independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 16th Dec 2017 4:27pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Trump's PC Police Purging The Term 'Climate Change'
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 4 1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 08/12/17 4:07am

midnightmover

Trump's PC Police Purging The Term 'Climate Change'

The anti-freedom Trump team is ordering scientists not to use accurate terms about the environment. They are instructing them to use more confusing terms instead. In particular the term "climate change" is out.

[Edited 8/12/17 4:12am]

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 08/12/17 1:57pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

are you SURE it is not just him telling people that work UNDER him to not use that term? I am sure barack did the same thing a number of times. It does come off as odd...

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 08/14/17 4:40am

TweetyV6

avatar

Well, let's go back a couple of years.
During the Obama administration, the term 'Global Warming' was discarded when it beame obvious that the globe wasn't warming for a signifiacnt amount of time (at that time it was 17 yrs, we now have passed 20 yrs without significant warming in the 'global temperature'-trend)
So the Obama administartion replaced global warming with climate change, because who can 'deny' climate change, it has been changing ever since the earth started rotating around the sun.

And even when Obama still was in charge, there were hints that there was a new 'directive' that the term 'climate change' should be replaced by 'Severe Weather Disruptions' as, like I said before, climate change is something that has happened in the past and will happen in the future, regardless of if there are any humans on this planet or not.

The whole global warming/climate change/severe weather disruptions issue is a political construct to give the general public a bad feeling about their CO2 producing activities, so their threshold lowers to pay for their alledged destructive behaviour.

To give an example; in 2016 German tax payers payed 58 billion Euro's 'Umweltsteurer' (environmental tax), which is 8.2% of the total German tax revenue.

Source: here on the website of the German Federal Office of Statistics.

It has become a significant player in the German Federal Budget.
And many people are not able to pay for their electricity bills anymore. It has become too expensive due to this bullshit 'global warming' issue.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 08/14/17 5:17am

Cloudbuster

avatar

The climate changes all the time. smile

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 08/14/17 9:07am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

You cannot purge reality.

DJ is da man
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 08/14/17 10:09am

Cloudbuster

avatar

Ooh.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 08/14/17 10:51am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

the term Climate Change is wonky. It is used too many different ways. (a little like immigration is).

some use it as a means to insult "climate deniers" but that is not what is in many cases (in my case) what is being denied.

As ALWAYS I strive to consider issues from many points of view (and I get called out over it)...

to me the question is not is there climate change? or even is it man made? or even is it reversible?

But something more like this: is it man made, can it be reversed, do we have any idea how to do so without costing more than it is worth (which also speaks to how bad is it really). and maybe the biggest issue I see can we convince enough of the world to go along?


So when I deny it...I am basically expressing skepticism that it is man made, catastrophic, and reversible and worth the cost and something we can get enough support for to make the necessary changes.

and the idea that it is unquestionable, settled science flys in the face of one of the most basic principals of science.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 08/14/17 10:53am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Cloudbuster said:

Ooh.

maybe get one that is like 5 or 10 mins... I just can not do 2 hours on some conspiracy nonsense.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 08/14/17 11:24am

maplenpg

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the term Climate Change is wonky. It is used too many different ways. (a little like immigration is).

some use it as a means to insult "climate deniers" but that is not what is in many cases (in my case) what is being denied.

As ALWAYS I strive to consider issues from many points of view (and I get called out over it)...

to me the question is not is there climate change? or even is it man made? or even is it reversible?

But something more like this: is it man made, can it be reversed, do we have any idea how to do so without costing more than it is worth (which also speaks to how bad is it really). and maybe the biggest issue I see can we convince enough of the world to go along?


So when I deny it...I am basically expressing skepticism that it is man made, catastrophic, and reversible and worth the cost and something we can get enough support for to make the necessary changes.

and the idea that it is unquestionable, settled science flys in the face of one of the most basic principals of science.

Are you drunk?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 08/14/17 11:29am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the term Climate Change is wonky. It is used too many different ways. (a little like immigration is).

some use it as a means to insult "climate deniers" but that is not what is in many cases (in my case) what is being denied.

As ALWAYS I strive to consider issues from many points of view (and I get called out over it)...

to me the question is not is there climate change? or even is it man made? or even is it reversible?

But something more like this: is it man made, can it be reversed, do we have any idea how to do so without costing more than it is worth (which also speaks to how bad is it really). and maybe the biggest issue I see can we convince enough of the world to go along?


