Blondie Massage Spa
Toronto Escorts

Greta Thunberg joins protest against Farnborough Airport expansion to demand ban on private jets

Previous Thread Next Thread
S

Skoob

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2022
4,722
2,222
113
oil&gas said:
I am under the impression that it is a minority of young people who are
genuinely terrified of climate change. A lot of the young are concerned
but not obsessively worrying about it.
Click to expand...
The young people are being indoctrinated by the education system into a Marxist ideology. Climate change is just one of the tactics used to have them believe in a cause so they trust everything their Marxist leaders are telling them.
It's actually a brilliant scheme.
Why waste your time trying to convince adults who can see through the bs when you can condition the young who will vote for you for several years...until they realize they've been played. By then, you have a newly indoctrinated crop ready to go...and so on.
 
O

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,642
1,763
113
Ghawar
I think a lot of adults have already bought into the climate
propaganda from climate activists and our government.
Their gullibility however are mainly manifested in their
perception rather than action. If there is one climate action
they are most readily suckered into it is giving their votes
to politicians on their bogus promise of zero-emission or
cheering climate leaders who offer no solutions other than
attacking the establishments.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,808
19,333
113
roddermac said:
They don't generate shit. That's why so many companies are abandoning them. And what makes you think they are much better.
Click to expand...
All new generation in 2025 will be renewable or nuclear according to the World Bank.
Your information is wrong.
 
R

roddermac

Well-known member
Sep 17, 2023
787
417
63
Frankfooter said:
All new generation in 2025 will be renewable or nuclear according to the World Bank.
Your information is wrong.
Click to expand...
It will mostly be nuclear and possibly hydro electric. Probably the only two non emitting sources for electricity. Wind and solar have failed. China is still building coal plants and the U.S. still has many in operation.
 
Last edited:
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,808
19,333
113
roddermac said:
It will mostly be nuclear and possibly hydro electric. Probably the only two non emitting sources for electricity. Wind and solar have failed. China is still building coal plants and the U.S. still has many in operation.
Click to expand...
Wind and solar are going up everywhere.
Its definitely not failed.
 
S

Skoob

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2022
4,722
2,222
113
Frankfooter said:
The statement of a science denier.
Click to expand...
That one sentence basically describes the entire leftist ideology..."if you don't believe in what I believe in then you're a - insert derogatory name here - "

It's no wonder no one takes you and your Marxist propaganda seriously.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,808
19,333
113
Skoob said:
That one sentence basically describes the entire leftist ideology..."if you don't believe in what I believe in then you're a - insert derogatory name here - "

It's no wonder no one takes you and your Marxist propaganda seriously.
Click to expand...
That applies to your position, skoob.
You are arguing that if all scientists don't believe in what you do than they are a _____.

The difference is that climatology has done the research, recorded the changes to the climate and made solid projections of where we are headed.
There is debate within the field, like the debate between Hansen and Mann on how doomed we are, or debate on how close we are to the AMOC shutting down entirely, but the field agrees that humans are changing the climate in a way that will endanger human life in the future.

You argue that if everyone has to think like you because you think you are smarter than all of them though have done no research, don't understand the science and your entire field of expertise lies in trolling this board.
 
S

Skoob

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2022
4,722
2,222
113
Frankfooter said:
That applies to your position, skoob.
You are arguing that if all scientists don't believe in what you do than they are a _____.

The difference is that climatology has done the research, recorded the changes to the climate and made solid projections of where we are headed.
There is debate within the field, like the debate between Hansen and Mann on how doomed we are, or debate on how close we are to the AMOC shutting down entirely, but the field agrees that humans are changing the climate in a way that will endanger human life in the future.

You argue that if everyone has to think like you because you think you are smarter than all of them though have done no research, don't understand the science and your entire field of expertise lies in trolling this board.
Click to expand...
Actually you just proved my point again. Thanks.
 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Skoob said:
Actually you just proved my point again. Thanks.
Click to expand...
is the high school drop out frankfooter still pretending he understands all the scientific complexities of our non-linear, dynamic. chaotic climate system?

if 2+2 =5 were to help implement global socialism / communism, he would push that inaccuracy as well


odd how he ignores the real science & spews alarmist propaganda
We can double co2 and would not even notice the difference

like many phenomena in nature there is a logarithmic relationship between absorbed energy and concentration
i.e. each incremental addition produces diminishing returns
absorption by atmospheric CO2 is saturated at the all important 666 wavenumber and has been for a very very long time

1706734550772.gif
 
Last edited:
S

Skoob

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2022
4,722
2,222
113
JohnLarue said:
is the high school drop out frankfooter still pretending he understands all the scientific complexities of our non-linear, dynamic. chaotic climate system?

if 2+2 =5 were to help implement global socialism / communism, he would push that inaccuracy as well


odd how he ignores the real science & spews alarmist propaganda
We can double co2 and would not even notice the difference

like many phenomena in nature there is a logarithmic relationship between absorbed energy and concentration
i.e. each incremental addition produces diminishing returns
absorption by atmospheric CO2 is saturated at the all important 666 wavenumber and has been for a very very long time

View attachment 293513
Click to expand...
He pretends to understand and then blindly accepts science propaganda as his "proof".
And oh yes, if you don't agree with him you're a denier...or whatever derogatory name he feels like calling you on any given day.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,808
19,333
113
Skoob said:
Actually you just proved my point again. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Total troll post from someone who realizes they can't answer and are totally out of their depth.
You really can't talk about the science or facts, all you can do is troll.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,808
19,333
113
JohnLarue said:
is the high school drop out frankfooter still pretending he understands all the scientific complexities of our non-linear, dynamic. chaotic climate system?

if 2+2 =5 were to help implement global socialism / communism, he would push that inaccuracy as well


odd how he ignores the real science & spews alarmist propaganda
We can double co2 and would not even notice the difference

like many phenomena in nature there is a logarithmic relationship between absorbed energy and concentration
i.e. each incremental addition produces diminishing returns
absorption by atmospheric CO2 is saturated at the all important 666 wavenumber and has been for a very very long time

View attachment 293513
Click to expand...
Why would you post an 18 year old chart as if it were relevant or accurate today?
Your source is a retired geologist.

The guy thinks changing the earth's temp by around 1 IAU has happened with humans around and would be good for them.
Totally nutso.

“I am not a climatologist, but I don’t think any of the other witnesses are either. I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals.”

“No scientist familiar with radiation transfer denies that more carbon dioxide is likely to cause some surface warming. But the warming would be small and benign. In fact, history shows that warmings of a few degrees Celsius — which extended growing seasons — have been good for humanity.”
 
S

Skoob

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2022
4,722
2,222
113
Frankfooter said:
Total troll post from someone who realizes they can't answer and are totally out of their depth.
You really can't talk about the science or facts, all you can do is troll.
Click to expand...
You mean like when you don't answer someone's question and just ask your own expecting an answer? You seem to know that well.
Tip: everyone here knows your trolling tactics...all I'm asking for is some new ones cause it's getting boring watching you fall on your face all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnLarue
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom