2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Without a clear definition of "global warming", only a fool would not have doubts.

What is wrong with being against waste and pollution? Do you think the people that "doubt" global warming want more waste and pollution?

“Without a clear definition of global warming, only a fool would not have doubts.”

That’s an impressive way of announcing that you haven’t actually looked at the definition.

Global warming is not some vague political slogan. It means the long-term rise in Earth’s average surface temperature, primarily caused by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities.

And nobody is suggesting that being against waste and pollution is wrong. Quite the opposite.

But “I’m against pollution” is not an alternative explanation for climate change. The question is what is causing the observed warming — and the evidence overwhelmingly points to human greenhouse-gas emissions.

You can have doubts. You can question the evidence. But pretending the science has no clear definition is simply moving the goalposts.

And “What’s wrong with being against waste and pollution?” is rather like asking, “What’s wrong with being against gravity?”

Nothing. But it doesn't change the physics.

Which is why I asked “why?”

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Maybe some people don't care too much about pollution, but I never met anyone who likes pollution or wants more pollution. I shouldn't even have made that statement.

Since climate change seems to be highly contested by many scientists, and since I will never be able to prove it or disprove it, I don't concern myself too much with it.

I am hoping for a "Solarpunk" future. That interests me more than debating complex unprovable scientific theories endlessly. So yes, I am going a bit off topic.

OK – so you don't want to answer "why" – or do you simply not understand that your "solar punk" is just pure deflection

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

“Without a clear definition of global warming, only a fool would not have doubts.”

That’s an impressive way of announcing that you haven’t actually looked at the definition.

Global warming is not some vague political slogan. It means the long-term rise in Earth’s average surface temperature, primarily caused by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities.

And nobody is suggesting that being against waste and pollution is wrong. Quite the opposite.

But “I’m against pollution” is not an alternative explanation for climate change. The question is what is causing the observed warming — and the evidence overwhelmingly points to human greenhouse-gas emissions.

You can have doubts. You can question the evidence. But pretending the science has no clear definition is simply moving the goalposts.

And “What’s wrong with being against waste and pollution?” is rather like asking, “What’s wrong with being against gravity?”

Nothing. But it doesn't change the physics.

Which is why I asked “why?”

I misunderstood the question. Why what?

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening

This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation.

You are fitting more and more into the lazy thinking conspiracy theorist/pseudoscience category...what you have posted is a perfect example of sloppy cherry-picking of old information and pretending it is current science.

You have posted a 1998 BMJ letter quoting a 1996 opinion piece by Frederick Seitz. That is 30 years old. And Seitz did not write the quoted passage for the BMJ — he wrote it in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece attacking the IPCC's 1995 assessment. The BMJ article simply quoted him.

More importantly, look at what you're actually doing: you're presenting a 30-year-old scientific controversy as though it represents today's scientific position.

It doesn't.

In 1996 the IPCC cautiously said that the balance of evidence suggested a “discernible human influence”. Today, after another three decades of observations, measurements and research, the IPCC states that “it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.”

And the scientific literature has moved in exactly the same direction. A 2021 analysis of 88,125 climate-related papers found that the consensus on human-caused climate change exceeds 99%.

So quoting Seitz in 2026 is rather like producing a 1996 medical textbook to prove that today's medical science is wrong.

Science changes when the evidence changes. That's not a weakness of science — that's the entire point of science.

The interesting question isn't why scientists changed their minds since 1996.

It's why you're still relying on 1996 arguments when the scientific evidence has moved on.

That's not scepticism. That's cherry-picking.

There is a theory circulating on social media now about meat allergy. I only recently learned about it myself, with claims that Bill Gates somehow released it through ticks.

From what I have learned, alpha gal syndrome has been known for decades, with cases reported in the US as far back as 1989 and the tick connection later documented in Australia.

It also appears to be a natural tick-related phenomenon, with different tick species linked to it in different parts of the world. Other biting insects have been suspected, but ticks are the only proven trigger so far.

54 minutes ago, Hummin said:

There is a theory circulating on social media now about meat allergy. I only recently learned about it myself, with claims that Bill Gates somehow released it through ticks.