So when I deny it...I am basically expressing skepticism that it is man made, catastrophic, and reversible and worth the cost and something we can get enough support for to make the necessary changes.

and the idea that it is unquestionable, settled science flys in the face of one of the most basic principals of science.

Are you drunk?

not near enough.... what is wrong with my detailed use of that term? And guess what you do not KNOW the answers to ANY of them!

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 08/14/17 11:34am

Cloudbuster

avatar

Always a treat to be reminded by morons that we live in a conspiracy-free world.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 08/14/17 12:21pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Cloudbuster said:

Always a treat to be reminded by morons that we live in a conspiracy-free world.

that is why we have you and Dr Judy wood

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 08/19/17 4:45am

midnightmover

Climate deniers fall into two camps: liars and useful idiots. Which are you?

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 08/19/17 5:02am

Silvertongue7

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the term Climate Change is wonky. It is used too many different ways. (a little like immigration is).

some use it as a means to insult "climate deniers" but that is not what is in many cases (in my case) what is being denied.

As ALWAYS I strive to consider issues from many points of view (and I get called out over it)...

to me the question is not is there climate change? or even is it man made? or even is it reversible?



But something more like this: is it man made, can it be reversed, do we have any idea how to do so without costing more than it is worth (which also speaks to how bad is it really). and maybe the biggest issue I see can we convince enough of the world to go along?


So when I deny it...I am basically expressing skepticism that it is man made, catastrophic, and reversible and worth the cost and something we can get enough support for to make the necessary changes.

and the idea that it is unquestionable, settled science flys in the face of one of the most basic principals of science.


When I read you I often feel that you ask yourself the right questions but then reach the wrong conclusions...
Someone's in my body, someone's in my body...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 08/19/17 8:05am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

midnightmover said:

Climate deniers fall into two camps: liars and useful idiots. Which are you?

what do you mean by climate deniers?

I think people like Neil deGrasse Tyson show a dishonest side when they suggest that ANYTHING especially anything as complex as climate as "settled science." I mean isn't one of the founding scientific principals that we test and test?

But again it if you use my version of it then you can not even say with any certainty that is it is reversible MUCH less what we would and could do to reverse it. And then try to convince the true polluters to stop!


"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 08/19/17 8:06am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Silvertongue7 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the term Climate Change is wonky. It is used too many different ways. (a little like immigration is).

some use it as a means to insult "climate deniers" but that is not what is in many cases (in my case) what is being denied.

As ALWAYS I strive to consider issues from many points of view (and I get called out over it)...

to me the question is not is there climate change? or even is it man made? or even is it reversible?

But something more like this: is it man made, can it be reversed, do we have any idea how to do so without costing more than it is worth (which also speaks to how bad is it really). and maybe the biggest issue I see can we convince enough of the world to go along?


So when I deny it...I am basically expressing skepticism that it is man made, catastrophic, and reversible and worth the cost and something we can get enough support for to make the necessary changes.

and the idea that it is unquestionable, settled science flys in the face of one of the most basic principals of science.

When I read you I often feel that you ask yourself the right questions but then reach the wrong conclusions...

cool thank you! At least you seem to see that I am at least thinking for myself and not going by what someone told me to think...

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 08/19/17 10:54am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

This tuesday, steven crowder debates Potholer 54. wow.

DJ is da man
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 08/19/17 11:24pm

midnightmover

2freaky4church1 said:

This tuesday, steven crowder debates Potholer 54. wow.

Oh God. Crowder's gonna deflect, dodge, move the goalposts non-stop. Potholer's going to try to keep him on point, but fail.

By the way, some of the climate deniers on here need to go and look at some of potholer54's climate change videos. Just from reading the comments section it looks like he's converted quite a few "sceptics" over the years. I think he started about ten years ago so you'll have to scroll back a bit to get the best ones.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 08/20/17 4:34am

midnightmover

Here is a blonde with nice tits talking about climate change. Concentrate on what she's saying, guys.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 08/20/17 6:01am

TweetyV6

avatar

midnightmover said:

Here is a blonde with nice tits talking about climate change. Concentrate on what she's saying, guys.

