independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 28th Jan 2020 5:26pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Scientist says manmade climate change is not real - a political scam
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 5 of 5 <12345
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #120 posted 01/08/20 11:16pm

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

_107998019_206830.jpg





but feel free to post another pixel to support your point



[Edited 1/7/20 23:40pm]


Ah... Michael (Mike) Mann's infamous Hockeystick graph.

It is constructed from reconstructed proxy data (before 1850; treering data; density of treerings is an indicator for temperature) and
Instrumental data (after 1850; temperatures recorded by surface stations)

This graph has been manipulated by Mike Mann, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones in order to get on the cover of the WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999 and present a strong message to the IPCC (for the AR3)

https://library.wmo.int/d...um_id=3460






The climategate emails however show that the proxy data (frm Briffa's research) didn't show the warming as presented, but instead showed a decline completely opposit to what the instrumental data showed.

So the decided to perform 'Mike's Nature trick' in order to 'Hide the decline'

cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
to: ray bradley <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu


 Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
   Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
 first thing tomorrow.
   I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
 to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
 land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land 
 N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
 data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. 
   Thanks for the comments, Ray.

 Cheers
 Phil


   
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 
University of East Anglia                      
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk 
NR4 7TJ
UK

http://di2.nu/foia/foia20...l/3451.txt

Jones canceled most of the decline in Briffa's series and replaced it with the rising thermometer data from 1961. A statistical smoothing filter achieved a smooth transition between the reconstruction and the thermometer data. The series of Jones and Mann (red and blue) were adapted in a similar way with thermometer data from 1981. This resulted in three reconstructions that seem to accurately reflect recent warm-up, while in reality they deviate greatly from it.

And since it was not prefeered to show the medieval warm period (around 1100 AD) in Briffa's proxy data (green line in graph), the series only start at 1400 AD.




Until today, Mann refuses to release his data to the scientific community. Guess why....

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #121 posted 01/08/20 11:18pm

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Odd since Tweety and Only will die as well


We're all gonna die. But not because of 'climate change'.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #122 posted 01/08/20 11:38pm

BombSquad

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

Ah... Michael (Mike) Mann's infamous Hockeystick graph.

still better than a single PIXEL. your biggest fuckup in a looong time LOL


still NASA wins. you FAIL

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #123 posted 01/09/20 5:25am

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

still better than a single PIXEL. your biggest fuckup in a looong time LOL


still NASA wins. you FAIL

I can't help it that if you condens the time scale of a graph a red piece of a graph eventually becomes a couple of red pixels. (If you see only one pixel, I advise you to upgrade from a 1989 to a 2019 screen)

The underlying message is:

The current warming is not unprecedented.
We've seen many other periods in time where the warming or cooling had similar or even higher rates of warming/cooling.

But since that's nothing you can argue against, you point out the red pixels..... sad....



Oh and by the way....

(I know you ignore these, but I will bring them up over & over again), what about:

Solar cycles?
Milankovic cycles?
Gleissberg cycle?
NAO?



P.S.:

Ask if NASA was right with their calculation of certain O-rings... confused



The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #124 posted 01/09/20 6:55am

BombSquad

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

BombSquad said:

still better than a single PIXEL. your biggest fuckup in a looong time LOL


still NASA wins. you FAIL

I can't help it that if you condens the time scale of a graph a red piece of a graph eventually becomes a couple of red pixels. (If you see only one pixel, I advise you to upgrade from a 1989 to a 2019 screen)

wow. you are truly too dumb to get it.

the first chart you posted as evidence can be blown up to 10 miles, the last 30 years still remain ONE pixel, cause the native picture does not have more. Duh!

AND THIS PIXEL IS WHAT YOU POSTED AS "EVIDENCE"

if you posted more detailed charts later on, fine, but irrelevant, cause your original attempt to mislead and deceive still stands


FAIL




and blowing up dust by bringing up new topics, if you can't even get the basics correct yet, is just a silly attempt to avoid your prior fails. but it will not work. first resolve the old problems and mistakes you made, THEN we can get to the next level

the current speed of warming is unique. if you don't trust NASA, then at least do the research, (on non-conpiracy-sites please) there are plenty of other sources to find. I'm not here to do your homework



[Edited 1/9/20 6:57am]

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #125 posted 01/09/20 4:54pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

Slight change of topic... Anyone remembers the 1976 heat wave?

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #126 posted 01/09/20 5:23pm

TD3

avatar

'Stupid is as stupid does.'

The End.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #127 posted 01/09/20 10:48pm

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

TweetyV6 said:

I can't help it that if you condens the time scale of a graph a red piece of a graph eventually becomes a couple of red pixels. (If you see only one pixel, I advise you to upgrade from a 1989 to a 2019 screen)

wow. you are truly too dumb to get it.

the first chart you posted as evidence can be blown up to 10 miles, the last 30 years still remain ONE pixel, cause the native picture does not have more. Duh!

AND THIS PIXEL IS WHAT YOU POSTED AS "EVIDENCE"

if you posted more detailed charts later on, fine, but irrelevant, cause your original attempt to mislead and deceive still stands


FAIL

O.k. one more time for the kids that need some extra special attention:

It has never been so warm, the rate of warming is unprecedented, look:


gisp2-11.jpg

THIS SEQUENCE WILL BE IN RED (as reference) in the coming graphs

Back in time a little more:

gisp2-21.jpg

Further......

gisp2-31.jpg

Futher (see how the red sequence is getting smaller & smaller?)

gisp2-41.jpg

Aaaaand further back in time


gisp2-51.jpg

See the holocene kicking in at -10,000? The last ice age.
And a bit further back in time:

gisp2-61.jpg

And yes, the temperature range from the first picture has been condensed to nly a couple of pixels.

