Tippaporn

Bkk Brian, you refuted evidence that I did not ask you numerous times the direct question of whether or not consensus equates to truth despite the hard evidence I showed you. At this point, Bkk Brian, I take you as one who will say anything, truth be damned, just so that you can make yourself right. You've less than zero credibility with me.

Climategate was real. It happened. You have to be in serious denial to brush that aside as if it never happened.

Climategate. Nothing to see there, right? Science can goal seek anything they want. I don't trust them on climate change and Covid certainly supports the legitimacy of my distrust.

Well, you just admitted that the issue is broader than just the science as you mentioned the policies which are being put into place. And you deceptively allude to "the science is settled" as you cite " . . . because of the science behind them."

Climategate. Some people haven't forgotten. And some don't ignore the implications of it. It showed that goal seeking was used to claim global warming. And despite what 8 investigative committees found their findings can't refute the emails I read. If that's not satisfactory to you then it's not my problem.

The issue of climate change is much, much broader than the science behind it itself. Or haven't you noticed? Not off topic at all.

Only a fool would claim that the future can be accurately predicted. So far none of the dire predictions made by climate change believers have panned out. Neither did they pan out when it was global cooling. It's a fraud. ". . . didn't answer it to your satisfaction?" What in blazes are you talking about? I either did ask him numerous times or I didn't. I did and he refuted that I did despite the hard evidence I gave him. How can you even put it in terms of "to my satisfaction?" It highlight the fact that it's a matter of character. No, there is no gigantic conspiracy and no one is claiming that. What is being claimed is that the entire climate change issue is for money - and lots and lots and lots of it, and for control. Even now they're attempting to ban cars, gas appliances, the consumption of meat, gas powered lawn equipment, short haul flights and institute eating bugs, 15 minute cities, climate change lockdowns, and what you can or cannot buy based on the amount of CO2 used to create a product. If you don't have the carbon credits then you can't purchase it. I don't know about you but I have no intention of living in the dystopian and tyrannical world that the climate change believers are attempting to create. I'll fight you to the bitter end first Check out C40 cities and the wonderful plans they have for us in the fight to ward off climate change. If you're in favour of unelected elites decreeing how the rest of the world is to live in every aspect of their lives then I don't know what to tell you. Because as we saw these overlords over and over again during Covid lockdowns flaunting the very diktats they were imposing on the rest of society you can be damn sure that they won't change their lifestyles on bit by living the way they want to enforce others to live. Rules for me and rules for thee. All for a fraud. None of the climate change "deniers" are in favour of destroying our world in the multitude ways that we do and many live their lives respecting the earth but despite that fact most climate change believers accuse them of not caring for our earth. I don't see any of you guys complaining about any of that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2022/04/21/climate-change-policy-examples-list/

Why is it that other posters understand quite well exactly what I'm talking about and yet it's Greek to you guys and you pretend to misinterpret or not understand? Here's evidence for ya. I asked Bkk Brian numerous times to answer the simple question of whether or not consensus equates truth. He claims to not have remembered any of the multiple posts nor remembering my asking him the question straight up. I reposted the entire exchange which showed I did ask him straight up numerous times. His reply? He still refuted that I had asked him numerous times. Even asking me if I had asked him straight up else he wouldn't have known I wanted his answer was disingenuous. Unless one wants to claim they don't understand plain English. Check it out and see if it's an empty accusation. Do you understand what's going on here with you people? I do. And so do many others. But do continue to play your games. Just remember, I'm more than hip to them. Face it, the jig is up.

Here's another "tell" as to whether you're dealing with disingenuous people. For any given post they never address the critical points made because they know damn well where that would ultimately lead. They'll cherry pick what they want to reply to. What's safe for them to reply to. In this particular instance you failed to addressed anything in my post. Do you find that fact interesting?

What you quoted me on was not generalising, placeholder. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word. generality an indefinite, unspecific, or undetailed statement: example - to speak in generalities about human rights. That post was very specific in calling out the deceptive tactics used by people in order to fool others and to call them out on their tactics and show how they use fallacious logic to make their points.

I would clarify so that it's more specific. "The most effective weapon leaders have, is keeping the people in ignorance of their deceptions.'' Once people are aware then the deceptions no longer work.

The most favoured go-to whenever undeniable evidence is provided and it cannot be ignored, dodged or spun. "Out of context." Me, personally, I'm so sick of hearing that worn out deflection.

It's not at all a case in which he doesn't understand. He chooses not to. Just as showing him he was asked numerous times to answer whether consensus equates to truth and he blatantly denied he was asked numerous times even after providing him the complete facts. No, it's not a failure of comprehension at all. It's a willingness to refute and to refute no matter what.

From the article: "Specifically, we hypothesize that cool rearing temperature of immature stages (1) buffers against life-shortening effects of warm holding conditions of adults and (2) reduces rates of dengue-1 virus infection and dissemination of adults." "Hypothesize" isn't even at the level of theory. It's a guess at this stage. Aside from the question of how warm weather affects tiger mosquitoes the "given" is that the warm weather was itself due to "climate change." It's all deceptively implied. Now let's all sing together, "We believe in climate change . . . " For it truly is only a belief.