God would I like to have a 1:1 conversation with this woman about the temperature record ('cause one in of her first sentences she equals climate change with global temperature; a major disqualifier)

I guess she could actually learn something

I bet if you would ask her what the current rate of warming is in degrees centigrade per decade, she'd probably wouldn't have a clue and her head would explode.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 08/26/17 2:43am

midnightmover

Trump Administration Disbands Climate Change Panel

[Edited 8/26/17 2:44am]

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 08/26/17 6:28am

Cloudbuster

avatar

And the others say...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 08/26/17 6:35am

midnightmover

Dude, please tell me that you're not a member of the Labour Party. I don't want to believe that anti-semitic, climate-change-denying, 9/11 truthers like you are coming into the party, but alas, it seems you are.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 08/26/17 7:27am

midnightmover

I see Stephen Crowder chickened out of the debate with Potholer54. Pussy knew he'd get his ass kicked. Potholer is far too generous to this weasel though (no offense to weasels).

[Edited 8/26/17 8:59am]

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 08/27/17 11:43pm

TweetyV6

avatar

midnightmover said:

Dude, ... climate-change-denying, ....

Labeling people like this disqualifies you from the discussion.

Nobody can deny climat change, as it is undeniable.
There alway has been climate change and there always will be.

Question is: do humans play a significant role in climate change.
Data and events from the past clearly say: NO

The only thing Al Gore c.s. know about climate change is that it makes them a shitload of money.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 08/28/17 2:20am

SanMartin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

midnightmover said:

Dude, ... climate-change-denying, ....

Labeling people like this disqualifies you from the discussion.

Nobody can deny climat change, as it is undeniable.
There alway has been climate change and there always will be.

Question is: do humans play a significant role in climate change.
Data and events from the past clearly say: NO

The only thing Al Gore c.s. know about climate change is that it makes them a shitload of money.

Why should we trust you over the majority of climate scientists who say that humans do play a significant role in climate change?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 08/28/17 4:23am

TweetyV6

avatar

SanMartin said:

TweetyV6 said:

Labeling people like this disqualifies you from the discussion.

Nobody can deny climat change, as it is undeniable.
There alway has been climate change and there always will be.

Question is: do humans play a significant role in climate change.
Data and events from the past clearly say: NO

The only thing Al Gore c.s. know about climate change is that it makes them a shitload of money.

Why should we trust you over the majority of climate scientists who say that humans do play a significant role in climate change?

Because:

A) Science is not a democracy. Only facts count; not opinions, assumptions or model predictions.
B) Data (even the non-robust surface data) show otherwise.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 08/28/17 6:38am

SanMartin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

SanMartin said:

Why should we trust you over the majority of climate scientists who say that humans do play a significant role in climate change?

Because:

A) Science is not a democracy. Only facts count; not opinions, assumptions or model predictions.
B) Data (even the non-robust surface data) show otherwise.

An overwhelming majority of specialists in climate science conclude that humans are affecting climate change. They base their arguments on facts and data. It's theoretically possible that they're wrong, yes, but it's not logical to assume so.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 08/28/17 6:44am

jimmy3121

2freaky4church1 said:

You cannot purge reality.

Statues.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 08/28/17 9:25am

TweetyV6

avatar

SanMartin said:

TweetyV6 said:

Because:

A) Science is not a democracy. Only facts count; not opinions, assumptions or model predictions.
B) Data (even the non-robust surface data) show otherwise.

An overwhelming majority of specialists in climate science conclude that humans are affecting climate change. They base their arguments on facts and data. It's theoretically possible that they're wrong, yes, but it's not logical to assume so.



I sincerely challenge you to dive into the 'overwhelming majority' claim.
Where does it come from and especially how was the '97% consensus' constructed.

If you have any feeling for the scientific principle, you'll see that the figure is close to worthless.
In my opinion it's close to criminal to use that figure.
But it makes a nice 'discussion silencer': 97% of the scientists say that you're wrong. Now STFU.


Then I challenge you to look into the raw data for the surface data regarding 'global' temperature (what exactly is that?)
Ask yourself the following questions: How are these data collected? Since when? Where? What is the accuracy of each individual data-set? What has happened with the stations? How often have the data sets been homogenised and if, why? Are here gaps in tha data-sets? How have these been accounted for?

If you have done that, then ask yourself: Is tha data set as presented by the climate alarmists realy fit to predict temperature trends of +0,248 degrees Celcius per decade? Or is the margin of error larger then the predicted trend and, if I'm honest, cannot make such predictions based on that particular data set?

You can start here: http://www.surfacestations.org/
And if you'd like to spend some money & time, read this: https://www.nap.edu/catal...ng-systems


___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 4 1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Trump's PC Police Purging The Term 'Climate Change'