I thought Climate Changed in NY?

[Dale Smith]

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

 

[irosie91]

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

I found weather a boring topic in the 8th grade------I was supposed to name the
different cloud formations-------for each I wrote "puffy fluffy"-------it is a wonder
the teacher did not fail me for the whole year

 

[ClosedCaption]

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

 

[ClosedCaption]

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Au contraire, because I have studied this topic quite a bit and I must interject here because this "climate change" agenda was on the table before most were even born......from the Iron Mountain Report commissioned by JFK that was finished before he was murdered. "Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context".

Let's fast forward to the formation of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group and an offshoot of the U.N and their "zero growth" proposal that would in essence shut down the industrial growth of all developing nations that they controlled...in particular, the United States. They started with shutting down decent paying jobs like in the steel plants...then the textile factories...they then went after the auto workers by allowing in cheap imports with little to no tariffs. They used environmental laws to go after any manufacturer that made a product until it became unprofitable to continue . They went after the family farms via bank loans that tried to produce more food using more machinery that they had to finance via Promissory notes and then controlling the price of commodities produced by the farmer even though it would mean that third world populations would starve because they were deprived....as by feeding them would only encourage them to re-produce....you see, to the globalists? Every time a baby is born, the earth groans and so forth. The middle class of America had to be decimated and it has been done systematically through unfair trade agreements that has fucked over every Johnny Lunchpail in this country. I can give you more evidence but I think you have enough to chew on...between now and our next conversation? Look up some quotes from Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio conference and Agenda 21....just a little homework for you.

So you want to debate possible motivations instead of science?

I have no interest

 

[jc456]

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Au contraire, because I have studied this topic quite a bit and I must interject here because this "climate change" agenda was on the table before most were even born......from the Iron Mountain Report commissioned by JFK that was finished before he was murdered. "Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context".

Let's fast forward to the formation of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group and an offshoot of the U.N and their "zero growth" proposal that would in essence shut down the industrial growth of all developing nations that they controlled...in particular, the United States. They started with shutting down decent paying jobs like in the steel plants...then the textile factories...they then went after the auto workers by allowing in cheap imports with little to no tariffs. They used environmental laws to go after any manufacturer that made a product until it became unprofitable to continue . They went after the family farms via bank loans that tried to produce more food using more machinery that they had to finance via Promissory notes and then controlling the price of commodities produced by the farmer even though it would mean that third world populations would starve because they were deprived....as by feeding them would only encourage them to re-produce....you see, to the globalists? Every time a baby is born, the earth groans and so forth. The middle class of America had to be decimated and it has been done systematically through unfair trade agreements that has fucked over every Johnny Lunchpail in this country. I can give you more evidence but I think you have enough to chew on...between now and our next conversation? Look up some quotes from Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio conference and Agenda 21....just a little homework for you.

So you want to debate possible motivations instead of science?

I have no interest

because you have no science that can back your postulated claim that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Simply show us your science evidence that supports that claim.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Keep the conversation on track with the topic, please

 

[ClosedCaption]

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Au contraire, because I have studied this topic quite a bit and I must interject here because this "climate change" agenda was on the table before most were even born......from the Iron Mountain Report commissioned by JFK that was finished before he was murdered. "Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context".

Let's fast forward to the formation of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group and an offshoot of the U.N and their "zero growth" proposal that would in essence shut down the industrial growth of all developing nations that they controlled...in particular, the United States. They started with shutting down decent paying jobs like in the steel plants...then the textile factories...they then went after the auto workers by allowing in cheap imports with little to no tariffs. They used environmental laws to go after any manufacturer that made a product until it became unprofitable to continue . They went after the family farms via bank loans that tried to produce more food using more machinery that they had to finance via Promissory notes and then controlling the price of commodities produced by the farmer even though it would mean that third world populations would starve because they were deprived....as by feeding them would only encourage them to re-produce....you see, to the globalists? Every time a baby is born, the earth groans and so forth. The middle class of America had to be decimated and it has been done systematically through unfair trade agreements that has fucked over every Johnny Lunchpail in this country. I can give you more evidence but I think you have enough to chew on...between now and our next conversation? Look up some quotes from Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio conference and Agenda 21....just a little homework for you.

So you want to debate possible motivations instead of science?

I have no interest

because you have no science that can back your postulated claim that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Simply show us your science evidence that supports that claim.

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Au contraire, because I have studied this topic quite a bit and I must interject here because this "climate change" agenda was on the table before most were even born......from the Iron Mountain Report commissioned by JFK that was finished before he was murdered. "Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context".

Let's fast forward to the formation of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group and an offshoot of the U.N and their "zero growth" proposal that would in essence shut down the industrial growth of all developing nations that they controlled...in particular, the United States. They started with shutting down decent paying jobs like in the steel plants...then the textile factories...they then went after the auto workers by allowing in cheap imports with little to no tariffs. They used environmental laws to go after any manufacturer that made a product until it became unprofitable to continue . They went after the family farms via bank loans that tried to produce more food using more machinery that they had to finance via Promissory notes and then controlling the price of commodities produced by the farmer even though it would mean that third world populations would starve because they were deprived....as by feeding them would only encourage them to re-produce....you see, to the globalists? Every time a baby is born, the earth groans and so forth. The middle class of America had to be decimated and it has been done systematically through unfair trade agreements that has fucked over every Johnny Lunchpail in this country. I can give you more evidence but I think you have enough to chew on...between now and our next conversation? Look up some quotes from Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio conference and Agenda 21....just a little homework for you.