From what I have learned, alpha gal syndrome has been known for decades, with cases reported in the US as far back as 1989 and the tick connection later documented in Australia.

It also appears to be a natural tick-related phenomenon, with different tick species linked to it in different parts of the world. Other biting insects have been suspected, but ticks are the only proven trigger so far.

so you are citing this as an example of a conspiracy theory?

17 minutes ago, kwilco said:

so you are citing this as an example of a conspiracy theory?

as an example of how a real condition gets wrapped into a conspiracy theory. The irony is that people with alpha gal may also react to some synthetic or lab grown meat, because if it is grown from mammalian cells it can still contain alpha gal. So the idea that ticks were released to force people onto synthetic meat gets a bit awkward there. ;-)

39 minutes ago, Hummin said:

as an example of how a real condition gets wrapped into a conspiracy theory. The irony is that people with alpha gal may also react to some synthetic or lab grown meat, because if it is grown from mammalian cells it can still contain alpha gal. So the idea that ticks were released to force people onto synthetic meat gets a bit awkward there. ;-)

Most conspiracy theories start with a germ of truth – but to suggest Bill Gates has deliberately started this is a joke.

We now know the disease has been around for decades or centuries – it just wasn't identified.

How often have you been bitten by a lone star tick?

We test food for all sorts of toxins, pathogens, etc. – the solution is to include a test for people for this. There are both prophylactic and medical precautions that can be taken – but there are no grounds for a conspiracy.

BTW - alpha-gal is present in some medications too.

Edited August 16Aug 16 by kwilco

5 hours ago, kwilco said:

It's why you're still relying on 1996 arguments when the scientific evidence has moved on.

That's not scepticism. That's cherry-picking.

Sorry, no time to research global warming.

Not sure it makes that much difference what you or I think. People in power make the laws and we need to go along with it. They wanted to start moving everyone into EVs and they've started the process.

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

What's the proposal for those of us who don't, or don't want to, live in cities? Where I live it's a fifteen minutes drive to the nearest shop, a corner store type, and forty five minutes to a supermarket.

I don't know.

What's the motivation behind 15 minute cities? I guess to reduce the need for people to drive. But if you're in the boonies ... the majority of the population is in cities so people like you will not affect the averages that much.

Just now, emptypockets said:

What's the proposal for those of us who don't, or don't want to, live in cities? Where I live it's a fifteen minutes drive to the nearest shop, a corner store type, and forty five minutes to a supermarket.

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

I don't know.

What's the motivation behind 15 minute cities? I guess to reduce the need for people to drive. But if you're in the boonies ... the majority of the population is in cities so people like you will not affect the averages that much.

I think the motivation is more about power over people. Klaus and the WEF are Nazis of the worst kind. You will own nothing and be happy.

13 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

What's the proposal for those of us who don't, or don't want to, live in cities? Where I live it's a fifteen minutes drive to the nearest shop, a corner store type, and forty five minutes to a supermarket.

Just remember what the kitty said.

23 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

I think the motivation is more about power over people. Klaus and the WEF are Nazis of the worst kind. You will own nothing and be happy.

Lack of ownership is automatically perceived as a form of control.

I suppose it might be.

Historically, landlords had the power and the peasants were under their control.

But put it into modern day context: let's say self-driving taxis come out. You can pay a monthly subscription and ride them unlimited amount of time. The other advantage is there may be a bunch of different models and you may get to ride a different car every day. You don't own it, but neither do you have to pay insurance, worry about maintenance, worry about parking, worry about being liable in a car accident because you are not the driver. If there is an accident, the company is liable.

Depends how they implement things.

On 8/15/2026 at 1:01 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

Christine Massey has spent the last few years trying to get to the bottom of viruses. Any one. She is not fussy. She sends out these FOIs to different institutions and governments asking, very politely, if they could point her to the experiments that shows isolation and purification of a virus.

