Spain to climate deniers: Apologize and Repent : Public thread.

[Into the Night]

Again, Cypress seems to figure that he can play only in the kiddie pool. Bringing this thread out to public discussion.

Opening piece by Cypress:

Spanish Leader Scolds Climate Change Deniers, Urges ‘Fanatics’ to Repent

"For years, several versions of climate change denial were in circulation. Today, luckily only a handful of fanatics deny the evidence"

Spain’s interim prime minister said Monday “only a handful of fanatics deny the evidence” of climate change, urging those who disagree to admit they’re wrong, change their mind and join the “global consensus.”

Pedro Sánchez said “alternative facts” about climate must be fought back with actions as he addressed the opening of a two-week COP25 U.N. climate summit in Madrid, El Pais reported.

The leader of Spain’s Socialists, who is trying to assemble enough parliamentary support to remain in government, offered to host the summit after Chile was rocked by a wave of anti-government protests.

”These days, Madrid will be the capital of the fight against climate change and for a real commitment. But above all it wants to be the capital of dialogue and words.”

“For years, several versions of climate change denial were in circulation. Today, luckily only a handful of fanatics deny the evidence,” he added. “No one can escape this challenge by themselves. There is no wall that can protect any country, regardless of how powerful it is.”


continued https://www.breitbart.com/environmen...ics-to-repent/

[Into the Night]

Here many buzzwords are used. The 'evidence' (not specified). Random numbers pulled out the air 'handful', 'global consensus', 'no one'. As always, the key buzzword, which has still not been defined, is 'climate change'.

Old Pedro is going to have a difficult time fighting against something that has not yet been defined!

[Into the Night]

It is hard to take any socialist seriously. I can see why the Democrats were in such a hurry to go over to Spain though.

It's nice this time of year in Spain. It's the annual U.N. picnic.

[Into the Night]

The leader of Spain's conservative party, Pablo Casado, has also committed to "combating" climate change (his words)
https://spainsnews.com/casado-asks-t...structure/?amp

Pablo Casado is going to have to define 'climate change' as well.

You could always help them out, Cypress. Define 'climate change'.

[Into the Night]

Your link makes a great point about Socialists doing nothing but talking. Either way, no Spanish politician is worth a bucketful of gurry. Nice people, beautiful women, great food. Cannot Govern themselves out of a wet paper bag.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. Spain has been under some pretty crappy government.

[Into the Night]

To address this tangent, the Spanish prime minister is a democratic socialist.

A socialist is a socialist. Socialism can only exist by stealing wealth. This is one of the biggest of Spain's problems.

I refuse any attempts to conflate western european socialism with soviet totalitarian communism.

Both are socialism.

The Soviet communists despised Russian socialists,

No. Soviet communists ARE Russian socialists.

and went to great efforts to execute them, imprison them, and prevent them from having any say in governing Russia.

The didn't imprison themselves or execute themselves.

[gfm7175]

Spanish Leader Scolds Climate Change Deniers, Urges ‘Fanatics’ to Repent

"For years, several versions of climate change denial were in circulation. Today, luckily only a handful of fanatics deny the evidence"

Spain’s interim prime minister said Monday “only a handful of fanatics deny the evidence” of climate change, urging those who disagree to admit they’re wrong, change their mind and join the “global consensus.”

Pedro Sánchez said “alternative facts” about climate must be fought back with actions as he addressed the opening of a two-week COP25 U.N. climate summit in Madrid, El Pais reported.

The leader of Spain’s Socialists, who is trying to assemble enough parliamentary support to remain in government, offered to host the summit after Chile was rocked by a wave of anti-government protests.

”These days, Madrid will be the capital of the fight against climate change and for a real commitment. But above all it wants to be the capital of dialogue and words.”

“For years, several versions of climate change denial were in circulation. Today, luckily only a handful of fanatics deny the evidence,” he added. “No one can escape this challenge by themselves. There is no wall that can protect any country, regardless of how powerful it is.”


continued https://www.breitbart.com/environmen...ics-to-repent/

He needs to first define some words (see the bolded) before he makes any sense...

[anonymoose]

Here many buzzwords are used. The 'evidence' (not specified).

I caught that. Maybe thre actually is evidence . But evidence of what exactly? I know there is certainly no evidence humans have caused any change in any region’s climate.

[anonymoose]

Pablo Casado is going to have to define 'climate change' as well.

You could always help them out, Cypress. Define 'climate change'.

Maybe i can help Cypress out. An example of climate change could be the change in climate of north Africa from a lush tropical climate to its present day desert climate probably due to a change in the earth’s axis of rotation.

[anonymoose]

Global consensus about earth’s climate: 100% agreement that (most of) the earth’s climate is conducive to plant and animal life unlike any other planet in the solar system.
“ alternative facts” about climate must be fought back with actions” makes absolutely no sense.

[Getin the ring]

The Climate is being used as a political tool.

the Planet is fine, with that being said a little personal responsibility in it's upkeep is never a bad idea

[Into the Night]

I caught that. Maybe thre actually is evidence . But evidence of what exactly? I know there is certainly no evidence humans have caused any change in any region’s climate.

Evidence itself needs to be critically judged. For example, there is evidence that Jesus Christ exists. There is also evidence that no god or gods exist. There are supporting evidence used in religions.

Science does not use supporting evidence at all. Only religions do that. Science is only interested in conflicting evidence.

No theory can be proven, not the theories supporting Christianity or atheism, and no theory of science either. A theory of science must be falsifiable. There is no such requirement for a non-scientific theory, such as what most religions are based upon. The difference with a theory of science is that a test result producing conflicting evidence can destroy the theory. There are no such tests available for non-scientific theories.

Evidence is not a proof. It is simply evidence, and must be critically judged.

[Into the Night]

Maybe i can help Cypress out. An example of climate change could be the change in climate of north Africa from a lush tropical climate to its present day desert climate probably due to a change in the earth’s axis of rotation.

However, a lush tropical climate is still a lush tropical climate. A desert climate is still a desert climate. Nothing about climate has changed.

[anonymoose]

However, a lush tropical climate is still a lush tropical climate. A desert climate is still a desert climate. Nothing about climate has changed.

Huh? If the same area went from a tropical climate to a desert climate you don’t call that a change?

[Into the Night]

Mistakes, blunders, and poor decisions are going to be made as the world attempts to implement alternative energy technologies,

One of the biggest is ignoring cheap energy.

and strategies for climate resilience.

Climate is a subjective word. It doesn't have a 'resilience'.

Unfortunately, throwing up our hands into the air and giving up is not an option.

Giving up on what? Define 'climate change'. Pascal's Wager fallacy.

Problems and mistakes will not make this existential problem go away

What problem? Define 'climate change'.

>> the relentless human-induced emissions of billions of tons of heat trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, year after year, decade after decade, is not sustainable

It is not possible to trap heat. Heat is not contained in anything. It doesn't even have a temperature.

and will cause long term detrimental impacts to the environment,

Void argument fallacy.

to ecosystems,

Void argument fallacy.

to agriculture,

Void argument fallacy.

to water supplies,

Void argument fallacy.

to global economies.

Void argument fallacy.

You haven't defined 'climate change' or 'global warming'. You make vague claims of all this disruption that have no meaning. You claim horrible outcomes unless people join your religion.

Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.