Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[siti]

make America great again.

Yes - I recall the Tories using a similar slogan for Mrs Thatcher - make Britain great again - she didn't, you may have noticed.

 

[siti]

Haha...being herded by the activists to gather on a beach and have their pic taken with their heads in a hole, is supposed, in your mind, to be a picture of sensible rational thought processes...they make great climate scientists.. would you join them do that if asked?

I might, but don't worry, you won't have to decide, they only ask people who don't already have their head in a hole - or, in the case of the new EPA boss, in someone else's hole.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes - I recall the Tories using a similar slogan for Mrs Thatcher - make Britain great again - she didn't, you may have noticed.

She was one of the original instigators of the global warming movement was she not?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

She was one of the original instigators of the global warming movement was she not?

Indeed she was, but unfortunately siti's knowledge of the history of the agw scam is on a par with his knowledge of the actual science.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Indeed she was, but unfortunately siti's knowledge of the history of the agw scam is on a par with his knowledge of the actual science.

Yes, it's interesting that it was a political tool from the get go, even if, ironically, used by the other side in this case!

But really, the belief that bad weather is the fault of 'bad people' instead of natural phenomena, goes back thousands of years, possibly the oldest superstition known to mankind?

And there has always been people in power demanding sacrifices to appease Gaia

 

[siti]

She was one of the original instigators of the global warming movement was she not?

She spoke with forked tongue on the issue, at one and the same time advocating climate protection measures and promoting free-market capitalism, the "great car economy" and "Roads for Prosperity". She was an educated scientist (a chemist by profession) so she would have found it difficult to deny the scientific facts - but she was loathe to abandon her capitalistic politics so she equivocated - simultaneously promoting both the cause and the problem and its solution - but eventually coming down fully on the side of capitalist irresponsibility as her right wing politicizing finally erased any clear-thinking scientific clarity from her psyche. Poor woman - imagine starting off as a scientist and ending up incapable of distinguishing between the real world and Fox News - like one of the three wise monkeys of RF and their trusty sidekick, Guy. Sad!

 

[siti]

the belief that bad weather is the fault of 'bad people' instead of natural phenomena, goes back thousands of years, possibly the oldest superstition known to mankind?

Or maybe its just another "lucky guess"? Eh Guy?

unfortunately siti's knowledge of the history of the agw scam is on a par with his knowledge of the actual science.

Do you consider my knowledge of history and science 'unfortunate' because you have yet to refute a single argument I have made with any actual scientific or historical evidence?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you consider my knowledge of history and science 'unfortunate' because you have yet to refute a single argument I have made with any actual scientific or historical evidence?

No, unfortunate because you lack the depth of knowledge to understand reality, unfortunate too that as a result, you fall for a fake religion that is easy to believe, humans are destroying the earth, humans are bad....a Planet of the Apes scenario is coming, you wish..

 

[Debateable]

I agree, it is "too bad" to see anyone behave exactly like a creationist.

Lol this argument that you keep putting up is so weak that it's hilarious.

 

[Jose Fly]

If the denialists' conspiracy theory about climatologists just chasing cash is true, then can someone explain to me why, now that we have an anti-warming administration (Trump) and Congress in charge of funding, are climatologists sticking to their science and the conclusion of human-caused warming?

If the conspiracy theory is true, shouldn't those same climatologists be switching their narratives to a denialist position so they can continue to get funding? Why are we seeing the opposite?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If the denialists' conspiracy theory about climatologists just chasing cash is true, then can someone explain to me why, now that we have an anti-warming administration (Trump) and Congress in charge of funding, are climatologists sticking to their science and the conclusion of human-caused warming?

If the conspiracy theory is true, shouldn't those same climatologists be switching their narratives to a denialist position so they can continue to get funding? Why are we seeing the opposite?

The UN late last century created a unified global group that involves about 200 nations of the world who signed up to the UN IPCC claim that humans were the predominate cause of the global warming trend, and they agreed to organize and fund a UN agw movement to combat it. That funding created a feeding frenzy which has created an ever increasing number of career climatologists whose lives and careers now depend on it. It is these people who use their science, positions, guile, politics, etc., to push agw on the dumbed down masses.

If skeptics win the day, the UN IPCC and FCCC will be disbanded, and the present funding will dry up. With the combination of no pressure on climate science to push agw, plus a huge reduction in funding so that only the few sincere scientists remain, the swamp will be drained and climate science will be made great and honest again.

 

[Jose Fly]

The UN late last century created a unified global group that involves about 200 nations of the world who signed up to the UN IPCC claim that humans were the predominate cause of the global warming trend, and they agreed to organize and fund a UN agw movement to combat it.

But by that time the fundamental science had largely been done. Remember, your and Debatable's conspiracy theory is that climatologists created the whole human-caused warming thing for nefarious reasons.

That funding created a feeding frenzy which has created an ever increasing number of career climatologists whose lives and careers now depend on it. It is these people who use their science, positions, guile, politics, etc., to push agw on the dumbed down masses.

This is the exact same argument creationists make regarding evolutionary biology. They claim that those in the biological sciences are basically doing it for the money, i.e., chasing funding, even though the underlying science is largely false.

