Climate change; fact, scam, or both?

Factfinder

Phite said:

@Factfinder

But I'm not the one who decided to enter smog into the equation; you were.

So, were trying to make the point that smog exacerbates global warming, or did you bring it up for nothing?

My god. I brought it up because you ignore it. Did you do as I advised? Did you even bother to read my first post when I started this thread? I make no claims of being the authority on this. Obviously I think it's a possibility, how much so I don't know. See? I'm not afraid to say that, but you? What's your opinion on smog in relation to effects of green house gases? That's why I asked. Now, please read the debate.

Phite

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

@Factfinder

But I'm not the one who decided to enter smog into the equation; you were.

So, were trying to make the point that smog exacerbates global warming, or did you bring it up for nothing?

My god. I brought it up because you ignore it.

My god. I ignore it because it has nothing to do with global warming.

In a thread concerning climate change, you began with: We see smog and we know medically it's effecting people.

But what does that have to do with CO2 and global warming?

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

@Factfinder

But I'm not the one who decided to enter smog into the equation; you were.

So, were trying to make the point that smog exacerbates global warming, or did you bring it up for nothing?

My god. I brought it up because you ignore it.

I ignore it because it has nothing to do with global warming.

How do you know this?

Phite

@Factfinder

Actually, the question is: How is it that you don't know it?  You must have decided to not research it at all, eh?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming

It's Saturday night.  We'll pick this up tomorrow.

Factfinder

Phite said:

@Factfinder

Actually, the question is: How is it that you don't know it?  You must have decided to not research it at all, eh?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming

It's Saturday night.  We'll pick this up tomorrow.

Because I don't know how it possibly effects the climate, just as you now have exposed you do not. So do you switch to the term 'global warming' when your backed into a corner? Because your link appears to say pollution does effect climate change. So much so it claims smog to be changing the climate by cooling the planet. 

I hear you. Maybe tomorrow I'll be forced to use links.

Phite

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

@Factfinder

Actually, the question is: How is it that you don't know it?  You must have decided to not research it at all, eh?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming

It's Saturday night.  We'll pick this up tomorrow.

Because I don't know how it possibly effects the climate, just as you now have exposed you do not. So do you switch to the term 'global warming' when your backed into a corner? Because your link appears to say pollution does effect climate change. So much so it claims smog to be changing the climate by cooling the planet. 

I hear you. Maybe tomorrow I'll be forced to use links.

What are you talking about? I said I ignored it because it has nothing to do with global warming. I then asked if you believe it exacerbates global warming.  You said that you obviously think it's a possibility.  The content of the link I provided shows that it is not.

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

@Factfinder

Actually, the question is: How is it that you don't know it?  You must have decided to not research it at all, eh?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming

It's Saturday night.  We'll pick this up tomorrow.

Because I don't know how it possibly effects the climate, just as you now have exposed you do not. So do you switch to the term 'global warming' when your backed into a corner? Because your link appears to say pollution does effect climate change. So much so it claims smog to be changing the climate by cooling the planet. 

I hear you. Maybe tomorrow I'll be forced to use links.

What are you talking about? I said I ignored it because it has nothing to do with global warming. I then asked if you believe it exacerbates global warming.  You said that you obviously think it's a possibility.  The content of the link I provided shows that it is not.

As I pointed out repeatedly so now I'll be as blunt as possible. Read the debate. The debate focuses on 'climate change'. Your feeble attempts to change the goal posts have gotten you nowhere. Your link supports my argument. Does the thread title say 'global warming' by any chance?

Bogan

Factfinder quote    And yet again your irrelevant response proves my point. What you said has nothing to do with the fact anthropogenic climate change is real or the fact the left isn't invincible.

 

Every now and again, Factfinder, I get some debating opponent who writes something so bizarre you wonder whether they are sane?       I have written dozens of posts directed at you proving that anthropogenic climate change can not be proven, and that the “experts” who claim it is real have been hopelessly wrong with their laughable predictions.     In addition, I have patiently explained to you, as a tolerant father would explain to a backward child, that this scam is an invention of the western elites in the elected governments, and the unelected public service, to scare the public into paying ever higher taxes, and to control them.    Democracy is inconvenient to the sort of One World government that they fantasize about, with diplomaed elites like them telling the peasantry what to do.

 

Meanwhile, all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and say NANANANA!      Anthropogenic climate change is very much like a cult.       The people like yourself want to believe that it is real so much, that you can ignore objective reality to be true believers and proselytizers of this new faith.    

Bogan

@Phite

Thank you Phite for your image contributions.    I will cut and paste them into my files to use as ammunition in future debates with muddled people like Factfinder.   

Factfinder

Bogan said:

Factfinder quote    And yet again your irrelevant response proves my point. What you said has nothing to do with the fact anthropogenic climate change is real or the fact the left isn't invincible.

 

Every now and again, Factfinder, I get some debating opponent who writes something so bizarre you wonder whether they are sane?       I have written dozens of posts directed at you proving that anthropogenic climate change can not be proven, and that the “experts” who claim it is real have been hopelessly wrong with their laughable predictions.     In addition, I have patiently explained to you, as a tolerant father would explain to a backward child, that this scam is an invention of the western elites in the elected governments, and the unelected public service, to scare the public into paying ever higher taxes, and to control them.    Democracy is inconvenient to the sort of One World government that they fantasize about, with diplomaed elites like them telling the peasantry what to do.

 

Meanwhile, all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and say NANANANA!      Anthropogenic climate change is very much like a cult.       The people like yourself want to believe that it is real so much, that you can ignore objective reality to be true believers and proselytizers of this new faith.    

You've done nothing but reveal your paranoia. Heck, your hysterics couldn't even stop autsralia day from disappearing. Better cross the street, here comes a liberal ha, ha ,ha, 

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Phite

Thank you Phite for your image contributions.    I will cut and paste them into my files to use as ammunition in future debates with muddled people like Factfinder.   

Yup, always need a lie in your pocket eh, bogan? 