A pretty song. Bruce Cockburn with Wondering Where The Lions Are off of his '79 Dancing In The Dragon's Jaws album.

"I just gave you the scientific facts theory." Corrected to make it true.

"I just gave you the scientific facts theory." Corrected to make it true.

empirical - derived from or guided by direct experience or by experiment, rather than abstract principles or theory Let me ask you what part of the above definition applies to what you wrote? And no, I do not expect you to ever give an honest answer based on our last exchange. You had, by your own hand, destroyed your credibility 100%.

Still up to your old tricks, eh placeholder? Climate change denier: White. placeholder: False! Climate change denier: Black. placeholder: False! Climate change denier: Colorless. placeholder: That's false, too! Still not interested in actually learning anything? Just parroting what you've been told by your side. Parroting because you are not yourself actively involved in any climate change studies or research. All of your information comes from one side of the debate and that side is beyond fallible. Your side is 100% right all of the time and the other side is 100% wrong all of the time. Seriously, do you call that a real world? Or a make believe world?

". . . thought to have been accelerated by climate change." Everyone understands the scam of the phrasing. What "thought to be" really means is "due to climate change unless otherwise proven not to be." So much is "thought to be" due to climate change yet no empirical proof tying the two together exists. empirical - derived from or guided by direct experience or by experiment, rather than abstract principles or theory All of these "thought to be" statements are derived from abstract principles or theories yet they're deceptively repeated again and again for the sole purpose of implying that there is a connection between event "X" and climate change. News flash: when people understand the scam they can no longer be fooled and recognise all of the deceptive mechanism used immediately. Why do climate change believers need to resort to deceptive practices? When people resort to deceptive practices what statement does it make about them?

You've a bad habit of sticking words in peoples' mouths, placeholder. My claim about earlier science being overturned? Where? When? This is what you're replying to. Let me ask you this question. Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned? I admit I lost interest after the third sentence. I don't need a history lesson on science, nor am I looking to be impressed by your great scientific knowledge. You could have just said that no scientific findings have ever been wrong (at least completely). Or something like that. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sometimes-science-is-wrong/

Well, go take your complaint to Danderman123. He's the one who made a post about it. I just replied. Whyya pickin' on little ol' me?

Unfortunately your energy bills will be unaffordable. Many agree more renewable energy is indeed worth striving for. But there are barriers stopping more renewable energy from being produced. One of those major barriers is cost. According to a U.S.-based organization, the bulk of renewable energy costs come from building the technology in the first place. A new natural gas plant might have costs around $1,000/kW (kilowatts are a measure of power capacity). While the average cost to install a solar system ranges from $2,000/kW to almost $3,700 for residential systems. Wind costs around $1,200 to $1,700/kW, according to the organization. Cost is also an issue when it comes to transmission of the electricity—the power lines and infrastructure needed to move electricity from where it’s generated to where it’s consumed. Wind and solar farms aren’t all sited near old non-renewable power plants. This means that new systems need to be set up. Other barriers to renewable energy include market entry and political/government support. https://naturespath.com/blogs/posts/cost-renewable-energy-versus-fossil-fuels In case anyone's thinking that their energy cost will be kept affordable via government grants and subsidies best keep in mind that any government grants and subsides come from tax dollars. As your energy costs go down via grants and subsidies your taxes go up in a revised version of stealing from Peter to pay Paul. In this version it's stealing from Peter to pay Peter. I know it doesn't make sense but it does to politicians Also keep in mind that green energy such as solar and wind is intermittent, which means that service would be non-existent if no sun or wind. That would not work for businesses which require round the clock service. To fill the gap energy must then be stored, another huge and costly expense. 1. The 2020 Cost and Performance Assessment provided installed costs for six energy storage technologies: lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, lead-acid batteries, vanadium redox flow batteries, pumped storage hydro, compressed-air energy storage, and hydrogen energy storage. The assessment adds zinc batteries, thermal energy storage, and gravitational energy storage. https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/2022-grid-energy-storage-technology-cost-and-performance-assessment Then consider the damage to the earth to produce whatever type of storage required, depending on MW. And the cost and damage for depleted batteries? And BTW, what on poor ol' earth will we do with all of those unrecyclable depleted wind turbines? is it possible to recycle them? At what cost? Why has no one gotten ninto the business yet? What's the cost of dumping them somewhere? Will that be a hidden cost, again borne by taxpayers? What happens to all the old wind turbines? https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101 How about depleted batteries? On and on and on. Are we trying to go green without possessing the technology to do it efficiently and safely yet? I know y'all hate those greedy oil companies. Of course green energy will solve that problem because there won't be any greedy green energy companies, right? At least in an ideal world, which is what green energy is all about creating. Good people coming together holding hands singing kumbaya to save dear old earth.

Works for everyone else. Just not the Africans. Stunning logic.

I thought liberals didn't post anything until it was fact checked. The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3 In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change." 3 National Academy of Science, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. vii. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html What else might you be wrong about? I shudder to think.