposed to be baited to throw something out, your mission is "debunk" it, explain away, make excuses & deny. With your usual side order of "conspiracy nutcase" namecalling for added effect.
Plenty of convincing evidence. The fact you need me to "provide" for you, speaks volumes..
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Well I haven't found anything which contradicts the view proposed 98% of climatologists. Your excuse that you don't need to provide answers because there is a load of "convincing evidence" is just an excuse to say you have nothing!
"That's not why you're here"- yes, because you can clearly tell someone's inner beliefs when you have met them over the internet...
TheGamanic 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rg2027x You clearly don't want the truth, otherwise you would answer my simple questions on why you object to climate change as a scientific phenomenon. Your inability to do so weakens your case dramatically.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "You clearly don't want the truth, otherwise you would answer my simple questions"
Logical fallacy. Not answering questions (which are nothing but shill bait to launch a platform of namecalling, coverup & denial) means someone doesn't want truth? Only in your mind. Please don't assume the rest of good humans live there.
"weakens your case dramatically"
The case for 'global warming' is weak.
"climate change as a scientific phenomenon"
LOL. Climate change science is an oxymoron.
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Logical fallacy my arse. Don't you think it is suscipious that you so vociferously deny climate change happening, yet when you are asked what you actually object to, you don't say anything? If you wanted to find out the "truth" through a discussion, you need to put forward your actual arguments, not just assertions. And how exactly is asking you a question on your objections and about global cooling a platform for "coverup" or "denial". You are putting forward the argument!!!!
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic Your obsession here "debunking" is more suspicious than anything..
"If you wanted to find out the "truth" through a discussion"
Huh? Who said I wanted to do that? You making blind assumptions & putting words in my mouth. I don't need "discussion" with you to find truth.
"how exactly is asking you a question on your objections"
Not about "asking a question". Get real! Whatever I type, your standard response is attempt to "debunk", minimize information, run interference & downplay
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x So you don't want to actually find out whether the evidence is pointing for or against the climate change, despite the fact that a wrong move could cost us billions of pounds or the other threaten the existence of this planet? Or do you just listen to any old conspiracy theorists who peddles this shit?
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "despite the fact that a wrong move could cost us billions of pounds or the other threaten the existence of this planet?"
What exactly would that "wrong move" be, failing to pass carbon tax legislation? Not approving a cap&trade program?
Look at all the REAL disasters threatening existence of this planet. Japan Fukishima nuclear meltdown..spreading radiation across the world..BP oil catastrophe..oil+deadly corexit flowing in gulf stream. Yet, you're panicking over "global warming"
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x What exactly would that "wrong move" be, failing to pass carbon tax legislation? Not approving a cap&trade program?
No, not necessarily, although clearly something would need (has) to be done if climate change is true, which the overwhelming amount of scientists in the fields agree on.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@rg2027x I have already said what I think about Fukishima, and do think it is very bad. However, action of Climate Change and Fukishima are not mutually exclusive. You say Climate Change is not real, well, how do you know that?
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic there you have your peer review google: less than half of all published scientist endorse global warming theory
shithappens667 7 months ago
@shithappens667 Scientists, not climatologists, or people. They are frankly not better qualified to talk about climate issues as me or you. Repeat surveys have shown that over 95% of climatologist consider that man is contributing to the recent warmth in the Earth's climate
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic wtf? I just showed you a link to a peer reviewed study that shows over half do not endorse that global warming is man made. And it was made by one of the most reputable scientific organizations. They have way more credibilty than the IPCC. Do you know that CRU, one of the biggest organizations that was looking into global warming and how it was man made got hacked and there were emails that spoke of fiddling with graphs and charts to make the man made warming idea more beleivable.
shithappens667 7 months ago
@shithappens667 The researcher assumed that because some papers don't explicitly endorse climate change they therefore are against it. However, this is certainly not the case, as shown by various surveys which show that over 95% of climatologists consider climate change a fact. Hence, there is a shift within the scientific community not to prove that climate change is real but to work on what should be done to curb its impact, how fast before the real dangers set it etc. The research was...