Barnardot

@Bogan ;I will cut and paste them into my files to use as ammunition in future debates with muddled people like Factfinder.   

You must have quiet a collection of files that you have copied and pasted like all those doctored AI videos and the made up newspaper clips and those extreme links that keep getting closed dowm. Not an honest bone in your body is there/

Phite

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

@Factfinder

Actually, the question is: How is it that you don't know it?  You must have decided to not research it at all, eh?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming

It's Saturday night.  We'll pick this up tomorrow.

Because I don't know how it possibly effects the climate, just as you now have exposed you do not. So do you switch to the term 'global warming' when your backed into a corner? Because your link appears to say pollution does effect climate change. So much so it claims smog to be changing the climate by cooling the planet. 

I hear you. Maybe tomorrow I'll be forced to use links.

What are you talking about? I said I ignored it because it has nothing to do with global warming. I then asked if you believe it exacerbates global warming.  You said that you obviously think it's a possibility.  The content of the link I provided shows that it is not.

As I pointed out repeatedly so now I'll be as blunt as possible. Read the debate. The debate focuses on 'climate change'. Your feeble attempts to change the goal posts have gotten you nowhere. Your link supports my argument. Does the thread title say 'global warming' by any chance?

That's neither here nor there.  When asked whether or not you believe that smog exacerbates global WARMING, you clearly answered that you obviously believe it is a possibility.  I assume you've since researched that issue enough to learn that it most certainly does not exacerbate global warming.  So you decided to call the thread title to your rescue, making that the issue.  But it isn't.  You expressed your belief in the possibility that it exacerbates global warming.  But it's not possible . . .

What about the polar bears.  Did you believe the ads on TV that showed you a polar bear stranded on a hunk of ice and soon to drown because of global warming? 

Phite

Barnardot said:

@Bogan . . .all those doctored AI videos and the made up newspaper clips . . .

You think those newspaper clips I posted are doctored?

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

That's neither here nor there...blah blah blah

That's you losing the debate while lacking the integrity to accept that fact.

Bogan

@Factfinder ;       Factfinder quote   Yup, always need a lie in your pocket eh, bogan? 

 

I know when I am winning when my opponent stops even trying to debate, and simply resorts to sneery one liners.     The reason why you are losing is because you never did your homework.       You BELIEVED in something without bothering to check whether or not it is true.      The reason that you did that, is because like so many belief systems, the disciples of this new cult WANT to believe it is true.

 You previously accused me of being paranoid over what I claim to be an internationalist takeover of the western world, even though you admitted on page 1 I agree that there are charlatans, some who hold dangerously high seats of power within government.    Okay. You are half way there, now do some research and figure the rest out.   I will even help you.     Here is an article on youtube where the presenter  points out that the elites are now going after European farmers using “climate change” to ruin their livelihoods, control food production, and grab the famers land.    Here in Australia, the socialist Labor government is trying to instigate a “cashless society” where the proles may only use their credit cards to purchase anything.   Now, use whatever brains you have and figure out that if governments can control your credit cards and your bank accounts, and they can control food production, then they control YOU.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RilEns8Sgnc     

Phite

@Factfinder

No.  I'm afraid the only one here displaying their integrity issues is you.  You won't admit that you thought smog exacerbates global warming.  But you said it, and it's a matter of public record now.  So, let's not pretend you didn't believe it!

Sure the debate focuses on climate change, but you didn't.  And now it's biting you on your azz.

What about the polar bears.  Did you also believe the ads on TV that showed you a polar bear stranded on a hunk of ice, soon to drown because of global warming?  Are you on board with that kind of thinking, too?

Phite

– New York Times, February 1895

•1902 -“Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.”
– Los Angeles Times

•1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age
–New York Times, October 1912

•1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, –
Chicago Tribune

•1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” –Washington Post

•1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age–
New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

•1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” –
Los Angeles Times

•1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” –
The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

•1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise
– New York Times, March 27th, 1933

•1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?”
– Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

•1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

•1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades”
– Chicago Tribune

•1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer”
-Washington Post

•1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century”
– New York Times, August 10th, 1962

•1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing”
– U.S. News and World Report

•1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off
– Fortune Magazine

•1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures”
– New York Times

•1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two”
– New York Times, February 20th, 1969

•1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight”
– Washington Post

•1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years
– Time Magazine

•1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age”
– Washington Post

•1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed”
– Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

•1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence”
– New York Times

•1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
– New York Times, May 21st, 1975

•1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor,
New Scientist magazine, in an article in International
_______________________________________________________

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975

1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)

1970: Ice Age By 2000

1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980

1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030

1972: New Ice Age By 2070

1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast

1974: Another Ice Age?

1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life

1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent

1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes

1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend

1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s

1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs

1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)

1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000

1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)

2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is

2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy

2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024

2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018

2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013

2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World

2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’

2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014

2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015

2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder ;       Factfinder quote   Yup, always need a lie in your pocket eh, bogan? 

 

I know when I am winning when my opponent stops even trying to debate, and simply resorts to sneery one liners.     The reason why you are losing is because you never did your homework.       You BELIEVED in something without bothering to check whether or not it is true.      The reason that you did that, is because like so many belief systems, the disciples of this new cult WANT to believe it is true.

 You previously accused me of being paranoid over what I claim to be an internationalist takeover of the western world, even though you admitted on page 1 I agree that there are charlatans, some who hold dangerously high seats of power within government.    Okay. You are half way there, now do some research and figure the rest out.   I will even help you.     Here is an article on youtube where the presenter  points out that the elites are now going after European farmers using “climate change” to ruin their livelihoods, control food production, and grab the famers land.    Here in Australia, the socialist Labor government is trying to instigate a “cashless society” where the proles may only use their credit cards to purchase anything.   Now, use whatever brains you have and figure out that if governments can control your credit cards and your bank accounts, and they can control food production, then they control YOU.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RilEns8Sgnc     

You know you're losing when you post the same gish gallop repeatedly when it's all been debunked so no one responds to it anymore, seriously. 