Christine Massey’s Freedom of Information (FOI) project relies on a semantic trap. She defines "isolation" as separating a virus from all other matter without using cell culture. Because virology requires host cells to replicate and study viruses, government agencies answer that they have no records matching that specific, impossible definition.

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Lack of ownership is automatically perceived as a form of control.

I suppose it might be.

Historically, landlords had the power and the peasants were under their control.

But put it into modern day context: let's say self-driving taxis come out. You can pay a monthly subscription and ride them unlimited amount of time. The other advantage is there may be a bunch of different models and you may get to ride a different car every day. You don't own it, but neither do you have to pay insurance, worry about maintenance, worry about parking, worry about being liable in a car accident because you are not the driver. If there is an accident, the company is liable.

Depends how they implement things.

Or you could simply drive your own car. But you will not be allowed to own one. I guess air travel will be a no go as well.

5 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Or you could simply drive your own car. But you will not be allowed to own one. I guess air travel will be a no go as well.

Why would you need to travel?

You do not need a car, or need to travel, any more than you need to own a gun.

People do not long to be free, they long to be taken care of.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why would you need to travel?

You do not need a car, or need to travel, any more than you need to own a gun.

People do not long to be free, they long to be taken care of.

I like to travel. Simple as that. It's called freedom.

I can take care of myself. I don't need a dictator, benevolent or otherwise, to decide my life choices for me.

I suspect the vast majority of thinking people feel the same.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

Christine Massey’s Freedom of Information (FOI) project relies on a semantic trap. She defines "isolation" as separating a virus from all other matter without using cell culture. Because virology requires host cells to replicate and study viruses, government agencies answer that they have no records matching that specific, impossible definition.

At least the government agencies are being honest. Everyone knows what the word isolation means. There is no trap what so ever. Cell culture cannot isolate entities that were not in the petri-dish to start with. That's why the 'ologists do not do controls.

The white-coat virologists have to say they can grow them because they can't find them in nature. And that's hardly surprising as they don't exist in the first place.

Anyone who thinks that magicing something out of thin air, growing them in a petri-dish, and saying they have evidence of its existence is a conspicuity theorist.

It's all a giant $£$£ making fraud. At the expense of a ever-growing BP (Big Pharma) over-medicationed sick populace.

Nature is cleverer than most people.

1 hour ago, emptypockets said:

I like to travel. Simple as that. It's called freedom.

I can take care of myself. I don't need a dictator, benevolent or otherwise, to decide my life choices for me.

I suspect the vast majority of thinking people feel the same.

What you like is irrelevant, it's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

39 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

At least the government agencies are being honest. Everyone knows what the word isolation means. There is no trap what so ever. Cell culture cannot isolate entities that were not in the petri-dish to start with. That's why the 'ologists do not do controls.

The white-coat virologists have to say they can grow them because they can't find them in nature. And that's hardly surprising as they don't exist in the first place.

Anyone who thinks that magicing something out of thin air, growing them in a petri-dish, and saying they have evidence of its existence is a conspicuity theorist.

It's all a giant $£$£ making fraud. At the expense of a ever-growing BP (Big Pharma) over-medicationed sick populace.

Nature is cleverer than most people.

just more of the nonsense from gossip on the internet.. no science involved at all.... you should hang out with old ladies in your Issaan village.. their gossip is more interesting.

41 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What you like is irrelevant, it's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Straight from the Leninist manifesto.

What I like is very relevant and I will fight tooth and nail against this communist ideology.

Funny how the leftist nutters like this stuff - that all assume they will be one of the pigs at the top of the tree with their snouts in the trough.

Stalin said it right '.useful idiots'

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

At least the government agencies are being honest. Everyone knows what the word isolation means. There is no trap what so ever. Cell culture cannot isolate entities that were not in the petri-dish to start with. That's why the 'ologists do not do controls.

The white-coat virologists have to say they can grow them because they can't find them in nature. And that's hardly surprising as they don't exist in the first place.

Anyone who thinks that magicing something out of thin air, growing them in a petri-dish, and saying they have evidence of its existence is a conspicuity theorist.

It's all a giant $£$£ making fraud. At the expense of a ever-growing BP (Big Pharma) over-medicationed sick populace.