TheGamanic 7 months ago
cont. was over a three year period between 2004-2007 when the climate science has been more or less been settled since the '90s. Scientists take the theory for granted and so don't seek to prove it per se as much. More reliable studies, conducted over a 10 year period, before show a significantly greater consensus among climatologists, that is when more were trying to "prove" climate change
TheGamanic 7 months ago
As for the CRU, they were acquitted of all wrongdoing by three independent investigations. There was no fiddling of data, merely taken out of context quotes and misinterpretation of scientific terms which so called "skeptics" rushed to show was evidence of climate conspiracy.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic right so..tell me, you know since mars's ice caps are also melting is that also man made? No...its is not man...it is more solar activity. I see you get your ''facts'' from wikipedia.
shithappens667 7 months ago
@shithappens667 The fact that in one part of Mars ice caps are melting does not accurately reflect whether the temperature of the whole planet is increasing . The cause of heating there is currently unknown, it can't be the sun as activity has decreased in the last years; you will probably say this is down to natural CO2 levels but that is merely an argument from incredulity.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic actually every 11 years solar activity reaches a ''solar maximum'' then cools down again but NASA found an increasing trend in solar activity. So, no it has not decreased as a whole except for the few years of cooling when it cools down. They found that every decade the average ''activity'' would increase by 0.5 percent. And historical records suggest it has been increasing since the late 19th century.
shithappens667 7 months ago
@shithappens667 I realise the Sun has cycles. However solar activity has decreased slightly whilst warming is continuing since the mid 1970s, so the recent warming trend is not due to the Sun and by another factor. This was the conclusion drawn in many papers, including Usoskin 2005, which compared solar activity and climate for the last 1150 years, and found a close match until 1975 when no trend occurred.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic Really let's see your data or stop talking BS, the Earth been cooling of rthe last 10 years on satalite data so fucking grow up you tard
RussellMills1972 5 months ago
@RussellMills1972 You can type in Google and find the papers. Which paper are you getting your data from?
TheGamanic 5 months ago
@TheGamanic It's called "cover up". Look it up sometime. I suppose you want people to believe the '9-11 Commission' was to bring us the truth too? LOL!
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Please explain how exactly the data has been"fiddled". Specific cases of particular wrongdoings, particular e-mails for example then
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic The climate is always changing or we would have no need for weather forecasters..No reason to make a religion / political agenda out of it. Wanna know the "prime mover" behind Earth's climate? It's called THE SUN!
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x The Sun is of course a big factor in the Earth's climate, but it is not the only factor that affects it. The world has been warming for sometime, yet solar activity has decreased. Therefore the recent warming trend cannot be attributed to the Sun but by another cause. The fact that the climate has changed in history is neither here nor there, and it doesn't mean we can't affect it now
TheGamanic 7 months ago
The case for "global warming" is weak- please explain how it so. You cannot just assert something to be true without a reason for it
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic Sure I can.
G W is the new religion. The fact that climate change exists is moot. The weather does what the weather does. The fact that humans can affect the weather is the part where people are told to “believe”.
This is the same crowd that said the said the world was going to end in Y2K!
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Weather doesn't equal climate! Basic science! And no a scientific theory can't be a religion, gosh you are as bad as a creationist...
As for your strawman at the end, why bother?
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere including temperature, rainfall and humidity...that contribute to climate. Basic common sense!
"Global warming" is the core belief in a new eco-theology. Term is used as shorthand for "man made' global warming." It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering. Cap and trade is such a scam it's not even funny.
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x ""Global warming" is the core belief in a new eco-theology"- is there really any point with some person who calls a scientific phenomenon a "religion"? Come on, come back with some real arguments, not just cheap shots
"Cap and trade is such a scam it's not even funny"- you can "believe" in climate change and still think cap and trade isn't a good idea, you know?