You once again produce evidence of my argument while disproving yours. Another way you know you're the loser...taking what someone says deliberately out of context. You forgot to includes parts of my exchanges where I point out the fact the charlatans and thieves are being exposed and rejected. Like in europe where the farmers reject climate change regulation that's crippling their farm industry. Oh wait, that's right you were kind enough to support my views with your video, thanks.

Bogan

@Factfinder

Factfinder quote   You know you're losing when you post the same gish gallop repeatedly when it's all been debunked so no one responds to it anymore, seriously. 

 Wrong again.    Phite contributed three images which once again support my position.   Your only supporters are Barnadot and Dreamer, the sort of people I would prefer to be on your side, not mine.   

Factfinder quote   You once again produce evidence of my argument while disproving yours.

 Sneery one liner which means nothing. 

 

Factfinder quote       Another way you know you're the loser...taking what someone says deliberately out of context. You forgot to includes parts of my exchanges where I point out the fact the charlatans and thieves are being exposed and rejected.

 Not by you.    Please point out any posts by yourself where you give examples where climate alarmists are charlatans and thieves?       And I only quoted part of your sentence because I thought that your message was clear and undeniable.    However, in future I will post everything you write in full so that you can not charge me with quoting you out of context.  

 

Factfinder quote    Like in Europe where the farmers reject climate change regulation that's crippling their farm industry.

Which I brought up as an example of how elites in European governments use climate change as a way to disposes farmers of their land, destroy European agriculture, which makes Europeans entirely dependent upon food imports, which the elites and the international food cartels control.     Not you.  

 

Factfinder quote   Oh wait, that's right you were kind enough to support my views with your video, thanks.

 By what mental gymnastics you can come to that conclusion is beyond me?     Anthropogenic climate change is a scam.   It is based upon unproven science which just happens to be a subject of scientific dispute.     But you probably do not know that because western governments and their out-of-control public servants do not want you to know it.      They dream of a one world government where chosen people like themselves to sit at the top of the pile of dung they are creating, and where the policies that they demand ordinary people must obey they exempt themselves from.      Such behaviour is as old as politics, and if you ever picked up a history book and read it, you might have the mental acumen to figure that out. 

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

Factfinder quote   You know you're losing when you post the same gish gallop repeatedly when it's all been debunked so no one responds to it anymore, seriously. 

 Wrong again.    Phite contributed three images which once again support my position.   Your only supporters are Barnadot and Dreamer, the sort of people I would prefer to be on your side, not mine.   

Factfinder quote   You once again produce evidence of my argument while disproving yours.

 Sneery one liner which means nothing. 

 

Factfinder quote       Another way you know you're the loser...taking what someone says deliberately out of context. You forgot to includes parts of my exchanges where I point out the fact the charlatans and thieves are being exposed and rejected.

 Not by you.    Please point out any posts by yourself where you give examples where climate alarmists are charlatans and thieves?       And I only quoted part of your sentence because I thought that your message was clear and undeniable.    However, in future I will post everything you write in full so that you can not charge me with quoting you out of context.  

 

Factfinder quote    Like in Europe where the farmers reject climate change regulation that's crippling their farm industry.

Which I brought up as an example of how elites in European governments use climate change as a way to disposes farmers of their land, destroy European agriculture, which makes Europeans entirely dependent upon food imports, which the elites and the international food cartels control.     Not you.  

 

Factfinder quote   Oh wait, that's right you were kind enough to support my views with your video, thanks.

 By what mental gymnastics you can come to that conclusion is beyond me?     Anthropogenic climate change is a scam.   It is based upon unproven science which just happens to be a subject of scientific dispute.     But you probably do not know that because western governments and their out-of-control public servants do not want you to know it.      They dream of a one world government where chosen people like themselves to sit at the top of the pile of dung they are creating, and where the policies that they demand ordinary people must obey they exempt themselves from.      Such behaviour is as old as politics, and if you ever picked up a history book and read it, you might have the mental acumen to figure that out. 

You post gish gallop. Phite posted outdated articles that added to your nonsense. Combined the two of you wreaked of paranoia. The debate focuses on climate change. The scams and political maneuvering/manipulating are side issues that stemmed from climate change. Focusing on the subtext rather than the text because you have an irrational hatred of liberals is paranoia. You quoted me out of context because you knew after repeatedly trying to make the debate about how much you hate and fear liberals; I subsequently pointed those who act maliciously are being exposed. I never offered examples so on top of misrepresenting me you out right lied. Conclusion, anthropogenic climate change is fact. You've failed to disprove it.

Bogan

Factfinder quote   You post gish gallop. Phite posted outdated articles that added to your nonsense.

Sticks and stones.    The reason why I am running rings around you is because I did my homework, and you did not.    If you had done your homework, the chances are that you would have not fallen for this scam in the first place.     


Factfinder quote   Combined the two of you wreaked of paranoia. The debate focuses on climate change. The scams and political maneuvering/manipulating are side issues that stemmed from climate change.

You can not discuss climate change without examining the underlying reasons as to why this scam was invented, and who profits from it.   .


Factfinder quote        Focusing on the subtext rather than the text because you have an irrational hatred of liberals is paranoia.

Considering how liberals have wrecked entire cities in the USA, and how they will support any anti western agenda. I do indeed dislike liberals, and there is nothing paranoid about that.. 
  

Factfinder quote   You quoted me out of context because you knew after repeatedly trying to make the debate about how much you hate and fear liberals;

I did not quote you out of context at all.    But next time I quote you, I will quote the entire paragraph and just highlight the important part, so that you can not level this false charge at me again.


Factfinder quote   I subsequently pointed those who act maliciously are being exposed. I never offered examples so on top of misrepresenting me you out right lied. Conclusion, anthropogenic climate change is fact. You've failed to disprove it.