Nature is cleverer than most people.

So is science.

2 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Or you could simply drive your own car. But you will not be allowed to own one. I guess air travel will be a no go as well.

I think they're messing with people's heads when they say "own nothing".

It's exaggeration.

I don't think it will be that draconian.

And certainly not overnight. Since people don't like change, any radical change imposed overnight may cause riots.

You won't be banned from owning a car, but there may be alternatives and many people decide it's not worth it anymore.

Speaking of conspiracy theories turning out to be spoiler alerts, Google "Oxferd Comma".

Crafty bastards deliberately misspelled Oxferd so the FOIA searches wouldn't pick it up.

Basically, the FBI was investigating everyone who claimed that Biden was crooked, and running interference for the Biden crime family.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why would you need to travel?

Travel is essential. Family members are sometimes in other countries.

But also, it's one of the pleasures of life.

Would be harsh to take away people's right to travel.

In the short term, if they want to dig in their heels with the climate change narrative, they may impose quotas. You may not be able to take 2 international flights in the same year or something.

But in the longer term ...

I think new technologies may emerge -- faster planes, planes with fewer or zero emissions.

4 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Travel is essential. Family members are sometimes in other countries.

But also, it's one of the pleasures of life.

Would be harsh to take away people's right to travel.

In the short term, if they want to dig in their heels with the climate change narrative, they may impose quotas. You may not be able to take 2 international flights in the same year or something.

But in the longer term ...

I think new technologies may emerge -- faster planes, planes with fewer or zero emissions.

You do not need family when you have the State, and what you want is irrelevant.

Again: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You do not need family when you have the State, and what you want is irrelevant.

Again: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I sincerely hope you are being humourous, if not then you will be part of the problem. Hopefully on the losing side of the inevitable fight.

12 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Sorry, no time to research global warming.

Not sure it makes that much difference what you or I think. People in power make the laws and we need to go along with it. They wanted to start moving everyone into EVs and they've started the process.

That’s quite a retreat from your original position.

You posted in enormous capitals that “Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening”, supported it with a 30-year-old reference, and then, when challenged on it, say you “haven’t got time to research global warming.”

You can't simultaneously make a confident claim about what climate scientists believe and then declare that you haven't got time to find out what they actually believe today.

And the “people in power make the laws and we need to go along with it” argument is another non sequitur. Climate science isn't established because politicians passed a law. Governments make policy because the underlying scientific evidence is overwhelmingly clear. Whether you approve of a particular policy — EVs, carbon taxes, subsidies or anything else — is a separate political question.

You are perfectly entitled to oppose EV policies. You are perfectly entitled to criticise governments. You are even perfectly entitled to say, “I don't know enough about climate science to have an opinion.” If you can back that up with logic, reason and evidence….

What doesn't really work is:

“I haven't researched it, but here is a 30-year-old quotation proving the scientists are wrong.”

That's not scepticism. It's having a conclusion first and then finding an old quotation to decorate it with.

And ironically, “I haven't got time to research it” is probably the most honest thing you've said in this discussion.

Remember, the topic is "Why so many conspiracy theorists and what to do about them" – your thinking is an example of how conspiracy theories use lazy thinkers to promulgate themselves

7 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Lack of ownership is automatically perceived as a form of control.

I suppose it might be.

Historically, landlords had the power and the peasants were under their control.

But put it into modern day context: let's say self-driving taxis come out. You can pay a monthly subscription and ride them unlimited amount of time. The other advantage is there may be a bunch of different models and you may get to ride a different car every day. You don't own it, but neither do you have to pay insurance, worry about maintenance, worry about parking, worry about being liable in a car accident because you are not the driver. If there is an accident, the company is liable.

Depends how they implement things.

so is this a conspiracy theory?

Edited August 17Aug 17 by kwilco

23 minutes ago, kwilco said:

so is this a conspiracy theory?

Why did you start this thread?

To prove that all conspiracies are bs?

If you want to do that, you should start with simpler ones.

Not something like climate change, where the science is too complex to prove or disprove.