So you want to debate possible motivations instead of science?

I have no interest

because you have no science that can back your postulated claim that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Simply show us your science evidence that supports that claim.

I dont have any science...the scientists do. Its on you to show they are wrong. You cant so you go into an easy topic which requires no facts. Motivations.

 

[jc456]

Keep the conversation on track with the topic, please

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Au contraire, because I have studied this topic quite a bit and I must interject here because this "climate change" agenda was on the table before most were even born......from the Iron Mountain Report commissioned by JFK that was finished before he was murdered. "Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context".

Let's fast forward to the formation of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group and an offshoot of the U.N and their "zero growth" proposal that would in essence shut down the industrial growth of all developing nations that they controlled...in particular, the United States. They started with shutting down decent paying jobs like in the steel plants...then the textile factories...they then went after the auto workers by allowing in cheap imports with little to no tariffs. They used environmental laws to go after any manufacturer that made a product until it became unprofitable to continue . They went after the family farms via bank loans that tried to produce more food using more machinery that they had to finance via Promissory notes and then controlling the price of commodities produced by the farmer even though it would mean that third world populations would starve because they were deprived....as by feeding them would only encourage them to re-produce....you see, to the globalists? Every time a baby is born, the earth groans and so forth. The middle class of America had to be decimated and it has been done systematically through unfair trade agreements that has fucked over every Johnny Lunchpail in this country. I can give you more evidence but I think you have enough to chew on...between now and our next conversation? Look up some quotes from Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio conference and Agenda 21....just a little homework for you.

So you want to debate possible motivations instead of science?

I have no interest

because you have no science that can back your postulated claim that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Simply show us your science evidence that supports that claim.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Au contraire, because I have studied this topic quite a bit and I must interject here because this "climate change" agenda was on the table before most were even born......from the Iron Mountain Report commissioned by JFK that was finished before he was murdered. "Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context".

Let's fast forward to the formation of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group and an offshoot of the U.N and their "zero growth" proposal that would in essence shut down the industrial growth of all developing nations that they controlled...in particular, the United States. They started with shutting down decent paying jobs like in the steel plants...then the textile factories...they then went after the auto workers by allowing in cheap imports with little to no tariffs. They used environmental laws to go after any manufacturer that made a product until it became unprofitable to continue . They went after the family farms via bank loans that tried to produce more food using more machinery that they had to finance via Promissory notes and then controlling the price of commodities produced by the farmer even though it would mean that third world populations would starve because they were deprived....as by feeding them would only encourage them to re-produce....you see, to the globalists? Every time a baby is born, the earth groans and so forth. The middle class of America had to be decimated and it has been done systematically through unfair trade agreements that has fucked over every Johnny Lunchpail in this country. I can give you more evidence but I think you have enough to chew on...between now and our next conversation? Look up some quotes from Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio conference and Agenda 21....just a little homework for you.

So you want to debate possible motivations instead of science?

I have no interest

because you have no science that can back your postulated claim that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Simply show us your science evidence that supports that claim.

I dont have any science...the scientists do. Its on you to show they are wrong. You cant so you go into an easy topic which requires no facts. Motivations.

what is wrong with the supposed science is there is none to show the impact of 20 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere to create Armageddon. Herr Koch in 1901 proved CO2 only absorbs so much, it will saturate. The Climate in NY is just that climate. It's winter and someone on the left wanted to make it look like 70 degree readings in December was abnormal, which it is not.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats your problem...You're looking for a cause to Armageddon instead of the topic at hand, Climate Change.

 

[Dale Smith]

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Au contraire, because I have studied this topic quite a bit and I must interject here because this "climate change" agenda was on the table before most were even born......from the Iron Mountain Report commissioned by JFK that was finished before he was murdered. "Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context".

Let's fast forward to the formation of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group and an offshoot of the U.N and their "zero growth" proposal that would in essence shut down the industrial growth of all developing nations that they controlled...in particular, the United States. They started with shutting down decent paying jobs like in the steel plants...then the textile factories...they then went after the auto workers by allowing in cheap imports with little to no tariffs. They used environmental laws to go after any manufacturer that made a product until it became unprofitable to continue . They went after the family farms via bank loans that tried to produce more food using more machinery that they had to finance via Promissory notes and then controlling the price of commodities produced by the farmer even though it would mean that third world populations would starve because they were deprived....as by feeding them would only encourage them to re-produce....you see, to the globalists? Every time a baby is born, the earth groans and so forth. The middle class of America had to be decimated and it has been done systematically through unfair trade agreements that has fucked over every Johnny Lunchpail in this country. I can give you more evidence but I think you have enough to chew on...between now and our next conversation? Look up some quotes from Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio conference and Agenda 21....just a little homework for you.