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@rg2027x I am a student, I don't work for anyone (although that is very unlikely to sway you from believing that I am a government shill but hey), but how exactly does that mean you can't answer my simple questions, which would be easy for you to answer if indeed you were skeptical of AGW? From your reluctance to answer these, it can be inferred that infact you have no SCIENTIFIC objection to climate change, and so just as brainwashed as you purported me to be
TheGamanic 7 months ago
maybe he is anti semetic ? Where there is manipulation there is a Jew
Maanchild 9 months ago
I think it is best to err on the side of caution so that we do not do irreparable damage to our only source of life. I do however think it was extremely distasteful for lord monckton to equate students concerned with climate change and possible global catastrophe with hitler's genocide training program for kids. I also feel that the major contributor to starvation in third world countries is the political factions and despots that rule them using food, or the lack thereof, as a weapon in their
ajuanhijo 1 year ago
These simple minded fools are classic examples of our school systems. Today from 3 years old our kids are having these Ideas rammed into there heads no wonder when they get out into the real world people like Monckton make them look just what they are Stupid Kids without the brains to work out that they are supporting a campaign that will have horrendous affects on poverty stricken countries
MrDefender101 1 year ago 2
they are the hitler youth, braindead thugs that break up meetings
scottishchap2008 1 year ago
Comment removed
PhillipGerwald 1 year ago
First of all you shouldn't call them Hitler youth, they are called Obama youth. They are cearly Obama worshippers, they think he is God apparently.
carlmelanson1 1 year ago
God, when I was a kid, I would have bullied these kids mercilessly, they are pathetic geeks! Look at the little somalian kid thinking, oh yeah, maybe I shouldn't be supporting people who killed my African family! Monckton is correct
jacobbengali1 1 year ago
Orange Shirt Leonitas clone: P'WNED
fredthefrowner 1 year ago
The Hitler Youth are such panzies!
TawnyHallonds 1 year ago
The creators of the global warming scare are cunning terrorists, they know that by making people feel guilty they are making them more easily controlled, submissive and willing to throw money at a "crisis".
The same was done with witch hunts and Jim crow laws.
dawnninjawolf 1 year ago
he's right, they are like hitler youth.
johnnyappleseedism 2 years ago 2
what a stupid bitch, so typical of the youth.
johnnyappleseedism 2 years ago 4
Biofuell is a consequence of oil race price,enormous demand for energy,not an GW scam result. Hunger in the world is just another accomplishment of savage corporate capitalism politics . One word ...Globalization. Better...Globalization with no rules. (ethic and moral ones). As about the GW, maybe is a scam but thereality is that the climate change is a fact. Come and see Sicily now, and then come back after 15 years to see a desert. Man made? don't now.
xplanetopplstupid 2 years ago
I thought climategate already made the Gw alarmists look like criminals, despots, thugs and frauds....
Time will tell...until then...
seaplaneguy1 2 years ago
That guys awesome.
TheJamJams 2 years ago 2
i respect the guy but his eyes are almost popping out lol
Evilfisher 2 years ago
I hope Ben's little clitty is freezing in the record cold this winter.
freedomman121 2 years ago 2
at least the black kid is listenig
mrherbal 2 years ago 3
watch?v= Lmjmma-CKxU
enjoy
sjmschneider 2 years ago
i cant believe monckton gave them as much time as he did because these clowns didnt deserve it.
heald42 2 years ago 4
Monchton is right.
This is easy to understand...
Is co2 a blanket or filter. Models say it is a blanket, and reason shows it is a filter.
A blanket is a convection limiting device. Air, obviously is not.
Filter removes frequencies and when they are gone...more filters make NO difference.
Dr. Lindzen proved AGW false.
Yes the science is settled...Co2 is NOT a pollutant or a threat...and more is good thing.
Game over.
seaplaneguy1 2 years ago 4
@seaplaneguy1 Do you believe the planet is not getting hotter and sea levels are rising? Or do you just not think it's caused by man and is happening naturally?
Not trying to pick an argument just trying to understand what your saying.
Excidium567 2 years ago
@Excidium567
Climate changes...rate of increase 1600-1800 same as 1880 to present. We are coming out of ice age...warm is good. Cold...bad.
Co2 residence time is days to ten years at most, not 50-200 years. Earth oceans buffer co2. Mauna Loa tells us what the ocean buffer and largest volcano in world is doing...nothing about man.
CO2 increase will turn down in 3-5 some say. New Sat data will show man has near zero effect.
Nature....is natural...deal with it.
seaplaneguy1 2 years ago
The hundreds of refugees that come into my country every year from pacific islands that are disappearing due to rising sea levels might disagree with your "warm is good. cold bad" remark.
Excidium567 2 years ago
@Excidium567
sea levels are not rising any more than they were from the days of captain cook of pacific fame... Check the real data, not the fixed and fudged data. Search for truth.
