Notanumber
A Free Man
They have been saying that for forty years.
Climate change must not be used as a tool for socialism/communism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So Who Are The Adults Pulling The Strings of the Child Climate Change Protests?
- Thread starter Stanyon
- Start date
They have been saying that for forty years.
Climate change must not be used as a tool for socialism/communism.
In some places, the damage is irreversible. Also, think! If back then nobody responded favorably the things they said would happen might have happened.
Notanumber
A Free Man
We can respond favourably without resorting to communism.
Are you being paranoid?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Who's suggesting communism as a response? Why would it even help?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's also what I was wondering.
I think he might be talking about semi-communism in that the government leans too much on commerce.
Notanumber
A Free Man
Look at the actors and what their true ambitions are.
Shad
Veteran Member
More proof the prize is worthless.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What are you talking about? What actors and what ambitions? Do you think climate scientists are communists? Your alt-right, elite masters, who tell you what to think, must be having a laugh....
Notanumber
A Free Man
Fortunately, climate scientists are now putting their jobs and reputations on the line to tell the truth and are discrediting the “science” that the politicians and activists want us to believe.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
How would you know the truth (apart from your alt-right masters telling you)? Some of the nonsense you've posted suggests that you know next to nothing about the science.
Where is your evidence for this vast conspiracy (again, alt-right blatant propaganda aside)? The vested interest is with the polluters, oil and gas industry. Who are these mysterious conspirators and how did they persuade pretty much all the experts to lie over decades? It's just absurd - this is just blatant science denial, every bit as nutty as anti-vaxxers, creationists, and flat-earthers.
Notanumber
A Free Man
Unlike some I could mention. I don’t have a closed mind.
Who in their right mind would promote pollution, but carbon taxes and government controls to change society is a different matter.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No answers to my questions then.
People do support polluters because it's in their own interest. Government controls is how you regulate anything that is harmful to society, and climate change is the biggest, predicable and preventable, threat to society there is.
Notanumber
A Free Man
No answers to my questions then.
People do support polluters because it's in their own interest. Government controls is how you regulate anything that is harmful to society, and climate change is the biggest, predicable and preventable, threat to society there is.
Anyone with an open mind would watch these videos and then do your own research.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I've already wasted more than enough of my life watching and reading your silly, often scientifically illiterate, alt-right propaganda.
Why should people believe vested interest political groups rather than take notice of the overwhelming majority of the world's experts? And again, what exactly is your conspiracy theory? Who are these mysterious conspirators and how did they persuade pretty much all the experts to lie over decades?
What makes you think you even know enough to judge the evidence and who is being honest? You clearly didn't know enough to realise that nobody was claiming we didn't need CO2 in the atmosphere.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The answer is science is not self sufficient when it comes to the resources needed to do science. Science is beholden to Government, Industry, and Universities, with universities dependent on Government and Industry for resources. Whomever, has the money and resources, has a say on how it will be spent. The CERN collider of Physics was not funded by resources that science generated. Politicians played a big role.
For example, if you were a skilled scientist working for a tobacco company, you can still do good by the book science, even if your company needs you to steer your results toward good Public Relations for your company. You cannot just go free lance while being paid by that company and keep your job. You would need to find a valid science topic or avenue to investigate, that can be published, that also helps your company, if you wish to move up the ladder.
With climate change there is a political effort to shut down the other half of climate science, that does not agree with the needed set of results. This is not how science works, but rather this is how biased resource allocation works. Good science can take any path and still be good science. The problem is not science, but the politics of resource allocation, and this needing to be appeased by scientists, if you wish to move up the ladder; good company men and women. If you go along you will advance, if you fight it, you will be stuck or fired. This is what is happening.
If I was Trump I would request that the funds allocated for climate research be equally divided between the pros and cons. Since science is mercenary and company men will do what they are told to advance their careers, many will migrate to the other side. This will allow for a more balanced approach, so we can better assess the situation. The left wing leadership is resisting fairness and balanced funding, since the resource magic trick will be at risk.
Image if big tobacco could not do its own science, but we could censor even their good science. This would be a political way to squash them, and then lie to the public, using mercenary science as a paid prop. Since industry contributes to science and tobacco contribute to science, it can allocate to itself and balance the political science. It is still in business.
Last edited:
Notanumber
A Free Man
Are you a founder member of the Closed Mind Society or just a late adopter?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
@wellwisher As usual you've written a lot of words and not really said very much.
It isn't a half - not even close. Climate change denial is a tiny, tiny minority, like creationism or anti-vaxxers.
And you still haven't explained how this vast conspiracy happened. In whose interest was it to try to influence science like this? How did they do it across multiple nations and institutions with all sorts of different funding arrangements?
It isn't a half - not even close. Climate change denial is a tiny, tiny minority, like creationism or anti-vaxxers.
And you still haven't explained how this vast conspiracy happened. In whose interest was it to try to influence science like this? How did they do it across multiple nations and institutions with all sorts of different funding arrangements?