On Sat, 6 May 2017 02:32:47 -0400
John Newman <j...@synfin.org> wrote:
>
> What's your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a massive
> hoax? I know we've been through this before and I don't want another
> flame fest.... I'm genuinely curious.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
I might as well ask, what's your evidence for human caused
'global' warming, apart from the official story coming from the
'scientific' 'community'.
Where are your *global* temperature records? What about records
for solar activity...? How old is the earth's climate? How far
do your records go?
What's the theory that allows you to 'predict' the wheather? How
reliable is it? What about so called 'chaos' theory? Have you
ever bothered to see how accurate the one-week weather forecast
is?
>
> I ask because I've had some long conversations with people much
> smarter than myself whose area of research involves this, and the
> basic premise seems pretty simple and well established.
Well, it seems to me that you believe what the 'scientific'
'authorities' say. So you believe in authority, and that has
nothing to do with science.
> Debating the
> nitty gritty details of how quickly we are warming the planet with
> carbon emissions and what exactly the effect is and will continue to
> be, on weather patterns, the oceans, permafrost, etc etc -
> discussing this can obviously be done...
>
> It's not like anyone (the nation states of the world) is particularly
> doing anything to really fight the effect,
I don't think there's much of an effect to fight, but it is
obvious that there are 'government activities' related to
'climate change'. And those 'government activities' boil down to
transferring money from joe sixpack to 'green' special
interests.
> except for very token
> gestures.
I don't think that the tens of billions of dollars that go to
special interests including of course the 'scientific' mafia
are a token gesture.
> In other words, if it's a massive hoax perpetuated by
> scientists all over the world, they and the various institutions they
> represent aren't really getting anything from said hoax.
I think that illustrates your bias. You think the 'climate
change' story benefits no one although your belief is pretty
naive and can be dispelled with 5 minutes searching for "green
subsidies" or similar terms.
And anyway, I wasn't too interested in discussing global
warming, but cyber totalitarianism.
>
> >
> >> Your version of Political
> >> Correctness provides final answers to all meaningful questions
> >> about the human condition. That sounds more like conventional
> >> religious fanaticism than the Scientician faith.
> >
> >
> > bottom line : you criticize the scientific mafia ONLY if they
> > say stuff you don't like. When your scientfic, state-funded
> > mafia vomits nonsense about the global reheating apocalypsis,ii
> > you love them.
> >
> >
> >>> The technological, fascist 'progressives' are basically correct
> >>> when they say that all technical problems can be solved. So if you
> >>> expect their technical plans to catastrophically fail, you'll wait
> >>> forever.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Aldous Huxley - The Ultimate Revolution
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30
> >>
> >> There's that Scientician faith in action!
> >
> >
> > Not sure what you mean. Do you have any counterarguments for
> > Huxley?
> >
> > So far, apart from your enviro-friendly, off-topic tangent, I
> > don't think you said anything too relevant to the problem of
> > technically efficient propaganda, brainwashing, mind-control or
> > whatever term is appropriate.
> >
> >
> >
>