The refugees are likely political or economic refugees. Sea levels have zero to do with it. This GW hoax is about population control...wake up.
seaplaneguy1 2 years ago
Trust me these refugees are because of sea level rise, I've seen a video of the tide coming in on these islands and they disappear under it on the highest tides, what few houses are left have been lifted on stilts.
Excidium567 2 years ago
@Excidium567
How about ground level dropping...NOT sea level rise.
As temperature warm, MORE water goes into the air. It is non linear. GW = lower water levels... Water then snows...
Either way, man is NOT the cause... Wake up... stop believing the NWO nonsense. Putting a tax on someone will not help. Adapting will.
seaplaneguy1 2 years ago
Lol, ground level dropping, sure mate. I never said anything about taxation, I don't give a shit about what anyone "claims" to be trying to do to stop GW.
My opinion (keyword is "opinion", they just like noses everyone has one) is that GW is happening and were not going to stop it, and when it does cause a major f*ck up you and your crowd of nay sayers and going to look like a pack of muppets.
Excidium567 2 years ago
Global Warming has been disapproved over and over again by Dr. Spencer, Dr. Christy and many more.
digitalfilmvillage 2 years ago
Thank you Lord Monckton for preaching the truth!
digitalfilmvillage 2 years ago
Why do they say these policies kill millions of people in the third world? Where is the evidence for this? These policies are not even yet agreed upon, much less implemented, and assistance for the 3rd world is one of the primary components of a potential treaty.
oceansolutions 2 years ago
Well food prices have doubled in the last 5 years. That means some people will only eat half as much. Others can aford to buy the same amount. And still others will, unfortunately, starve. Food prices have doubled as the climate change movement has picked up steam. More enviromental regulation on emissions, manufacturing and transportation drives up the cost of getting the food from the field to the market. Get it?
gwh21375 2 years ago 3
Farmers stopped planting food crops to grow bio-fuel crops due to government incentives given them due to the global warming hoax. Less food being grown has resulted in people starving to death in the 3rd world countries.
freedomman121 2 years ago
By doubling food prices when crops are substituted for bio-fuels through government subsidy (to become carbon-neutral) making bio-fuels more lucrative to grow.
democratickindeling 2 years ago
This reflects a poor understanding of the third world, where 1. most food is produced locally outside of lands used for corporate crops, and 2. They people have dealt for decades with luxury export crops (e.g. shrimp, chocolate) that they do not consume or benefit from in the least. Meanwhile, we're stealing all of their fish to feed chickens and farmed salmon.
oceansolutions 2 years ago
But it is a valid reason as it is easy to quantify the amount of land turned over to biofuels. You saying that biofuels are not grown on their 'food' land? Anyway is 'CapN'Trade' going to 'help' them? How? By being able to pay for/import heavily subsidised USA wheat/Rice/Soya? You best stick to the fishes Pal! Why r u not protesting the UN's disasterous CFP?Or the hoovering of the sandworms from the seabed for fertilizer so fish have no food? Now there are some great causes!
democratickindeling 2 years ago
What exactly is being classified as a "biofuel" here? Oil palm - the spread of which the environmental community is strongly against?
arlohemphill 2 years ago
Why are you calling the lord two faced?
NicosMind 2 years ago
because he was the adviser to Thatcher and supports insane policies.. he is too connected... I looked him up and made up my own mind.. at this point I feel Monckton is classical controlled opposition.. he speaks the truth about one topic to gain your trust then steers in the way of his bosses interest.. hope that helps.. peace bro!!
AGWisdead 2 years ago
I know he worked for Thatcher but what did he do for/under her? Has he genuinely changed his mind about any of the things he did in the past if he did do anything?
I would say Farage wouldnt of hired him if he didnt trust him. Farage is an amzing guy and everything ive seen him do in EU parliament makes balls of steel seem ball-less.
I mean Farage hates commies and the NWO, so why hire one? If he has these bosses so far everything ive seen would be counter productive for them
Thanks 4 ans
NicosMind 2 years ago
@AGWisdead Were Thatcher alive today she would not be in the same camp as the green-fascists.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
the lord? LOL. Gotta love these stuffy elites their self flagellating titles. He's a person just like you and me. He puts his clothes on in the morning the same as the rest of us.
Why place blind trust in these elitists? just because they happen to agree with your view. Do you really believe they care about you? Or are they controlled opposition on someone elses payroll serving an agenda.
