• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Green/communist's method and goal


I will look at the science papers you cite not some general waffle about doom. It has to show how the single bad thing will impact the world and thus we can see how it will impact your chosen place.

I note you have run away at the first hurdle.

This makes it utterly obvious that you fully know you just can't do it.

Who would you choose to judge this?

ah, the "ignore everything and declare victory" tactic. that's boring.
 
It was always clear that the hype of doom about a possible slight warming was beyond all reason way before 2010.

You asked (I think) for documentation of the denialist industry and I provided that. You pretend to see nothing and continue. That's cool with me. This issue isn't primary in my life anyway.
 
You asked (I think) for documentation of the denialist industry and I provided that. You pretend to see nothing and continue. That's cool with me. This issue isn't primary in my life anyway.

There is no "denialist industry."
 
ah, the "ignore everything and declare victory" tactic. that's boring.

I ask you to select a suitable judge, to make your case and take $400 off me. That is how confident I am.

You demand I read the scripture you clearly have not and could never understand and then shout insults.

You must see that you show that you are incapable of making a prima facie case for any action to combat this none problem.
 
You asked (I think) for documentation of the denialist industry and I provided that. You pretend to see nothing and continue. That's cool with me. This issue isn't primary in my life anyway.

Are you aware of how many billions is involved in the alarmist industry?
 
YouTube

The methods of the KGB to use mental methods to bring down an enemy state.

Obviously the same is now happening with the Green movement attacking our minds and collective thinking. They have, already, gained the consensus.

And this YouTube channel is put up by a rabid Trump supporter.

Geezus lol. Color me shocked! Oh noes, the socialists are coming!

the-boy-who-cried-wolf.jpg
 
Whatever you want to call it, see Public Sector and Private Sector in the wiki link. There's a lot more to it, but I don't have time/interest to dig today.

Climate change denial - Wikipedia

Any link entitled "Climate Change Denial" is unworthy of consideration on its face. It is mere propaganda. Here is an excerpt. The key word is "unwarranted."

"Climate change skepticism" and "climate change denial" refer to denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part.[SUP][38][/SUP][SUP][39][/SUP] Though there is a distinction between skepticism which indicates doubting the truth of an assertion and outright denial of the truth of an assertion, in the public debate phrases such as "climate scepticism" have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism or contrarianism.[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][40][/SUP]
 
Any link entitled "Climate Change Denial" is unworthy of consideration on its face. It is mere propaganda. Here is an excerpt. The key word is "unwarranted."

"Climate change skepticism" and "climate change denial" refer to denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part.[SUP][38][/SUP][SUP][39][/SUP] Though there is a distinction between skepticism which indicates doubting the truth of an assertion and outright denial of the truth of an assertion, in the public debate phrases such as "climate scepticism" have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism or contrarianism.[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][40][/SUP]

So everything on that page is false, but watts' blog is true?

Do you believe that AGW believers make more money off the AGW idea than the fossil fuel industry makes off its lifeblood?
 
So everything on that page is false, but watts' blog is true?

Do you believe that AGW believers make more money off the AGW idea than the fossil fuel industry makes off its lifeblood?

The fossil fuel industry is irrelevant. The big climate money is on the AGW advocacy side.
 

I ask you to select a suitable judge, to make your case and take $400 off me. That is how confident I am.

You demand I read the scripture you clearly have not and could never understand and then shout insults.

You must see that you show that you are incapable of making a prima facie case for any action to combat this none problem.

i don't care about your stupid bet. it's not possible to manipulate the reality of climate change by putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la."
 
The fossil fuel industry is irrelevant. The big climate money is on the AGW advocacy side.

Really? Please compare and contrast them for me.

...the fossil fuel industry as a whole is a gargantuan monolith.
 
Are you aware of how many billions is involved in the alarmist industry?

Really?
Fossil Fuel Industry Risks Losing $33 Trillion to Climate Change
By Joe Ryan
July 11, 2016, 12:51 PM EDT
Companies may be forced to leave gas, oil and coal in ground
Task force drafting guidelines for companies to dislose risk
The fossil fuel industry risks losing $33 trillion in revenue over the next 25 years as global warming may drive companies to leave oil, natural gas and coal in the ground, according to a Barclays Plc energy analyst.

Government regulations and other efforts to cut carbon emissions will inevitably slash demand for fossil fuels, jeopardizing traditional energy producers, Mark Lewis, Barclays’s head of European utilities equity research, said Monday during a panel discussion in New York on financial risks from climate change.

To continue reading this article, you must be a Bloomberg News subscriber.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I don't subscribe, so that's it.

33 trillion.

If I were just looking for money, I know where I'd go. Hint: not to the AGW advocate side. Can you explain (with numbers) how the AGW stacks up? If they just want money, why not just invest in what's already there? Research grants? That's laughable.
 
YouTube

The methods of the KGB to use mental methods to bring down an enemy state.

Obviously the same is now happening with the Green movement attacking our minds and collective thinking. They have, already, gained the consensus.

Conspiracy theory thread! Comparing green policy supporters expressing their opinions to brainwashing techniques by the KGB!
 
My point is the fossil fuel industry is not in the climate debate.

The have the most vested position, and you maintain that they are doing nothing about protecting that position? That would be irresponsible if you ask me, and there is plenty of evidence that they've been majorly involved, but believe what you want.
 
The have the most vested position, and you maintain that they are doing nothing about protecting that position? That would be irresponsible if you ask me, and there is plenty of evidence that they've been majorly involved, but believe what you want.

They are not connected to any of the most significant skeptic sites or scientists.
 
My point is the fossil fuel industry is not in the climate debate.

Who are you crapping?

EPA Administrator Wheeler was the Washington lobbyist for the largest coal mining operation in the US.

He's now putting together his own "anti-clique" panel to contradict the official US government scientific position on global warming.
 
Who are you crapping?

EPA Administrator Wheeler was the Washington lobbyist for the largest coal mining operation in the US.

He's now putting together his own "anti-clique" panel to contradict the official US government scientific position on global warming.

So what? He was not appointed by the fossil fuel industry.
 
They are not connected to any of the most significant skeptic sites or scientists.

That's a different assertion entirely, since you can pick and choose who you want included in that group. Plus, post Citizens United tracing money is a lot harder.

You are basically claiming that the fossil fuel industry has no voice in a debate that's central to their future profitability. You sure you want to stake that position?
 
Back
Top Bottom