In both cases, it never seems to occur to you conspiracy theory minded denialists that there's a much more parsimonious explanation for why life scientists conduct research into evolution and climatologists research human-caused warming......because that's the reality the data points to.

If skeptics win the day, the UN IPCC and FCCC will be disbanded, and the present funding will dry up. With the combination of no pressure on climate science to push agw, plus a huge reduction in funding so that only the few sincere scientists remain, the swamp will be drained and climate science will be made great and honest again.

If creationists win the day, all the funding for research into evolution will dry up and the life sciences will be honest again.

Denialism is pretty much the same, regardless of the topic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But by that time the fundamental science had largely been done. Remember, your and Debatable's conspiracy theory is that climatologists created the whole human-caused warming thing for nefarious reasons.

This is the exact same argument creationists make regarding evolutionary biology. They claim that those in the biological sciences are basically doing it for the money, i.e., chasing funding, even though the underlying science is largely false.

In both cases, it never seems to occur to you conspiracy theory minded denialists that there's a much more parsimonious explanation for why life scientists conduct research into evolution and climatologists research human-caused warming......because that's the reality the data points to.

If creationists win the day, all the funding for research into evolution will dry up and the life sciences will be honest again.

Denialism is pretty much the same, regardless of the topic.

You are misdirecting to 'creationism' and 'conspiracies' to avoid acknowledging your question was stupid. You asked primarily why agw climatologists, under Trumpism, if they were only going with agw for the funding, would not merely switch over to the other position to continue to get the funding. Now the short answer to this question since you did not understand my longer version is that the funding will all but dry up. if Trumpism prevails....the swamp is drained....and only about 20% of existing climate scientist's careers will continue, the rest will not....got it?

More good news..DELINGPOLE: Scott Pruitt Says No to CO2 and Social Justice at EPA

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Well you can laugh all the way to grave as the pollution being spewed out by the goddam SUVs in America, China and Europe slowly but surely make the planet unable to sustain human life.

Yeah, never let a good crisis go to waste. But if one's not handy, you can make spooks around the corner out of whole cloth. Nobody's arguing against promoting clean air and water, but carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, and the Sun is still the prime mover of any climate change that's occurred or going to. But some people just gotta put blind faith in something because it makes them feel empowered.

 

[Jose Fly]

Now the short answer to this question since you did not understand my longer version is that the funding will all but dry up. if Trumpism prevails....the swamp is drained....and only about 20% of existing climate scientist's careers will continue, the rest will not....got it?

Ok, let's see how that goes.

 

[siti]

No, unfortunate because you lack the depth of knowledge to understand reality, unfortunate too that as a result, you fall for a fake religion that is easy to believe, humans are destroying the earth, humans are bad....a Planet of the Apes scenario is coming, you wish..

On the plus side, I guess we'll both fit right in...

 

[Debateable]

The UN late last century created a unified global group that involves about 200 nations of the world who signed up to the UN IPCC claim that humans were the predominate cause of the global warming trend, and they agreed to organize and fund a UN agw movement to combat it. That funding created a feeding frenzy which has created an ever increasing number of career climatologists whose lives and careers now depend on it. It is these people who use their science, positions, guile, politics, etc., to push agw on the dumbed down masses.

If skeptics win the day, the UN IPCC and FCCC will be disbanded, and the present funding will dry up. With the combination of no pressure on climate science to push agw, plus a huge reduction in funding so that only the few sincere scientists remain, the swamp will be drained and climate science will be made great and honest again.

Many of them are activists. Not to mention they'd lose all credibility. Who'd ever hire them again if they admitted to fraud? Hold the line and when they are proven wrong, it doesn't look as bad to say, well we weren't entirely sure so we were leaning to the side of caution.

 

[Debateable]

But by that time the fundamental science had largely been done. Remember, your and Debatable's conspiracy theory is that climatologists created the whole human-caused warming thing for nefarious reasons.



This is the exact same argument creationists make regarding evolutionary biology. They claim that those in the biological sciences are basically doing it for the money, i.e., chasing funding, even though the underlying science is largely false.

In both cases, it never seems to occur to you conspiracy theory minded denialists that there's a much more parsimonious explanation for why life scientists conduct research into evolution and climatologists research human-caused warming......because that's the reality the data points to.


If creationists win the day, all the funding for research into evolution will dry up and the life sciences will be honest again.

Denialism is pretty much the same, regardless of the topic.

NO NO NO NO NO. I never said that the Climatologists created this. In fact I have always held the position that it was created via politics and political agenda.

Edit: Just to clarify. Science has looked into it in the past and saw a possibility. Politics saw the potential for crisis and ran with it. Government funding comes with strings and it demands a direction of focus that you are not allowed to deviate from.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

On the plus side, I guess we'll both fit right in...

Ok, cheers...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Ok, let's see how that goes.

That's exactly what we're doing, and what we've been doing for over 50 years--predicting global catastrophe and then having to ignore that (much less why) the predictions (prophesies) wren't fulfilled, and making up new ones being fulfilled beyond the current generations instead of the previous 5/10 year more immediate scare tactic of choice.