I for one would never trust any mortal with lord in his title who insists that people address him as such.
hard2start427 2 years ago 2
Well start telling me bad things that hes done? Cause someones got a title it doesnt make them evil! Obama, Mccain, Bush are all the exact same to me(evil).
I try and judge people by their actions. I watch EU parliament regularly and i must say that i love UKIP and Daniel Hannah(a conservative) But mostly UKIP MEPs.
Lord Monkton doesnt seem like an elitist to me. So what he worked under Margret Thatcher?? Her government didnt do only evil and did some good things.
/watch?v=QVeMBNB0cII
NicosMind 2 years ago
I know, really! He only has one face - evil.
arlohemphill 2 years ago
@NicosMind His face reminds me of Arnold Schwarznegger's in the film Total Recall when he, ironically in this case, is exposed to unbreathable air.
Buildaburgerdurka 1 year ago
The sons of the dark know that when you indoctrinate them this young, they are easily kept under control. That first programming really sticks. Their faces remind me of the Manson girls. They are trying to scream and overtalk people in these comments, but that type of boot camp control doesn't work well in type. The Goracle is naked!
Gorntz 2 years ago
Do these pieces of nazi shit know who they are talking to? Lord Monckton is so right.
Jericho874 2 years ago
do you know who monckton is? he is not a scientist himself. if you look up his biography you will notice he once wrote an article saying that all people with AIDS should be locked up.... I wonder who has been brainwashing you? do you know the CEI is behind denialist adverts in the states. It has become Monckton's job to act as a denier. it makes me really sad people in america have been deluded into thinking that greenhouse gases are harmless. have you ever read any scientific papers?
helala 2 years ago
What greenhouse gases are harmful? CO2? Water Vapour? Should we buy carbon credits for breathing?
RbVDK 2 years ago
@helala That's a flagrant misrepresentation, and such attempts at deceit does not in any way help your cause.
Back when there were very, very few people with AIDS, he advocated them being quarantined. Which, of course, is a very different thing than being "locked up" with all of the connotations that term brings with it. And, of course, If that policy would have been followed, it very likely would have saved the lives of millions of people.
BloatedSensations 2 years ago
yes that's true he did and "lord" monckton is not to be trusted .. he tells the truth and then attempt to sabotage.
He has been exposed. This video with the new title will have a far longer life here on youtube than it did with the previous naive title.. thanks so much and CAN WE ALL HERE IT FOR HELALA!!!
HELALA FOREVER.
AGWisdead 2 years ago
yes that's true he did and "lord" monckton is not to be trusted .. he tells the truth and then attempt to sabotage.
He has been exposed. This video with the new title will have a far longer life here on youtube than it did with the previous naive title.. thanks so much and CAN WE ALL HERE IT FOR HELALA!!!
HELALA FOREVER.
AGWisdead 2 years ago
Good change of title : ) Bravo!
The so-called "lord" is somebody elses bitch. Likely an 'intelligence agency' asset. Controlled opposition on demonic network payroll.
You can be assured that when any of these stuffy ass "elites" leave their hovels & confines to go out in public & bark at people, they are doing so following crime syndicate orders with an agenda.
None of them should be trusted. NONE. They are so far removed from the common peoples plight & struggle it's disgusting.
rg2027x 2 years ago 14
That may be so...but so is Obama, Brown & the UN! I agree, don't trust them, it's all a con. I liked the 'George Carlin doesn't vote' in your fav's. I think we should follow his advice...he was a smart guy.
democratickindeling 2 years ago
Puppet "politicians"+ elites that operate as prostitutes for multi-national corporate criminals are never to be trusted. ESPECIALLY those who support your position & agree with your views. Question them, most of all. What is their real agenda? Are they truly sincere? or controlled opposition$
They all talk a great game about this & that ad nauseam. Meanwhile, nothing changes for the better for US or our families. We continue to be defrauded, lied to & SCAMMED at every turn. It's all bull shit..
rg2027x 2 years ago 8
"Sooner or later the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a FUCK about them. Government doesn't care about YOU or your 'children' or your 'rights' or your 'welfare' or your 'safety.' It simply doesn't give a FUCK about you. It's interested in its own power - that's the only thing - keeping it & expanding it where ever possible" ~George Carlin
rg2027x 2 years ago 8
When you vote, you are saying that you consider this rigged system to be legitimate.
