sidneybear

Hypocrite isn't a slur. It merely describes one who doesn't live by his stated beliefs https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

Got any evidence to support this?

Denier is most definitely a personal slur, because it's common usage originated as an adjective to describe those evil folks who deny the holocaust. To call someone a denier of a conmonly held belief equates them with that same evil. Those who promote the belief of climate change are clearly hypocrites if they fly, because flying depends on fossil fuels and produces high CO2 emissions.

Got any evidence to support this?

Links...

https://reclaimthenet.org/wikipedia-deletes-list-of-scientists-who-disagree-with-the-consensus-on-climate-change Keep reading what the censors let you read

"Denier" is likewise a personal slur, which you stated using because you were caught out supporting the groupthink.

And you're a hypocrite because you aren't part of the solution to your imaginary problem. But you still throw labels around to smear those who question the narrative as "deniers".

Nahh ... more like massive funding and political interference to back it. Will you join the peasants living their impoverished, immobile lives? You fly, right?

Absolutely. As I also mentioned, scientists have families to support, and once they're labelled "denialists" by people like @placeholder, they get fired. Science has been usurped by politics, and politicians are owned by businesses.

Ahh, "denialists"... now there's a politically charged woke label of denunciation if ever there was one. Why use labels? Why not just say "those who disagree with this hypothesis?"

So there you go, scientists disagree with each other. Fact is that the only publications included in the 97% were those that mentioned the terms global warming or global climate change. What's your solution to the problem anyway? Energy poverty and immobility? The climate change alarmist are lefties who want to rule over and inflict misery on the rest of us.

Read the publications I made reference to. It's easy to fiddle the numbers.

Please explain

Splitting hairs mate. Retirement and leisure kms are generally regarded as low, as is the low 20k kms you drive each compared to that of a working person.

But Cook et al. (2013) refuted that by pointing out that the apparently almost unanimous consensus determined by Powell (2012) included only those scientists who mentioned global warming or global climate change as keywords in the abstracts of their academic publications. Another way of looking at this apparent unanimity is that this consensus was assumed simply by reading abstracts and not the publications themselves, while excluding from the count the 64% of publications that failed to mention the popular labels "global warming" or "global climate change" in their abstracts. Add to this the much more mundane aspect: funding that favours those scientists who fall onto line, and the career ending denunciation of anyone who is sceptical by the kind of zealotry that were seeing here, and it's easy to understand why groupthink is the order of the day. Scientists have families to support, and funding is only available to those who believe, with those that don't ostracised and labelled.

Well you did agree with me when I told you that 20k kms per year is low, and more like leisure usage or a retiree in your case. Check your posts.

Says it all really.

What science would that be then? The science you read about in the popular press?

Lots of scientists cast doubt on the climate change hoax, or is your definition of a "serious" scientist only one who follows the media accepted view? That's the problem with scientific method these days: it's become politicised. Many great scientific advances originated from dissenting views.

You conceded that 20k kms is leisure use, some of which is done on an electric motorbike, which it is.

The term "conspiracy theory" was actually coined by the CIA in the 1950's. These days it's been hijacked by lefties who want to control and shout down alternative opinions, rather than debate them sensibly.

The kinds of change being pushed onto the populations of the world (generally by rich folk who fly around in private jets) are malevolent, and are driving hard working people into poverty. Climate change is an industry, with a powerful marketing and lobbying department. The political left love Net Zero because it's the nearest thing to a communist utopia they'll see: immobile and poverty stricken masses doing what they're told at last. I'm glad to see that people are finally pushing back on all this nonsense.

Your post is typical of someone who believes everything he sees on the telly.

Ah. Missed that bit. Thanks. Anyway, it looks like you're enjoying your hobby and best of luck to you. For serious driving though, home solar is too puny as we've agreed.