Saul Alinsky set out the rules for activists and you can see how organisations like Greenpeace follow those rules to the letter.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Brilliant article on why so much of so called climate science is just junk masquerading as science.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017...n-of-the-hoax/
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Saul Alinsky set out the rules for activists and you can see how organisations like Greenpeace follow those rules to the letter.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
This describes you to a T, you think bullshit and bluster is all that is needed to win debates.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017...ou-are-guilty/
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 04-17-2017 at 12:14 AM.
keep up the good work, mr. tom. somebody must continually fight against the fraud/ antichrist religion/ political tool which is gw/ cc; you are an important voice against the evil and delusional intents of the establishment/ globalist damned of earth. when the judgments upon earth begin there will be no more voice of reason and the damned will deny their judgment and are forever damned to unending torment. it is important. there may be a special crown for your service which you will be glad to cast at the feet of Jesus because he has given you eyes to see and ears to discern good from evil. congratulations.
Even so, Come, Lord JesusI do not participate in delusion count me out
Your link:
"CO2 is Life
The Definitive Source for Exposing the Global Warming Hoax"
Backtracking to claiming global warming is a vast hoax, perpetrated by a global conspiracy of scientists intent on fooling the public, policy makers, and hogging grant money?
You are a joke.
A link to an obscure blog that makes the case the global warming is a hoax is par for the course for you.
This is why I can not trust you to discuss science honestly. You never actually read or present links to mainstream science sources, with trained experts in climate science who conduct original peer reviewed research. I have attempted to direct you to mainstream scientific literature, but you cling like grim death to your obscure denier blogs.
You are emotionally invested in climate science denial. Not sure what your motivation is. But I think it has something to do with ego, with the fact that you would rather see harm come to your grandchildren, than admit you were wrong about global warming to anonymous internet posters you will never meet.
I guess you get something emotionally out of being a denier; a proponent of fossil fuels, and blathering on endlessly about a topic you have no expertise or training in. Sounds like a shitty gig to me, but it must float your boat!
Last edited by Cypress; 04-16-2017 at 07:52 PM. Reason: grammar
Althea (04-17-2017)
Now, I could see using these.
SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.
This is cool also.
SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.
I have posted many scientific papers on here and will continue to do so, my motivation is clear enough. I prefer to listen to scientists like Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson , Craig Idso, Patrick Michaels, Ivan Giaever, Harrison Schmitt, Anastasios Tsonis, Nils-Axel Mörner, Roger A. Pielke, David Deming, Roy Spencer, Jasper Kirkby and many others.
My main issue with much of so called climate science is the use of computer models, I know of no other branch of science where they are used as some kind of proof. Indeed to quote the results in a scientific paper is actually fraudulent and wholly against the scientific method. I quote from that blog that you object to so vehemently, feel free to tell me which part you take exception to, don't be shy.
"Science isn't a democracy. Science is highly discriminatory. Science demands discipline and accountability. Science has no feelings and isn’t compassionate. There are no safe spaces, affirmative action or participation trophies in science. Science has ridged rules and consequences for failure. Science is “one strike you’re out” intolerant. Science is black and white, Science doesn’t grade on a curve, you are either right or wrong. Science isn’t inclusive, the truth is a very exclusive club that rejects many applicants. There is no grey zone in Science. Science is extremely conservative. In other words, real Science is the pinnacle of political incorrectness.
Politics isn’t bound by the truth, it is bound by the vote, and therefore, the non-scientist has an extreme advantage when it comes to testifying in front of congress."
Impugning my motives is exactly what that article in that blog was describing in detail. I am given to understand that your area of expertise is rocks, so how does that qualify you to discuss climate science any more than my chemistry degree? I will continue to post more in the future, if you don't like it then just ignore me I won't cry. As to the highly unscientific use of the word denier, I will quote Richard Lindzen once again. Here is his opening statement to the House of Commons in 2012. I agree with him 100%.
"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest."
https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/l...se-of-commons/
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 04-17-2017 at 01:33 AM. Reason: HumperHumperKonayaya33
Bookmarks