Those voting for "lesser" of 2 evils" every few years should really consider if "the choice of the people" has anything to do whatsoever with our said "democracy" & how it runs.
All of this back & forth debate "left vs right", voting etc implies that there are really choices in this country-that we truly have choices. It's an illusion.
If voting really changed things for the better FOR US, it would be illegal
rg2027x 2 years ago 9
Look you clown if your smart that is the only qualification you need are you now claiming that people do not have the abilty to spot lies and bullshit what utter. drivel. Most propoganda is sales and marketing tactics so what mind manipulation studies have you done what qualifies you to make comments on mind control. What experience do you have I have plenty and unlike you I spot the lies with ease. ps dont ever buy a used car you have mug written all over you
properwired 2 years ago
Very few people at Cop15 were scientists...only a select few on the UN payroll that toe the line were invited...and those Nazi teens are not scientists either..
democratickindeling 2 years ago
@democratickindeling i know man, of the ''2500 scientists'' who came to a consensus, only 15-20% of them were actual scientists, the rest werent. shits all political. The scientists on the IPCC are chosen by the government, so i definitely rest my case on it being a big political sham! Good point demo!
RepublicanNatio 2 years ago 3
I don't get it was those kid against global warming or where they for it? couldn't really here what they were saying because of all the background noise & talking over one another.
MalcomAP 2 years ago
"If what you say is true you should be going out and saying that" Duh, what do you think he's doing?
This is definitely a cult.
dud3man6969 2 years ago
True Monckton has no science degree, but rather a Classical Liberal education which includes above all reason at its core. Mr Gore was not very successful at his studies, his average was C+ at best. Monckton is rather skilled at mathematics and science and could debate Al Gore any day and make him look like the scam artist he is. This is why Al has not accepted the challenge to debate for over two years running. If he were competent and not a scam artist he would accept the challenge and debate
roibasses 2 years ago 4
these fucking not, lol "as a jew" no one gives a shit u little fucking Hitler prick! they are so offended, as millions of people die, jesus what sick buncn of fucks.
ORVX 2 years ago
Hitler youth is right. These robots are products of the public "education system". They fall for any sham the crime syndicate gargoyle overlords dump in their faces. What ever happened to questioning & RESISTING this shit? EVERY TIME a "politician" gets behind something, you can be assured it's a SCAM.
I love how they hedge their bets by saying "climate change" now instead of "global warming." Like the climate has ever not changed. What's with the twisting of language, and the meaning of words?
rg2027x 2 years ago 23
Great points, it's a great feeling to actually see the agenda shattered..
...all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put humpty together again :)
AGWisdead 2 years ago
/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc
freedomman121 2 years ago
@rg2027x 20 year olds who think they know it all? Give me a break. Why even waste your breath on these douch bags?
rinehartproductions 1 year ago
@rg2027x Global warming is an inaccurate term since it will affect different areas of the world differently. As for it being a scam, that is surely why dozens of peer reviewed papers in respected scientific journals and it is supproted by 99% of climatologists?
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic
Global warming hoax, planned in 1961
watch?v=SvcuylMrkXk&playnext=1&list=PL37BD9B7E6D2F2C27
rg2027x 7 months ago 4
@rg2027x That's brilliant. The first video is pretty much scaremongering the whole way through (which oddly enough is something climate deniers often accuse their opposition of), whilst the second features video from ages ago, and since then many of those skeptic of climate change have been won over by new evidence in the field. As for Al Gore, his hypocrisy doesn't discredit climate change since the science still holds up.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "Scaremongering?" It's called truth. LOL I see they got someone like you DUPED and regurgitating their propaganda. Scaremongering comes from "Global Warming" propagators & politicoids intent to sucker willing dupes into their agenda. Doesn't take much to chump someone like you in to anything. Probably a shill anyway..Your "global warming" & "green economy" bull shit are scam intended for implementing carbon taxes + "cap and trade" sham that directly benefit Central Banks & Wall St.
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x I find it weird that you know about me yet we have never met. Care to explain?