So you want to debate possible motivations instead of science?

I have no interest

Science is a lot like a court case and a jury of 12 alleged peers that have to decide if the state or the defense is making the most compelling argument to acquit or convict. I am all for getting off of a petroleum based economy and I would love to see the banksters that have deprived us of suppressed technology that could have freed us from the electrical grids get fucked royally...but that isn't a reality. We have to live in the "here and now" and what is happening is the quintessential Hegelian Dialectic....create the crisis, wait for the emotional outcry and then propose a solution to the very problem that they caused...and they are doing it with geo-engineering. They are causing the weather anomalies and then blaming it on "climate change" which means that you and I must change our living habits that they will control...because at the end of the day, it's all about controlling the sheeple...make them afraid of terrorists....make them afraid that we will not be able to grow food...Good God, I could write a book on how we are being played for idiots. Look, you could fit every single person and family in Australia, give them an acre of land and still have half of the country left...this is all about control and only you can figure it out.....I can only take you so far.....from here on out? Well, you are on your own but the fact remains (which I have so adequately provided proof) is that this scam was in the works starting in the late 60's.

 

[jc456]

Thats your problem...You're looking for a cause to Armageddon instead of the topic at hand, Climate Change.

well as I stated one or two days in the 70s is not climate change. Is your position that it is?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats your problem...You're looking for a cause to Armageddon instead of the topic at hand, Climate Change.

well as I stated one or two days in the 70s is not climate change. Is your position that it is?

No, and since I didnt mention the 70's you're again making up shit because you have nothing

 

[jc456]

Thats your problem...You're looking for a cause to Armageddon instead of the topic at hand, Climate Change.

well as I stated one or two days in the 70s is not climate change. Is your position that it is?

No, and since I didnt mention the 70's you're again making up shit because you have nothing

well that was the OP. You're in here aren't you? You wanted to debate didn't you? Holy crap you're insane.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats your problem...You're looking for a cause to Armageddon instead of the topic at hand, Climate Change.

well as I stated one or two days in the 70s is not climate change. Is your position that it is?

No, and since I didnt mention the 70's you're again making up shit because you have nothing

well that was the OP. You're in here aren't you? You wanted to debate didn't you? Holy crap you're insane.

Oh and you think I'm the OP and you want a serious discussion?

 

[jc456]

Thats your problem...You're looking for a cause to Armageddon instead of the topic at hand, Climate Change.

well as I stated one or two days in the 70s is not climate change. Is your position that it is?

No, and since I didnt mention the 70's you're again making up shit because you have nothing

well that was the OP. You're in here aren't you? You wanted to debate didn't you? Holy crap you're insane.

Oh and you think I'm the OP and you want a serious discussion?

no Frank was the OP. We were having fun, and you showed up.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats your problem...You're looking for a cause to Armageddon instead of the topic at hand, Climate Change.

well as I stated one or two days in the 70s is not climate change. Is your position that it is?

No, and since I didnt mention the 70's you're again making up shit because you have nothing

well that was the OP. You're in here aren't you? You wanted to debate didn't you? Holy crap you're insane.

Oh and you think I'm the OP and you want a serious discussion?

no Frank was the OP. We were having fun, and you showed up.

Final Question: Is my name Frank?

 

[jc456]

well as I stated one or two days in the 70s is not climate change. Is your position that it is?

No, and since I didnt mention the 70's you're again making up shit because you have nothing

well that was the OP. You're in here aren't you? You wanted to debate didn't you? Holy crap you're insane.

Oh and you think I'm the OP and you want a serious discussion?

no Frank was the OP. We were having fun, and you showed up.

Final Question: Is my name Frank?

why?

 

[westwall]

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Let us know when climatologists actually have some science to back them up then. So far they have virtually NO empirical data and their entire theory is based on computer derived fiction. Those of us in the real world call that science fiction, but you who claim there is nothing to discuss call it "consensus".

Funny how people who actually are interested in science always like to talk about new theories and new findings while it is the religious nutters who refuse to discuss anything because the Bible tells them everything they need to know.

 

[jc456]

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Let us know when climatologists actually have some science to back them up then. So far they have virtually NO empirical data and their entire theory is based on computer derived fiction. Those of us in the real world call that science fiction, but you who claim there is nothing to discuss call it "consensus".

Funny how people who actually are interested in science always like to talk about new theories and new findings while it is the religious nutters who refuse to discuss anything because the Bible tells them everything they need to know.

^^^^this^^^^^

 

[ClosedCaption]

See? Just like I said, good job.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Let us know when climatologists actually have some science to back them up then. So far they have virtually NO empirical data and their entire theory is based on computer derived fiction. Those of us in the real world call that science fiction, but you who claim there is nothing to discuss call it "consensus".

Funny how people who actually are interested in science always like to talk about new theories and new findings while it is the religious nutters who refuse to discuss anything because the Bible tells them everything they need to know.

The funny thing about your assertions is that you havent proven them. Sheer declaration means nothing.

Notice that you said they have "Virtually no empirical data" which means they have SOME empirical data but since its not as much as you want so some becomes "virtually none" which is realistically some. You slick talker you.