Nobody can prove it or disprove it.         All we can do is examine the evidence, and more importantly, the motivations, predictions, and behaviour of those who advocate for each side of this scientific dispute.      Then form an opinion and defend it with reasoned arguments.    I can do that because I did my homework.     You can not because all you have is a belief in a scam which you so desperately want to believe is true.   And all you have to support it is some half remembered slogans that the liberals have implanted into your vestigial brain.   

Factfinder

@Bogan

Everyone can read the debate. I made no false allegations. You actively make arguments on how you irrationally hate all liberals cause of what some do and those some scare you cause you’re deafly afraid of communism. That’s why you pulled my statement out of context from the debate. Not just a paragraph. But it backfired cause the video you posted supports me and the FACT that liberals are facing opposition and climate change is real. You just can’t disprove reality.

Phite

Factfinder said:

Phite posted outdated articles that added to your nonsense.

Apparently you have no idea why I posted those news articles, do you?  You were being shown how climate alarmists have been at it for a long, long time.  But most importantly, you've been shown their failure after failure after failure.  But your only take away from having seen all of their failures put in front of your eyes is that they're out of date.  

Maybe you know a better way for me to show you all of their past miserable failures without, ya know, actually showing them to you?

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

Phite posted outdated articles that added to your nonsense.

Apparently you have no idea why I posted those news articles, do you?  You were being shown how climate alarmists have been at it for a long, long time.  But most importantly, you've been shown their failure after failure after failure.  But your only take away from having seen all of their failures put in front of your eyes is that they're out of date.  

Maybe you know a better way for me to show you all of their past miserable failures without, ya know, actually showing them to you?

I know exactly why you posted them, they're just irrelevant. I've debated against alarmists plenty of times on this very subject. They are set up for failure because there's only one way to be right, and that is for the sky to actually fall when they predict it. Often politicians and activists take a small portion of what someone in the science might say and misrepresent it but that doesn't negate the science behind what's causing climate change and the effects of what we're doing to the environment. When you think like that then you're displaying the same mentality as an alarmist only in the opposite direction. We can't just keep the status quo. I do not advocate flipping a switch and forcing people into electric cars when they aren't ready nor do we have infrastructure. Like biden tried to do. Their failures will always expose them. But we do need to solve our energy problem without allowing for the fleecing of America; yet move wisely towards renewable energy. 

Phite

@Factfinder

I posted them to show you, in no uncertain terms, the worth of the 97% consensus bullshyt.  Remember Cook's dishonest misrepresentation of climate scientists' views on climate change, and how he used them to make a point they didn't share?

My list shows how long that's been going on . . .

Factfinder

@Phite

Do you feel we should ignore it climate change, pollution and just exhaust all the earths resources? Keep the status quo?

Phite

@Factfinder

When it's built on the bullshyt of liars like Cook, stop believing bullshyt.  When they use images of a polar bear stranded on a hunk of ice to get you emotionally invested in the lie, stop believing bullshyt. When al gore buys waterfront property after preaching about inevitable rising sea levels, stop believing bullshyt.

Bogan

@Factfinder ;     You actively make arguments on how you irrationally hate all liberals cause of what some do and those some scare you cause you’re deafly afraid of communism.

There is nothing irrational about disliking liberals.      Anyone who thinks that any form of socialist totalitarianism, from either the left or the right, will improve their lives, must be smoking crack cocaine.   Anthropogenic climate change is simply a tool by the elites who think that democracy is a real impediment to the sort of world that they want to create.   It was invented to cower the public, which they despis,e into accepting a totalitarian government run by the elites.  

Factfinder quote  But it backfired cause the video you posted supports me and the FACT that liberals are facing opposition and climate change is real. You just can’t disprove reality.

Nobody can prove either way whether anthropogenic climate change is happening or not.     But increasingly, the alarmists are on the back foot.     Ordinary people were okay to go along with it provided that it did not impact their lives too much.     But with alarmist governments now trying to ban petrol fueled cars, attacking the farming community, and with electricity prices never ceasing to rise, the "hip pocket nerve" is kicking in.    Western people are increasingly associating climate cultists with wokism, and wokism is getting very much on the nose.     The same idi-ots who support open borders, no cash bail, BLM, defund the police, HAMAS, and DEI are the same drop kicks who support climate change.      The nations and states which are most enamored of this cult are the ones who's economies are in the toilet.  

Happily for me, while perusing youtube yesterday, I found that the well respected and internationally renowned clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson agrees with me that there is something insidious about the woke climate cultist attacks on farmers.     People who know how to think are turning away from this cult as just another hysterical woke economic and social catastrophe.      Turn away from the Dark Side Factfinder, and join the smart people who know how to think.  

Factfinder

@Bogan

In your opinion is climatology a legitimate field of scientific study?

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/climatology/

Factfinder

Phite said:

@Factfinder

When it's built on the bullshyt of liars like Cook, stop believing bullshyt.  When they use images of a polar bear stranded on a hunk of ice to get you emotionally invested in the lie, stop believing bullshyt. When al gore buys waterfront property after preaching about inevitable rising sea levels, stop believing bullshyt.

@Phite

I didn't ask if if you thought we should listen to has-beens in the political arena or propogandist videos. Do you think we should ignore climate change, keep the statis quo and exhaust the earth's resources? 

On the polar bear? I know it happens that polar bears do get stranded on ice. They're excellent swimmers and generally can swim long distances to get to more ice or ground. There are times when the distance is so far they have been known to starve if they didn't drown first. Whether or not the video you have in mind shows a real bear in real trouble and climate change put it there? I have no idea. I do know it's documented that the bears routinely have made a habit of swimming between ice chunks during certain times of the year and there is nothing knew about that. 

Also, I have stated smog can possibly effect climate change. Obviously global warming would be a consideration in that arena. Never tried to hide that. YOU posted a link that you thought debunked my acceptance that climate change could be exacerbated by smog by showing the climate was changing for the cooler, not warmer because of smog. When I exposed the flaw in your attempt you were left with no recourse but to attack my character. All along I've been debating change and you know it. YOU stuck to 'global warming' terminology. Not I. Thus your link supported my views keeping my integrity in tact. Yours?

