Try educating me leftist anti science morons and see what happens.
I don’t care if the subject is climate change or the mass of a proton. True science not only tolerates debate, it encourages debate.
The climate change folks want to shut down all debate. It’s their way or the highway. Disagree with them, and you will be shouted down and then cancelled.
That’s not science. It’s fascism.
That’s the best the Communist climate change crazies have. They call climate realists “climate deniers,” as if they don’t think climate even exists. Hey, Commie crazies, it’s called “natural climate variability,” and that big orange ball 93 million miles away is the cause.
Wat, no barf alert?!?
Ask them what a woman is.
6 Claims Made by Climate Change Skeptics—and How to Respond with 6 straw man presuppositions.
/\
Pete Buttigieg tells the Austria World Summit:
“Climate change is a major threat to security and prosperity ... Stories of climate disaster have always been on humanity’s mind in some fashion, dating back to ancient legends and scriptural traditions!”
The climate cultists won’t listen to what I have to say, so why should I listen to them?
pre·sup·po·si·tion
/ˌprēˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/
noun
plural noun: presuppositions
a thing tacitly assumed beforehand
at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.
/\
presupposition # 1 :
more than a few climate change deniers still roam...
presupposition # 2 :
our ever-heating planet.
presupposition # 3 :
esteemed science journal PLO
presupposition # 4 :
people systematically understate their disbelief
presupposition # 5 :
skepticism is more prevalent than many of us realize.
presupposition # 6 :
climate crisis,
presupposition # 7 :
science-backed responses
presupposition # 8:
the truth: that climate change is real,
presupposition # 9 :
we need to take bold action ASAP
/\
You get the drift of the grift.
As a confirmed denier, I like to ask the tree huggers why climate data has to be falsified? And why deniers in academia are cancelled, fired and threatened if they dissent from the orthodoxy? Why are they so afraid of dissent? What is to be done with CO2 producers in Asia, where most of it comes from?
Argument 1 is contradictory. If cold weather does not prove an absence of warming then hot weather cannot prove it happens
One might learn more to ask instead of what is the answer to climate change, what is the motive for one’s answer to it.
Climate change skeptics:
* reality
* prosperity
* faith in mankind
Climate change worshippers:
* mankind is bad
* prosperity is bad
* evidence doesn’t matter, we’re all gonna die
* you’re a racist
C02 is .04% of the atmosphere. Not a typo. 400 molecules per million. When they say C02 is up xx% [350 to 450 per million, for example], they need to dilute the sample size to “parts per million” in their stats because otherwise it wouldn’t show up in any measurable amount. [BTW, atmospheric water in the atmosphere is 1,000x greater]
They say increasing a C02 sample size from 350 to 450 per million is the cause of temp fluctuations planet-wide, and flatly dismiss the Sun as even a contributing factor, even though the Sun is responsible for 100% of the warmth of this planet.
Climate alarmists claim a change of 1-2Celcius during the next 100 years will boil the oceans, burn the forests, melt the ice caps, & destroy all humanity. Yet.....
During the Roman Optimum, 200BC to 400AD, temps averaged from a low of 3 to a high of 5 Celsius warmer than today’s average. Called the ‘optimum’ since it brought forward unheralded prosperity, crops, game, etc. If it was so much warmer then, only a blink ago in terms of this planet’s existence, how did humanity survive at all? Huh. Why was there no mass die-off? No planet-wide catastrophes? Huh.
About 10k years ago, where I’m standing now, the land was under 2 miles of ice, as was much of the norther hemisphere. It all melted. How? Did the globe warm? Huh. Why did it get so cold in the first place? Huh.
OK lefties, reconcile. Go!
Ask your local greenie the following question.
How can a trace element (CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere) that is essential for life be a pollutant that’s going to destroy the planet?
Climate ping...
This article actually has some real arguments as opposed to the “12 Arguments” article posted later. But “debunking” should include actual facts, not warmist tropes.
Funny these articles are coming out at the same time - sounds like a major crackdown is coming against the reality based community.
There is not any soul that has ever lived, in the history of earth, that has ever denied that the climate changes. The essence of every climate is change.
This has worked for 10,000 years with no increase in taxes. Too hot? move north or to the coast. Too cold? Move south. Too much water? Move uphill.
In this century the climate could change once or twice. The sun, the angle of the earth’s axis toward the sun, volcanic action including under the sea determines climate. Not the level of taxation.