Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »
This post is currently unavailable.
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP Best Comment
[image deleted]
gol979 · 41-45, M
@HowardP fog of verbiage. If you (generic you) cannot define what's going to happen definitively then I will go with 99% of what climate scientists are predicting
HowardP · 80-89, M
Each time you post a comment, you display your own lack of critical thought and general ignorance. It's sad when facts are rebutted as verbiage! And you hoist yourself on your own petard: it is not up to me to define what outcome climate alarmist would accept as disproof of their theories. In science, it is those that are proposing a hypothesis who must define outcomes which prove or nullify their hypothesis. All climate academics do is set tipping points ten years in advance, and when those criteria are not met, simply move them another ten years in the future. That is not science: it is alchemy. Who forecast an 18 year pause in any statistical valid warming?

Incidentally, the "academic" paper from which the 97% (not 99%) was drawn from was verging on academic fraud. All it actually showed was that 97% of the climate-oriented papers they reviewed (i.e. merely a meta study) showed what every sane person accepts - that humans have an effect on climate. It did not in any way assess if they felt this was a good thing or a bad thing or a totally irrelevant thing. But the paper was presented as proof that 97% of climate scientists agreed with catastrophism. Upon peer review, it was found that a significant portion of the papers they reviewed actually discounted anthropogenic climate change as in any way a problem. It was, in a good scientific word, a crock.

Sorry to have confused you with facts. Now go back to your comfortable belief without proof ignorance.
gol979 · 41-45, M
@HowardP fair enough. You're obviously very well educated in this field but I will not bow down to your, I imagine, quite lucrative line........your standing shoulder to shoulder with the worst people and constructs/infrastructure but I understand why you get so angry to have your "facts" challenged.

Keep on pedalling dude 👍

HowardP · 80-89, M
My experience in discussing this with grandchildren and their friends - theoretically all intelligent teenagers - is that they have not the vaguest understanding of the science. They have, with varying degrees of naiveté, simply accepted variations of the "12 years to save the earth".

I have been stunned by their absence of even the most basic knowledge of climate science, nor the ramifications of the actions they blindly support.
Braveheart · M
@gol979 the invitation was for you or any one else to do so. I support what the kids did and if anything, a day out protesting probably did them the world of good, soaking up some UV for VitD. At least they got out into the fresh air away from their screens.
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
@Braveheart I guarantee they spent 90% of the time staring at their smart phones...
Braveheart · M
@wildbill83 haha, that doesnt surprise me. You won.
Braveheart · M
The argument about missing a days tuition got them huge media attention. So in that respect it was a success.
MrAboo · 36-40, M
Possibly saved the use of some fossil fuels
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
I say expel them, if being a bunch of lazy morons is more important than a taxpayer funded education, then they can protest their way to a job flipping burgers and cleaning bathrooms...🤔
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
and quite frankly, anyone who supports kids skipping school for this nonsense should be fired on the spot by their respective employers... I certainly would.
MartinII · 70-79, M
And since when did schoolchidren have the right to “go on strike”? If I had done that I would have got the cane!
Braveheart · M
@MartinII how times have changed. You'll probably get 12 months suspended sentence for giving the cane now and go on the sex offenders register.

 
Post Comment