Phite

Factfinder said:

Also, I have stated smog can possibly effect climate change.

Actually, when asked whether or not you believe that smog exacerbates global warming, you said that you obviously think it's a possibility.  So I provided you with a link to information that proves it doesn't.  

You weren't answering a question about climate change.  You were answering a question concerning smog's capacity to cause warming.  But as stated, it does not exacerbate global warming.

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

Also, I have stated smog can possibly effect climate change.

Actually, when asked whether or not you believe that smog exacerbates global warming, you said that you obviously think it's a possibility.  So I provided you with a link to information that proves it doesn't.  

You weren't answering a question about climate change.  You were answering a question concerning smog's capacity to cause warming.talking about warming.  But as stated, it does not exacerbate global warming.

No,no,no,no. You do not define the debate, I did. You right now are admitting you tried to make it about 'global warming'. That's why you carefully phrased your arguments and question that way. How devious. And your one paper from one scientist saying because of pollution we will cool, then warm, does not help you even if I was talking about global warming. You got a long way to go before claiming 'it does not exacerbate global warming' is anything other than utter nonsense spewed by the uniformed. He's one against how many?  You need to spend some time formulating your opinions before posting. 

Stop dodging the question: Should we ignore pollution, climate change, exhaust the earth's resources, and keep the status quo?

Factfinder

@Phite

In your opinion is climatology a legitimate field of scientific study?

Bogan

@Factfinder ;   In your opinion is climatology a legitimate field of scientific study?

Yes.

Bogan

@Factfinder ;    On the polar bear? I know it happens that polar bears do get stranded on ice. They're excellent swimmers and generally can swim long distances to get to more ice or ground. There are times when the distance is so far they have been known to starve if they didn't drown first. Whether or not the video you have in mind shows a real bear in real trouble and climate change put it there? I have no idea. I do know it's documented that the bears routinely have made a habit of swimming between ice chunks during certain times of the year and there is nothing knew about that. 

Phite

Factfinder said:

You do not define the debate, I did. You right now are admitting you tried to make it about 'global warming'.

You got a long way to go before claiming 'it does not exacerbate global warming' is anything other than utter nonsense spewed by the uniformed.

I see.  I'm afraid that "climate change" includes warming. So it's you who doesn't get to dictate what "change" means.  You and other alarmists make out as if the big concern is warming, yet you're now talking about cooling?

Here's some more from who you call "the uninformed":

“Many of those same human activities [that contribute to climate change] can increase air pollution in the form of particles, and those particles are both detrimental to health and counteract, to some extent, the warming that comes from greenhouse gasses,” said Jason West, a professor in environmental sciences and engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

But in the absence of cooling aerosols, we might have nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit more warming, experts say. Given the world is on track to record its hottest summer on record, this is bad news. While the positive effects of temperature-cooling pollution do not outweigh air pollution sources’ greenhouse gas emissions or the overall cost of these pollutants to human health, they have acted to somewhat slow the rate of warming. As we reduce air pollution — which we must do — we need to be prepared for the short-term consequences of even faster global warming.

https://www.vox.com/climate/23806051/air-pollution-climate-change-global-warming-particles-emissions

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

You do not define the debate, I did. You right now are admitting you tried to make it about 'global warming'.

You got a long way to go before claiming 'it does not exacerbate global warming' is anything other than utter nonsense spewed by the uniformed.

I see.  I'm afraid that "climate change" includes warming. So it's you who doesn't get to dictate what "change" means.  You and other alarmists make out as if the big concern is warming, yet you're now talking about cooling?

Here's some more from who you call "the uninformed":

“Many of those same human activities [that contribute to climate change] can increase air pollution in the form of particles, and those particles are both detrimental to health and counteract, to some extent, the warming that comes from greenhouse gasses,” said Jason West, a professor in environmental sciences and engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

But in the absence of cooling aerosols, we might have nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit more warming, experts say. Given the world is on track to record its hottest summer on record, this is bad news. While the positive effects of temperature-cooling pollution do not outweigh air pollution sources’ greenhouse gas emissions or the overall cost of these pollutants to human health, they have acted to somewhat slow the rate of warming. As we reduce air pollution — which we must do — we need to be prepared for the short-term consequences of even faster global warming.

https://www.vox.com/climate/23806051/air-pollution-climate-change-global-warming-particles-emissions

You do not get to redefine the debate. You brought up cooling. It just didn't help you at all. You have no debate skills.  I never tried to redefine 'climate change' that's an out right lie on your part. Figures you have no facts to support your nonsense so you resort to name calling. That article supports my opinion, it isn't included in the 'uniformed'. That's you incase you missed it. You made that ignorant (it does not exacerbate global warming) remark, not them. They claim it does effect climate change. The temporary slow down some pollutants cause of global warming is temporary. It is still warming though and as we clean up our act it's going to spring board global warming to a faster rate. So I'm right, they're right, and you're wrong, again. Thanks for the read!

Stop dodging the question: Should we ignore pollution, climate change, exhaust the earth's resources, and keep the status quo? 
In your opinion is climatology a legitimate field of scientific study?

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder ;    On the polar bear? I know it happens that polar bears do get stranded on ice. They're excellent swimmers and generally can swim long distances to get to more ice or ground. There are times when the distance is so far they have been known to starve if they didn't drown first. Whether or not the video you have in mind shows a real bear in real trouble and climate change put it there? I have no idea. I do know it's documented that the bears routinely have made a habit of swimming between ice chunks during certain times of the year and there is nothing knew about that. 

This is why you can't be taken seriously. She doesn't even have a peer reviewed study on sea ice or polar bears.

According to a 2018 study by Netherlands ecology professor Jeffrey Harvey and others, while Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on the effects of sea ice on the population dynamics of polar bears, her blog, Polar Bear Science, was a primary source used by websites that either deny or are skeptical of climate change, with over 80 percent citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears.[15][16]

Crockford's unpaid adjunct professor position at the University of Victoria, which she held for 15 years, was not renewed when she came up for another term in May 2019. The University declined to give a reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder ;   In your opinion is climatology a legitimate field of scientific study?