Equally, I could claim that you are regurgitating the propaganda fed to you by big oil companies, intent on downplaying the impact of climate change so that they can line their own pockets, and so you are no more than a puppet for Big Oil. However, one thing is known for sure, the science of climate change is unequivocal hence why 97% of climatologists consider it a real threat to humanity.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic Real threat to humanity= organized crime in power, their murderous wars & bull shit agendas..that you buy into
"global warming" (FRAUD)=basis of their cap&trade+ carbon tax schemes. In 1970s there was a "global cooling" scare (where the world was going to 'freeze back to the ice age'..LOL) the polar opposite of 'global warming" "climate change' BS going on right now. Criminals are just recycling their best scare tactics to impose an agenda..More power, more control & taxes. Same ol'
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Ok, in that case, could you be willing to refute the arguments of top climatologists who consider it real then? Since you are so informed on the subject and they clearly aren't. As for the global cooling, although the 1970s were an unusually cold decade, only 7 papers in the scientific literature said we were heading for an ice age, whilst 44 for warming. There was hardly the massive consensus on it unlike what we have with global warming, supported by 97% of climatologists.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic It's called common sense (which isn't at all common in these media mind control programmed, "politically correct" times of massive deception. Whenever "elites" get behind ANYTHING, be assured it's an epic scam
We were supposed to believe earth was freezing back to ice ages in 1970s.."GLOBAL COOLING"..Now look where we arrived: "GLOBAL WARMING".."CLIMATE IS CHANGING!" they say. As Gore+associates count their $millions
Recycled scare tactics for a new dumbed-down decade, nothing more
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Unfortunately for you, "common sense" doesn't equal science. As for your claims that scientists thought the earth was cooling, I have debunked that claim already, stating that there was no consensus behind a global cooling frenzy, and instead many more scientists in the 70s were predicting warming, which is what has happened.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic You didn't "debunk" anything, only deny it. You ought to try "debunking" propaganda from your TV news & what your government is feeding you sometime.
Unfortunately for you, you don't realize your "global warming" politician sponsored rich elitist co-opted agenda has already been proven fraud. Research Climategate
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x I have researched climategate, both sides of arguments, which I assume you have neglected to do, and found nothing damning about the case for climate change. To a layman, like yourself who is all too willing to gobble up the random ramblings of paranoid conspiracy theorists, it can sound like a conspiracy, but to rational people there is nothing which debunks climate science . Hence why the UEA has been cleared of everything.
As for the "global warming" thing, you made the claim that
TheGamanic 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGamanic "all too willing to gobble up the random ramblings of paranoid conspiracy theorists"
Shill just exposed itself!
rg2027x 7 months ago 2
@rg2027x cont. there was a global cooling scare, implying that this was supported by the majority of scientists and this was a conspiracy for whatever and/or to show incompetences in climate research; however I pointed out to you that this was by no means the predominant view., that is that the Earth was cooling. Therefore, you can accept that you are wrong, amend your argument or refute one of my points with reason. Please do one of the three
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic Therefore, you can accept you are a shill assigned here to defend a proven FRAUD "global warming" scam, a programmed dupe reciting talking points of elitist politician/criminals agenda. You pointed out nothing and only propped up establishment propaganda. You can amend your "argument" to include all you did is deny my points, ridicule video evidence of global warming hoax & regurgitate pseudo 'scientific" soundbites to sound "intelligent" Tell your handlers you need better training.
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x So do you or don't you accept that the majority of scientists didn't believe that the Earth was cooling in 1970s? I'm asking you a relatively simple question. Please provide an answer. Furthermore, can we stop with "ad hominem", it is frankly rather childish and boring.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic What's truly childish and boring is someone like you who spends their precious time & energy online frantically defending govcorp establishment "global warming" agenda...Spouting all the typical paid agent/ "debunker" shill "CONSPIRACY THEORIST" ad hominem...While running interference for agenda of rich elitists with more money than they know what to do with.
Please provide an answer why you defend the politicians "global warming" sham like your life depends on it.
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Do you know what "ad hominem" means?I am looking for civil discourse, not a match to see who can come up with exaggerated spurious lies.I don't often debate climate skeptics, it is not the subject I am most interested in, and in fact I used to be relatively skeptical myself. I doubt this will actually convince you that I am not a government shill, but it is worth a try I guess. As for my question on your claim about scientists supporting global cooling, you still haven't replied
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic "I am looking for civil discourse"
LOL! Right.."civil discourse"..after namecalling me "gobbling up the random ramblings of paranoid conspiracy theorists"
You shills are too much.
