Re: The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

Just want to interject some facts that are neglected in this video. Man made Global Warming is a total fraud. So, why act on a fraud?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• global
• warming
• fraud
• scam
• catastophe
• scare
• tactic

[fiandrhi]

Can you point to a SINGLE scientific academy in the world that denies global warming is real and that it is man made? A single one?

[scuromano]

Yes, Lord Monkton and the institutions that he's affiliated with. In any case, you completely ignored my statement about depopulation. The policy that you're supporting to stop supposed man-made global warming will literally kill people by shutting down the means to grow, process, transport and even cook food. Why are you ignoring that?

[fiandrhi]

Did you watch "climate change anatomy of a myth"? Helloooo?

[scuromano]

The issue here is about depopulation, not man made global warming. We can go back and forth on "facts," but Lord Monckton has shown how the "warm-ists" are liars. They don't use peer review processes and they fudge the data. The recently released emails (from East Anglia) prove that they are liars who want to create a supranational government that will depopulate the planet by shutting down production globally, as the Copenhagen treaty states. Do you still want to follow liars?

[fiandrhi2]

Sure. Here's a recent article in Scientific American that answers your denialist bullshit about water vapor. Google "Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense" from Scientific American. See item 1.

Of course I'm sure you'll categorize this among what you so eloquently label as "not correct facts being put out there in the media".

[scuromano]

Here's another afterthought. don't know how old you are but I can remember in the early to mid 70s the scientific facts were, and the popular opinion was the there was going to be global cooling, which would result in mass deaths, social upheavals, etc. There were a couple brutal winters then to add plausibility to it. So, what happened? How in 30 years did the scientific "facts" change 180 degrees? Just something to think about.

[senatorvreenak33]

yep, no scare tactics just a whole lot of ignorance

[senatorvreenak33]

@scuromano Lord Mockton is not a scientist and his claims have been completed debunked by the actaul scientific community. If we wanted to ast on the facts than we must definetly should do something based on a scientific consenus that is by worst acount %70 certain, and by best account %98 certain. This whole debate is rediculous it's like debating whether the law of gravity is real

[fiandrhi]

If you're afraid of the /policies/ proposed to stop global warming, then, logically, rather than DENYING the PEER-REVIEWED, ESTABLISHED SCIENCE you should, gee I dunno, maybe oppose the policies, perhaps? Just because someone has proposed something you don't like (or even that you believe will kill millions), doesn't suddenly change reality.

[fiandrhi]

Lord Monckton (note the spelling) is not a scientific academy. He's not even a scientist (he's schooled in Classical Languages or some such). What science academies is he "associated with" that deny global warming or its anthropogenic nature? Do you have any background in science? What "policy" am I supporting? When have I EVER mentioned a policy? Do you mean the "policy" of logically considering peer reviewed science more credible than crackpot lies. And this is killing ppl how?

[fiandrhi]

Put the words those emails climate into the YT search box and watch the first two videos. You are being LIED TO by paid political operatives. If you deny this, read the current book Climate Cover Up, where the denialist movement's funding is painstakingly documented. Saying that a few lines from emails overturns mountains of peer reviewed science is not simply illogical, it's stupid.

[fiandrhi]

You are profoundly wrong when you declare that climate scientists do not use the peer reviewed process. On the contrary, it is denialists who don't use the pr process. Their "papers" are published in newspapers, magazines, and online. In the one or two instances where climate denialists have made it into a peer reviewed journal, their science has been shown to be simply mistaken (Friis Christesen) or worse, completely incompetent (Willie Soon).

[fiandrhi]

Has a SINGLE reputable scientist looked at those emails and declared them to be evidence of lies. Just a single one? No. Has any reputable scientist (and by "reputable" I mean someone who is a working scientist in a relevant field and published in that field published in the peer reviewed lit) looked at those emails and declared them to be evidence that GW is not real?

Which peer reviewed journal is the good Viscount's evidence of the "warmist" mendacity published, please?