Yes.

In a real sense? Because not even considering what they have to say and preferring far right propaganda sites makes people doubt you.

Phite

Factfinder said:

You brought up cooling.

Yes, because I had to inform you that smog doesn't cause global warming.  Your response was to ask me how I know this.  I guess you'd like readers to believe that that question indicates that you agree with me?  I don't think so.

And bringing up that that the cooling from smog is temporary was just your way of diminishing the fact that it COOLS, and doesn't warm.  The fact that the cooling is temporary doesn't magically mean that it Warms.

You made that ignorant (it does not exacerbate global warming) remark, not them.

From the link:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

"But in the absence of cooling aerosols, we might have nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit more warming, experts say."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

So you concluded that it is an ignorant person who believes that smog does not exacerbate global warming . . 

Factfinder

@Phite

Stop dodging the question: Should we ignore pollution, climate change, exhaust the earth's resources, and keep the status quo? 
In your opinion is climatology a legitimate field of scientific study?

Bogan

Factfinder quote  In a real sense? Because not even considering what they have to say and preferring far right propaganda sites makes people doubt you.

 Excuse me?     You are implying that all climate scientists are on board with the idea of Anthropogenic global warming?      We have already looked at that I have shown you that any scientist, especially climate scientists, who dispute AGM get shown the door.   There is the case of professor Paul Ridd in James Cook University.

 Then there was the Climategate Email where the head of the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute asked one of his staff to investigate whether “Saiers” was onboard with the climate cult and if it could be proven that he was not, the Director would get him sacked.    The Climategate emails also displayed the willingness of the climate cultists to fudge the figures so that the raw data conformed to the Party line.       Next came the Australian Bureau of Meteorology which got caught red handed fudging the historical raw data to do the same thing.  Next you claim that Susan Crockford got sacked because she was using data from sceptic sites.    Given that the alarmists have been proven to publish false information, is it any wonder that Susan Crockford relied upon sceptic sites?      The sacking of Susan Crockford sure looks to and Paul Ridd sure looks to me like the loony left academics who dream of destroying the civilisation that they prefer to live in, to be vindictive of any academic who speaks against their evil schemes.

 

Climategate email 1

'If you think that Saiers is in the Greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels and get him ousted."

 

Climategate email 2

'We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"

 

Climategate email 3.   

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said that the world had cooled from 1998 onwards.   Okay, it has but it is only seven years of data and it is statistically insignificant."

 

Okay, so what do you do if the raw data does not support your claim that the planet is warming?   Fake it, of course. 

 

Climategate email 4.

 "I have just completed Mike's Nature (the science journal) trick of adding in the real temperatures for each series for the last twenty years and from 1961 to hide the decline."

 

Then you wonder why Susan Crockford thought that sceptic data was more reliable?      Which got her sacked like Saiers.     Just like in the bureaucrats paradise in the Soviet Union, you must never go against the bureaucratic Party line.     Although, at least they did not put Susan Crockford and Saiers in a Gulag.     Yet. 

Factfinder

Bogan said:

Factfinder quote  In a real sense? Because not even considering what they have to say and preferring far right propaganda sites makes people doubt you.

 Excuse me?     You are implying that all climate scientists are on board with the idea of Anthropogenic global warming?      We have already looked at that I have shown you that any scientist, especially climate scientists, who dispute AGM get shown the door.   There is the case of professor Paul Ridd in James Cook University.

 Then there was the Climategate Email where the head of the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute asked one of his staff to investigate whether “Saiers” was onboard with the climate cult and if it could be proven that he was not, the Director would get him sacked.    The Climategate emails also displayed the willingness of the climate cultists to fudge the figures so that the raw data conformed to the Party line.       Next came the Australian Bureau of Meteorology which got caught red handed fudging the historical raw data to do the same thing.  Next you claim that Susan Crockford got sacked because she was using data from sceptic sites.    Given that the alarmists have been proven to publish false information, is it any wonder that Susan Crockford relied upon sceptic sites?      The sacking of Susan Crockford sure looks to and Paul Ridd sure looks to me like the loony left academics who dream of destroying the civilisation that they prefer to live in, to be vindictive of any academic who speaks against their evil schemes.

 

Climategate email 1

'If you think that Saiers is in the Greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels and get him ousted."

 

Climategate email 2

'We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"

 

Climategate email 3.   

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said that the world had cooled from 1998 onwards.   Okay, it has but it is only seven years of data and it is statistically insignificant."

 

Okay, so what do you do if the raw data does not support your claim that the planet is warming?   Fake it, of course. 

 

Climategate email 4.

 "I have just completed Mike's Nature (the science journal) trick of adding in the real temperatures for each series for the last twenty years and from 1961 to hide the decline."

 

Then you wonder why Susan Crockford thought that sceptic data was more reliable?      Which got her sacked like Saiers.     Just like in the bureaucrats paradise in the Soviet Union, you must never go against the bureaucratic Party line.     Although, at least they did not put Susan Crockford and Saiers in a Gulag.     Yet. 

The more garbage you post the more I'm inclined to stay with my opinion. You'd do better to educate yourself instead of trying to determine my motives or methodologies for me deriving at conclusions. Crockford asserted crap out of her field with no evidence for support. In other words she did not get offered a new contract when her old one was up because she was a lousy scientist. Like when a quarterback sucks he don't get a new contract.

Ridd was fired for breaking security protocol. He put the intellectual property of the university on a public board. They asked him for over two years to take it down before they finally let him go for insubordination. Very common for universities to have clauses in employment contracts when professors use the facilities for experimentation and science related activities. He went to court and won only to be denied in appeals court.

