i just LOVE when science deniers like you mention the michael moore documentary, because while it does shine a light on some of the contradictions and stupidities of "green energy" (which is obviously the part you like about it), it does NOT question the overwhelming consensus of climate science and the need to address it (the part you ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative).

a somewhat nuanced and intelligent person would have been able to notice that, lol.

also, while it might be difficult to compare SOME things because old data might be incomplete and not up to today's methods, MANY things are not only directly comparable and noticeably getting more extreme (like temperatures for example), but there are good models out there to explain how some of the shorter term trends we see are directly linked to climate change (the connection between el nino and droughts, tropical cyclones and warming temperatures, floodings and the rising sea level...) that a person whose tiny brain wasn't filled with fossil fuel propaganda could easily understand.

consensus is not a scientific argument, it was also a consensus that earth is the center of the solar system

"fossil fuel propaganda" is not an argument, what a stupid term for something that is basically a conspiracy theory

insulting someone elses intelligence is also not an argument

maybe next time

RIP Prince Phillip.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

"tHaT's A cOnSPiRaCy!!!1!" - moron

also, the overwhelming scientific consensus on a well researched and documented issue like climate change is a valid argument - for science and reality based people at least. the fact that there has been a wrong consensus about something we were NOT able to observe directly is neither proof positive of anything, nor a good argument against science in general - it's just proof of your willingness to cherry pick in order to dismiss things that simply don't fit your narrative. you're putting forward literal flat-earther 'logic' and 'arguments' here, lol.

i love how you completely dropped the michael moore documentary when you realised i watched it, and made you aware that it's still based in reality, acknowledges climate change and the need to address it, but that it's (justifiably) critical of some of the methods - which is not only perfectly fair to do, but actually important for the environmental movement in general imo.

you also avoided addressing rising temperatures and sea levels, and problems related to those altogether, as it's difficult to blame "terrible land management" or "lack of data" regarding those issues, lol.

i love how you completely ignored the part of michael moore i actually referred to

the part about the donors of these so called activists

its almost hilarious that you talk about fossi fuel propaganda while swallowing climate change propaganda from the exact same class of corporations, billionaires etc

temperatures and sea levels changing is NORMAL, how much we contributed is yet to be seen

you gotta be pretty dumb to feel entitled to a never changing planet

commemorative plaques expert



This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Apr 9 2021 09:19am

lol, i specifically mentioned that i agree with the criticism moore raises about some of the practices and absurdities behind green energy activism. it is your lack of nuance that makes you assume i blindly agree with every measure or every person who ever mentioned the term "climate change", not something i actually said, or any position i actually held.
i know exactly which part of the documentary you liked, but not only are the conclusions you draw from it bs, you also ignored the fact that it's entirely in agreement with me (and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists) about man made climate change being real, and the importance of addressing it.

the reason i'm talking about fossil fuel propaganda is because you're quite obviously brainwashed by it. your flat-earther like "arguments" against actual science, your hilarious fail of an attempt to suggest that was just a "conspiracy", clearly indicate you're not a serious person following facts and reason, but an irrational idiot, cherry picking aspects they like, dismissing overwhelming evidence and data, blindly following a politically / ideologically motivated narrative, rather than facts.

concerning the 'normality' of changing temperatures and sea levels (and your strawman about the entitlement to a planet without change), you're ignoring the part that debunks the 'natural' narrative: time. the rapidness of the current change is unprecedented. ice core analysis telling us about the cyclic nature of temperature changes (determined by the co2 concentration in the atmosphere btw) proves that the current warming is not due to "natural" (meaning mostly the changes in the earth's orbit around the sun) causes, but due to the rise in co2 in the atmosphere by our industrialisation.

apparently you haven't even done any cursory research on this topic, and still think you know more than the scientists. you ignorantly parrot your fossil fuel propaganda, unaware of how easily it is debunked by data and common sense. you're not a 'sceptic' or a 'critical thinker', you're an ideologue, a science-denier.

getting called an ideologue by the king of ideologues, i think i made it

bahaha... the ultimate dodge. guess the science-denier propaganda hasn't yet provided people like you with a talking point to reply to someone pointing out how the global temperature increase we're currently witnessing is much too fast in order to blame "natural" causes, and that the science that discovered that to begin with is actually directly linked to co2 concentration in the atmosphere. guess you hoped you could get away with that, lol...

you would have to provide something first, i cant dodge thin air

writing science denier, fossi fuel propaganda in every post like a bot is still not an argument except for the professionally offended, who never get along with anyone

you were the loudmouth in school that nobody liked

there is no proof that co2 concentration are directly linked like that, its a possibility