"not a match to see who can come up with exaggerated spurious lies"
Speaking of exaggerated lies, you're the one spending a weekend frantically defending establishment "climate change" agenda & trying desperately to hoodwink people into believing politician propagated "global warming" scam. Why is that?
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x I am not frantically defending the establishment. I merely interested in why people are skeptical of AGW and trying to refute their points. As I said, I don't usually do this. And as I said, I don't "believe" in climate change because a politician says so! And please answer my question, accept you are wrong or rather refute my points. I will try to put to bed this old myth that the majority of scientists thought the Earth was cooling in the 1970s, it is just not true.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic You are here to prop up establishment "climate change" agenda and "global warming" scam.
The fact politicians support, fund & propagate the "climate change" agenda should ring alarm bells. LOUD....alarm bells. But it appears the lights are on but nobody's home.
When was the last time they cared about the environment? much less the "climate" is "changing"..that wasn't a premeditated setup for more power, control & taxation. That should tell you something...
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x cont. By that logic, I assume that you think that gravity is not real, the earth is flat, guitars cause cancer, any number of wacky things, just because some politicians believe that aswell. That is absurd my friend. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter who says a statement as long as it is right. If a junkie says that "Drugs are bad", his claim still holds despite him clearly not taking the advice. This is simple logic.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic You still don't get it...You have been well programmed.
Problem-solution conspiracy, they create the 'problem', they solve the problem, and they reap the profits.
Science in & of itself is pure & incorruptible. Shame the same cannot be said of scientists...Many scientists are married to govcorp (their only source of funding). If they don’t join the bandwagon, they’d be out of money + out of a career due to the system of control in place they work under..This is basic common sense.
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x But there are actually some skeptics, not the majority, but some prominent scientists nonetheless. You still have not answered my question. DO NOW or this is over
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic You don't get your bonus$ if I don't answer or what? LOL
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Your deliberate evasion of my questions is beginning to make me wonder whether you are scared to answer the question or not.
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic Your desperation demanding me "DO NOW" "or this is over", flailing & pleading me to 'answer you' (after I've already made my position clear) makes me wonder if you get compensated when you bait someone to respond specific questions...
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x Again, evading the question, it is quite sad really.. I think you are turning into one of those politicians you so deeply hate with all this. And no, you have not made your position clear, you just asserted I was wrong without actually giving any reasons for why that was. This is your opportunity. But for some reason your squirming...got you on the run maybe? See your views are crumbling against an avalanche of rationality
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic My "opportunity"? LOL! What is this, Wheel of Fortune? You gonna miss your weekend bonus or what. Awww poor thing. Just because you don't have true wisdom to grasp what I expressed doesn't make it 'unclear", it means you don't get it. All part of the routine isn't it. What's next for you, more name calling & "whacky conspiracy nut" soundbite 101?
As for evading questions, you still haven't answered why you spend a weekend here defending "global warming" like your life depends on it
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x cont. "True wisdom", what sort of bullshit is that? In my mind, just an easy way to say I have no answer. You could just say that, but instead you have to retain your pride and somehow make up crap about me "missing my weekend bonus". How old are you? I can see why people actually believe many conspiracy theories; it gives them a belief that they know more, are better and everyone else is retarded. Unfortunately, the seduction is detrimental to their critical thinking skills...
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic Wisdom= something you lack, as demonstrated here.
"I can see why people actually believe many conspiracy theories"
This coming from you, a staunch believer in the "global warming" conspiracy, the greatest scam in history. LOL.
"Unfortunately, the seduction is detrimental to their critical thinking skills..."
Who is someone like you to lecture about "thinking skills" when you buy into the politicians "climate change" agenda. And spend your weekends here defending it..
rg2027x 7 months ago
@rg2027x But as I have already told you, I usually don't do this. I only occasionally debate nutters like yourself. Again, I don't "buy" into the politicians "climate change agenda"; I couldn't give a shit if no politicians believed it, the science unfortunately does not lie. And just as I said, even if a politician believes something does not make it not true. For example, I'm pretty sure Obama thinks the world is not flat, yet by your logic, we should believe it is. See how irrational that is?
TheGamanic 7 months ago