Climategate was proven to be the work of right wing denialists hacking into computers and taking emails out of context. When interviewed all the scientists who had their emails stolen said the messages were taken and put out for consumption to make people think they didn't agree with the consensus on climate change when in reality they are in total agreement. The motive for the right wing hysterical antics? Yup, it was a few weeks before a summit on climate change. 

Should we ignore pollution, climate change, exhaust the earth's resources, and keep the status quo?

Bogan

@Factfinder

Factfinder quote   The more garbage you post the more I'm inclined to stay with my opinion.

 When my opponent becomes hostile and abusive, I know I have got them rattled.   

 

Factfinder quote     You'd do better to educate yourself instead of trying to determine my motives or methodologies for me deriving at conclusions.

 The reason why I am running rings around you, is because I approached this question with an open mind, decided which side was right, and did my homework.   As for determining your motivations, well, I like to read psychology, sociology, and psychiatry text books so I am good at that.

 

Factfinder quote    Crockford asserted crap out of her field with no evidence for support. In other words she did not get offered a new contract when her old one was up because she was a lousy scientist. Like when a quarterback sucks he don't get a new contract.

 That was the excuse given.    Putin claimed that Navalny was a foreign agent.  I suppose you support his claim on that too?     The Dems claimed that Trump was in collusion with Putin.   Once again, just because the totalitarian bureaucrats claim that the reason why they jumped on a person is because they are naughty, does not mean that I believe them.     Especially since the Climategate emails and what happened to Paul Ridd proved once and for all that crossing the AGW mafia gets you sacked. 

Factfinder quote   Ridd was fired for breaking security protocol. He put the intellectual property of the university on a public board. They asked him for over two years to take it down before they finally let him go for insubordination. Very common for universities to have clauses in employment contracts when professors use the facilities for experimentation and science related activities. He went to court and won only to be denied in appeals court.

 Once again, that was the excuse.      Ridd criticised the methodology used by “scientists:” who claimed that global warming was damaging the Great Barrier Reef.     Please explain how that has anything to do with “security?”    Oh, and just for the record.     The ‘scientists” at James Cook University never stop whining about the Great Barrier reef dying because of some factor that they need a lot of public money to fix.  .      First it was the Crown of Thorns starfish that was going to destroy the reef, and the scientists demanded (wait for it, wait for it) more money to hire scuba divers to kill the starfish.      Then it was “siltation” caused by sugar cane farmers which was supposedly killing the reef.     The “scientists” needed (wait for it, wait for it) more money to investigate this serious problem.   The GBR just keeps growing and expanding.  

 Now think about it?     You are a marine biologist working at James Cook University and your job is to be on the Great Barrier Reef every working day.  You get private ‘research” islands where the public is forbidden to tread, free boats, free food, free fuel, free accommodation on the islands, and Luas on the beach at sundown with pretty undergraduate girls who idolize professors, and who look great in thong bikinis.    And all you have to do is to write a dissertation which nobody will read on “The affect of climate change on the sex life of the google eyed puffer fish.”    Are you going to let somebody like Paul Ridd threaten your cushy job?      Of course not.    Talk to your department head and get the bastard sacked.   

 factfinder quote Climategate was proven to be the work of right wing denialists hacking into computers and taking emails out of context. When interviewed all the scientists who had their emails stolen said the messages were taken and put out for consumption to make people think they didn't agree with the consensus on climate change when in reality they are in total agreement. The motive for the right wing hysterical antics? Yup, it was a few weeks before a summit on climate change. 

 Another way of saying that was that the Climategate emails that were hacked by real scientists were so damning that the AGW spin doctors got to work to control the damage.      But it is hard to dispute the obvious dishonesty and cronyism discovered, written in plain English.         

factfinder quote   Should we ignore pollution, climate change, exhaust the earth's resources, and keep the status quo?

 You had better, because the Asians have no intention at all of slowing down their march towards modernity and prosperity.   You are at the point of the Catholics and the Muslims who once rejected the western way of life which was ruled by facts and reason, kept wallowing in their religious stupidity, and went backwards into the future because of it.      Either grow a brain and figure out that you have been had, or buy a dozen acres, a horse, and a plow, and rediscover the pleasures of subsistence living and extreme poverty.        The Asians, and the rich western elites with their senior bureaucrat buddies will become your new masters. 

Phite

Factfinder said:

@Phite

In your opinion is climatology a legitimate field of scientific study?

Sure, but not when it's done by liars like Cook.  You don't still take guys like him seriously, do you?  Wouldn't his deliberate misrepresentation of the climate scientists whose studies he used to push his agenda kinda destroy his credibility . . . in your eyes?

How about the IPCC?  You consider them to be something you can put your faith in?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Man induced Climate Change is a religion for the fool who rejects the Creator and worships what is created.

...because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Romans 1:25 (ESV)

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

Factfinder quote   The more garbage you post the more I'm inclined to stay with my opinion.

 When my opponent becomes hostile and abusive, I know I have got them rattled.   

 

Factfinder quote     You'd do better to educate yourself instead of trying to determine my motives or methodologies for me deriving at conclusions.

 The reason why I am running rings around you, is because I approached this question with an open mind, decided which side was right, and did my homework.   As for determining your motivations, well, I like to read psychology, sociology, and psychiatry text books so I am good at that.

 

Factfinder quote    Crockford asserted crap out of her field with no evidence for support. In other words she did not get offered a new contract when her old one was up because she was a lousy scientist. Like when a quarterback sucks he don't get a new contract.

 That was the excuse given.    Putin claimed that Navalny was a foreign agent.  I suppose you support his claim on that too?     The Dems claimed that Trump was in collusion with Putin.   Once again, just because the totalitarian bureaucrats claim that the reason why they jumped on a person is because they are naughty, does not mean that I believe them.     Especially since the Climategate emails and what happened to Paul Ridd proved once and for all that crossing the AGW mafia gets you sacked. 

Factfinder quote   Ridd was fired for breaking security protocol. He put the intellectual property of the university on a public board. They asked him for over two years to take it down before they finally let him go for insubordination. Very common for universities to have clauses in employment contracts when professors use the facilities for experimentation and science related activities. He went to court and won only to be denied in appeals court.

