|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 22, 2014 19:25:37 GMT -5
We can be very certain that the crew and climate alarmist passengers of the MV Akademik Schokalskiy did not expect to get trapped in a thick ice sheet in Antarctica. They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of ‘climate scientists’ have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year (code for ‘it’s colder, not warmer’)... It is rather satisfying to see the alarmists experiencing first hand the reality of conditions that differ wildly from their computer modelled predictions and consistently worrying warnings, that are parrotted obediently and without challenge or question by their fellow travellers in the world’s biased and agenda riddled media. Had the crew and passengers managed to observe and record dramatic images of ice melt cascading off ice flows, we can be sure the media would currently be packed with ‘we told you’ so climate change/global warming reports prophesising impending thermogeddon and demanding even more ‘action’ and public money to tackle man’s warming of the planet – furthering the green agenda of reversing progress and industrialisation to force mankind back into the middle ages. Full article autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/ice-locked-ss-alarmist-provides-reminder-of-media-bias/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 19:31:11 GMT -5
Zak, you already gave yourself away by admitting that your main argument with climate change theory is the carbon tax. Because that, all your arguments are suspect. Sorry, but that's how it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 22, 2014 19:46:02 GMT -5
My argument with "climate change" theory is that it's baloney. Junk science that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The main motivation behind "climate change" is financial - ie, carbon tax and carbon stock. If you read what I wrote and you arrived at the conclusion you posted above, you weren't paying attention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 19:58:18 GMT -5
My argument with "climate change" theory is that it's baloney. Junk science that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The main motivation behind "climate change" is financial - ie, carbon tax and carbon stock. If you read what I wrote and you arrived at the conclusion you posted above, you weren't paying attention. I certainly was paying attention. Which is why I know why you are an opponent of climate change resulting from carbon pollution. I mentioned that some time ago about the taxation, but you only now admitted that was your concern. If it's not your concern then what is it? Just because you don't think it's true? Really? And that alone makes you so against it? Even without carbon pollution, you do realize that pollution itself will someday make this planet unliveable, right? And, of course, who cares about the future. You will be dead and gone if you're wrong, so who cares. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 22, 2014 20:41:42 GMT -5
1. There is no such thing as "carbon pollution". CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is benign to living things. There is no such thing as "CO2 pollution".
2. Of course I find it galling that millions of people are being scammed into being penalized (forced to pay taxes) for a problem that doesn't exist.
3. CO2 will never ever make the planet "unlivable". That's complete nonsense. CO2 makes things grow. It encourages vegetation.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that CO2 is a pollutant that is poisoning the atmosphere. The very reverse is the case. Of course the land, the seas and the rivers are being polluted with all kinds of dangerous chemicals. But CO2 is not a pollutant, and doesn't IN ANY WAY damage the environment. Nor is that the argument of the alarmists. What they are claiming is that CO2 acts as a barrier, trapping the earth's heat. There is no evidence to support that claim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 20:46:27 GMT -5
Do you believe that polllution (in any form) is real?
If money is not the problem, then why are you so against carbon polllution prevention? Just intellectual?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 22, 2014 21:12:59 GMT -5
Of course pollution is real! Are you kidding? Just look at the industrial crap - especially plastics - being dumped into the sea (eg, look at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch). Then there's nuclear waste. Radioactive waste from the Sellafield Nuclear reprocessing plant in the UK has turned the Irish sea into one of the most radioactive bodies of water in the world. Then there is the damage caused by oil spills. In terms of atmospheric pollution, there is radioactive pollution caused by the more than 2,000 nuclear tests that have been carried out over the last 50 years. Pollution is a major problem. Yet the amount of money being given to tackle these REAL and urgent types of pollution is only a tiny fraction of the amount being devoted to (bogus) climate change research.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 21:19:37 GMT -5
Yes, that is what we really should be fighting against. If what you mean is that all the efforts are focused on carbon pollution to the detriment over the polluion to our air and water, then yes, I agree with you totally. Industrial pollution as to water and air are killing us. In my state, solar energy is really taking a hold. Not to mention wind energy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 4:18:17 GMT -5
Zak, you already gave yourself away by admitting that your main argument with climate change theory is the carbon tax. Because that, all your arguments are suspect. Sorry, but that's how it is. In all fairness, it's perfectly possible that he looked into the future to check how things will look like in a few decades. |
|
