This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
Fairydust · F
@SW-User
Did I ever say that? Like I’ve said before don’t twist my words, make stuff up!
Did I ever say that? Like I’ve said before don’t twist my words, make stuff up!
Fairydust · F
@wildbill83 [quote]
none of us have ever denied "climate change" or greenhouse effect
we do deny anthropomorphic climate change/that humankind has any discernible effect on it...[/quote]
I do, it’s absolute bullshit, I posted the pic to explain who she’s related to and that explains why she does what she does 🙄
none of us have ever denied "climate change" or greenhouse effect
we do deny anthropomorphic climate change/that humankind has any discernible effect on it...[/quote]
I do, it’s absolute bullshit, I posted the pic to explain who she’s related to and that explains why she does what she does 🙄
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Fairydust When you see a headline claiming someone "invented" climate change and population control by eugenics you do wonder the purpose hence balance of the article.
If you read it, it does not actually claim he did "invent" anthropocentric climate-change - humanity generally did that. He recognised the mechanism but others made the connection. Read the text and it reveals that headline and purpose of the article is a shabby pseudo-political trick.
Scientists had been warning of the effects of pouring vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in the early years of the 20C, when coal was the world's primary fuel; but they could only base on their figures on the contemporary statistics, putting their danger times further into the 21C than we are are seeing.
They did not "invent" the effect but recognised its existence; though at a time when society generally thought science and engineering would "tame Nature" and bring us a sort of technical Nirvana on Earth.
Eugenics had been going for a long time. Arrhenius did not invent that philosophy however much he supported it. It was invented in 1883 by the English polymath, Sir Francis Galton, and taken up quite seriously by many who genuinely thought at the time it would be beneficial, though for medical not population reasons.
The article seems no more than intended to undermine Greta Thunberg, related to Arrhenius only distantly. I have no time for her, regarding her as far more irritating than useful in dealing with real and very serious problems first recognised in her ancestor's era if not by actually by him; but as an attack on her it is foolish and just as irritating.
If you read it, it does not actually claim he did "invent" anthropocentric climate-change - humanity generally did that. He recognised the mechanism but others made the connection. Read the text and it reveals that headline and purpose of the article is a shabby pseudo-political trick.
Scientists had been warning of the effects of pouring vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in the early years of the 20C, when coal was the world's primary fuel; but they could only base on their figures on the contemporary statistics, putting their danger times further into the 21C than we are are seeing.
They did not "invent" the effect but recognised its existence; though at a time when society generally thought science and engineering would "tame Nature" and bring us a sort of technical Nirvana on Earth.
Eugenics had been going for a long time. Arrhenius did not invent that philosophy however much he supported it. It was invented in 1883 by the English polymath, Sir Francis Galton, and taken up quite seriously by many who genuinely thought at the time it would be beneficial, though for medical not population reasons.
The article seems no more than intended to undermine Greta Thunberg, related to Arrhenius only distantly. I have no time for her, regarding her as far more irritating than useful in dealing with real and very serious problems first recognised in her ancestor's era if not by actually by him; but as an attack on her it is foolish and just as irritating.
Fairydust · F
@ArishMell
She’s a scripted puppet for the global elites, used to enslave us in climate change lock down smart cities!!
You’ll own nothing and be happy!
Same people that want depopulation or population control as they call it.
No airports by 2030, no cars, no meat, no farm owned by us, our houses will be destroyed or taken, so many more in the name of Claire change.
[image deleted]
She’s a scripted puppet for the global elites, used to enslave us in climate change lock down smart cities!!
You’ll own nothing and be happy!
Same people that want depopulation or population control as they call it.
No airports by 2030, no cars, no meat, no farm owned by us, our houses will be destroyed or taken, so many more in the name of Claire change.
[image deleted]
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
The climates changes, that's a fact of nature. It has done so long before humankind was around, and will continue to do so long after we're gone. In essence, science (or rather bad science) has misappropriated & politicized it in modern times only to sway popular opinion in the absurd, laughable belief that they have any major control over it. The same scientists that can't even accurately predict the weather tomorrow would have you believe that they can accurately predict the weather a hundred years from now...
Anyone with any historical knowledge oughta know by now that nature is very good at disproving bad science. And nature never breaks it's own laws, whereas science does on a daily basis; they simply disregard their ignorance and failings as a lack of information (which is a huge understatement to say the least).
History is full of examples of humankind nearly being destroyed under the pretense of some naive idealistic individuals trying to save it; and while eventually, someone may nearly succeed, nature will continue to live on
"Adapt or Die", isn't that what these pseudo scientists idol said? Survival of the fittest, adapt to the environment; it's pretty moronic & egotistical to think we can somehow adapt the environment to suit us.
Nature will do whatever it wants to suit itself, regardless of what we have to say about it. This planet has survived super volcanoes, Ice ages, massive meteor impacts, events that've nearly wiped out every living thing on the planet, and yet it remains
We've seen eruptions like Mount St. Helens, that literally blew up half the mountain, ejected over 1 cubic mile of material in the air, caused worldwide global cooling from ash, completely decimated 200 square miles next to it, leaving the terrain as barren as the moon; and yet, nature not only recovered, it thrived, and little evidence of that catastrophe remains today
People keep getting it wrong, all these disasters aren't a result of mankind nor their silly ideas about "climate change", they're just a constant reminder of how small & insignificant the narcissist's of mankind really are...
Anyone with any historical knowledge oughta know by now that nature is very good at disproving bad science. And nature never breaks it's own laws, whereas science does on a daily basis; they simply disregard their ignorance and failings as a lack of information (which is a huge understatement to say the least).
History is full of examples of humankind nearly being destroyed under the pretense of some naive idealistic individuals trying to save it; and while eventually, someone may nearly succeed, nature will continue to live on
"Adapt or Die", isn't that what these pseudo scientists idol said? Survival of the fittest, adapt to the environment; it's pretty moronic & egotistical to think we can somehow adapt the environment to suit us.
Nature will do whatever it wants to suit itself, regardless of what we have to say about it. This planet has survived super volcanoes, Ice ages, massive meteor impacts, events that've nearly wiped out every living thing on the planet, and yet it remains
We've seen eruptions like Mount St. Helens, that literally blew up half the mountain, ejected over 1 cubic mile of material in the air, caused worldwide global cooling from ash, completely decimated 200 square miles next to it, leaving the terrain as barren as the moon; and yet, nature not only recovered, it thrived, and little evidence of that catastrophe remains today
People keep getting it wrong, all these disasters aren't a result of mankind nor their silly ideas about "climate change", they're just a constant reminder of how small & insignificant the narcissist's of mankind really are...
Fairydust · F