 Once again, that was the excuse.      Ridd criticised the methodology used by “scientists:” who claimed that global warming was damaging the Great Barrier Reef.     Please explain how that has anything to do with “security?”    Oh, and just for the record.     The ‘scientists” at James Cook University never stop whining about the Great Barrier reef dying because of some factor that they need a lot of public money to fix.  .      First it was the Crown of Thorns starfish that was going to destroy the reef, and the scientists demanded (wait for it, wait for it) more money to hire scuba divers to kill the starfish.      Then it was “siltation” caused by sugar cane farmers which was supposedly killing the reef.     The “scientists” needed (wait for it, wait for it) more money to investigate this serious problem.   The GBR just keeps growing and expanding.  

 Now think about it?     You are a marine biologist working at James Cook University and your job is to be on the Great Barrier Reef every working day.  You get private ‘research” islands where the public is forbidden to tread, free boats, free food, free fuel, free accommodation on the islands, and Luas on the beach at sundown with pretty undergraduate girls who idolize professors, and who look great in thong bikinis.    And all you have to do is to write a dissertation which nobody will read on “The affect of climate change on the sex life of the google eyed puffer fish.”    Are you going to let somebody like Paul Ridd threaten your cushy job?      Of course not.    Talk to your department head and get the bastard sacked.   

 factfinder quote Climategate was proven to be the work of right wing denialists hacking into computers and taking emails out of context. When interviewed all the scientists who had their emails stolen said the messages were taken and put out for consumption to make people think they didn't agree with the consensus on climate change when in reality they are in total agreement. The motive for the right wing hysterical antics? Yup, it was a few weeks before a summit on climate change. 

 Another way of saying that was that the Climategate emails that were hacked by real scientists were so damning that the AGW spin doctors got to work to control the damage.      But it is hard to dispute the obvious dishonesty and cronyism discovered, written in plain English.         

factfinder quote   Should we ignore pollution, climate change, exhaust the earth's resources, and keep the status quo?

 You had better, because the Asians have no intention at all of slowing down their march towards modernity and prosperity.   You are at the point of the Catholics and the Muslims who once rejected the western way of life which was ruled by facts and reason, kept wallowing in their religious stupidity, and went backwards into the future because of it.      Either grow a brain and figure out that you have been had, or buy a dozen acres, a horse, and a plow, and rediscover the pleasures of subsistence living and extreme poverty.        The Asians, and the rich western elites with their senior bureaucrat buddies will become your new masters. 

Delusional nonsense. We're you in front of a mirror when you said that? With your baby rattle?

The only rings coming from you are those of circular logic. 

You do not know what 'proof' means. You believe it's anything and everything that fits into your preconceived notions. No matter their radical nature. While ignoring reality.

The reasons for one's termination and the other not being offered a contract held. It's that reality thing again.

It is hard to dispute the cronyism and dishonesty when written in plain english, true. Yet you keep posting expecting something different to come about.

Wow, you've definitely surpassed the looney lefts fanatism. Ignorant bigotry and all.

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

@Phite

In your opinion is climatology a legitimate field of scientific study?

Sure, but not when it's done by liars like Cook.  You don't still take guys like him seriously, do you?  Wouldn't his deliberate misrepresentation of the climate scientists whose studies he used to push his agenda kinda destroy his credibility . . . in your eyes?

How about the IPCC?  You consider them to be something you can put your faith in?

Is the guy a master manipulator you mean? Not sure I'd say that. I would trust something he said on climate change more than what you might say. Would I trust him implicitly, no I'd still like to fact check when and where I could. Same with the ipcc. Some representatives have wealth in mind with their eyes looking west.
So no I would not put all my faith in. John cook and ipcc are human and human organizations so while it would be wise to examine what they say with a healthy amount of skepticism, it would also be wise to glean what good information we can.

Should we ignore pollution, climate change, exhaust the earth's resources, and keep the status quo? 

Bogan

@Factfinder ;    Delusional nonsense. We're you in front of a mirror when you said that? With your baby rattle?

The only rings coming from you are those of circular logic. 

You do not know what 'proof' means. You believe it's anything and everything that fits into your preconceived notions. No matter their radical nature. While ignoring reality.

The reasons for one's termination and the other not being offered a contract held. It's that reality thing again.

It is hard to dispute the cronyism and dishonesty when written in plain english, true. Yet you keep posting expecting something different to come about.

Wow, you've definitely surpassed the looney lefts fanatism. Ignorant bigotry and all.

Well, I can't accuse you of tossing a sneery one liner at me.     You tossed six at once.      The ACC cult is starting to come apart.     When I began trying to decide which position was right, I actually had trouble finding enough denier sites on Youtube to counter the number of alarmist sites.      Today it is different.      There are now many denier sites on Youtube because ACC is being seen today as just another woke cause.     Where once no one in the media denied ACC, today the right wing media, which just happens to be the most trusted media,  routinely scoffs at the entire idea.     The northern half of this planet is once again blanketed in snow which according to the ACC cultists, should not be there.     It is hard to get people to take global warming seriously when their driveways are blocked with snow.   

But the main factor killing climate change is that the policies of the alarmist advocating governments is now having a very real financial impact upon the public.      All of Europe is going right wing.    New Zealand has gone right wing.    The USA, provided it does not become a communist dictatorship by incarcerating the leading Presidential candidate, will also go right wing.      The leftist Labor government in Australia is very much on the nose with the public.       As I said previously, you are allying yourself with the radicals who are wrecking their own countries with open borders, DEI, racism against white people, Defund the Police, climate change policies, and the ridiculous idea that a man can be a woman if he so chooses.      All of these left wing actions are having a serious effect upon the social stability and the economic outcomes of entire nations.     The ACC is a victim of it's own success.   The more it succeeds in wrecking western economies and destroying their nations social stability, the more the public wakes up that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, and everywhere else in the western world.