The temperature data depicted are based on the GRID2 ice core samples.

Scientifically accepted proxy data.

And for ignorant people like you: here's the RAW data

Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.

Alley, R.B. 2000. The You...19:213-226.

Put them in Excel and make your own graph if you don't believe the above.


To make it even funnier:

If you want to go back further in time, you have to take the Vostock ice core data AS PUBLISHED IN NATURE, which then look like this:

gisp2-71.jpg

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, J. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature 399:429-436.

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel,...99:429-436.




So again: UNPRECEDENTED WARMING? MY ASS!!

and blowing up dust by bringing up new topics, if you can't even get the basics correct yet, is just a silly attempt to avoid your prior fails. but it will not work. first resolve the old problems and mistakes you made, THEN we can get to the next level



Dust? See the cycles in the last graph?
Milankovic came with a decent theory how these come to be.


That's what they call..... TADAAAAA........... the Milakovic cycles



the current speed of warming is unique. if you don't trust NASA, then at least do the research, (on non-conpiracy-sites please) there are plenty of other sources to find. I'm not here to do your homework




The current speed of warming is unique if you dont go back further in time then 600 years.
That's what NASA does.

In gereral, that what is called cherry picking.

If you go back further in time, beyond 1400 AD, then you see that the current speed of warming is NOT unique.


That's why paleogeologists frown their eyebrows when they hear people saying shit like you do.


FFS: look up medieval warm period. 1000 years ago it was warmer then it is now.
These are well established facts you choose to ignore.


.

[Edited 1/9/20 22:50pm]

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #128 posted 01/09/20 11:04pm

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

the current speed of warming is


+0.128 °C/decade (UAH Satellites)
+0.161 °C/decade (GISS Surface stations)
+0.160 °C/decade (HadCRUT Surface stations)
+0.158 °C/decade (RSS Satellites)

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #129 posted 01/09/20 11:23pm

maplenpg

avatar

Tweety said:FFS: look up medieval warm period. 1000 years ago it was warmer then it is now.
These are well established facts you choose to ignore.

I did. This is the top answer under Wiki. It even has graphs for you https://skepticalscience....ediate.htm

We are all okay, as long as "we" are the ones living on top of the empire of eternal war. - Jaawwnn
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #130 posted 01/09/20 11:43pm

BombSquad

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

It has never been so warm, the rate of warming is unprecedented

huh? you've gone totally nuts now? I mean... TOTALLY???



I have always and ever just talked about the speed of warming.

but neither me nor anyone I know has ever made that claim




?????



LMFAO so dipshit enjoys to fight the bogeyman within his mind, and gets happy to prove wrong arguments he JUST MADE UP HIMSELF?!?!?

gettehfuckoutyousillyturd!!!! LOLLOL

FAIL


I did not continue reading from here, someone who simply makes up stuff on the fly just to have something to argue about, and argues against claims noone has ever said except himself, is not worth to waste any more time.

so enjoy now to argue with yourself, you schizo clown. have fun! it's looking good, it seems you could at least win then!






[Edited 1/10/20 1:19am]

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #131 posted 01/10/20 12:44am

BombSquad

avatar

maplenpg said:

Tweety said:FFS: look up medieval warm period. 1000 years ago it was warmer then it is now.
These are well established facts you choose to ignore.

I did. This is the top answer under Wiki. It even has graphs for you https://skepticalscience....ediate.htm

LMFAO!!!

mann08_s6e_eivGLlandocean.png

The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, and as can be seen in Figure 4, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.



talking about cherry picking LMFAO
FAIL





he should have follwed his own advice and look it up before posting LOL

so I was too optimistic... cause now he even loses when arguing with himself....

congrats... that's quite an achievment LOL



and once again this proves he posts just shit and empty catch phrases he knows NOTHING about
Medieval Warm period? that sounds great! I'll use that!




now watch him throw up more dust (Milankovic cycles? Gleissberg cycle? NAO? Yaddayadda? BLABLABLA?) in another pathetic attempt to divert from his newest major fuckup



[Edited 1/10/20 2:59am]

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #132 posted 01/10/20 4:45am

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

TweetyV6 said:

It has never been so warm, the rate of warming is unprecedented

huh? you've gone totally nuts now? I mean... TOTALLY???



I have always and ever just talked about the speed of warming.

but neither me nor anyone I know has ever made that claim


Did I quote you??

It's a general statement often made: "20xx was the warmest year bla-di-bla". It has been made by many media outlets and alarmists. And you probably yelled or at least defended that shit. But I'm too lazy to look that up.

Your claim is what is clearly to see NOT the case. The warming rate is not unprecedented in paleogeological times.

So you FAIL

.


I did not continue reading from here

As I said. Ignorant AF.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #133 posted 01/10/20 5:51am

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

maplenpg said:

Tweety said:FFS: look up medieval warm period. 1000 years ago it was warmer then it is now.
These are well established facts you choose to ignore.

I did. This is the top answer under Wiki. It even has graphs for you https://skepticalscience....ediate.htm


now watch him throw up more dust


Dust?

How about facts? Here're some scientific researches that say the MWP was a global fenomenon and not local.

1.

120 proxies all over the northern hemisphere. Source:

Ljungqvist, F.C., Krusic, P.J., Brattstrom, G. and Sundqvist, H.S. 2012. Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries. Climate of the Past 8: 227-249.

5 Conclusions

A principal importance of this study is that it helps demonstrate that the science of paleoclimatology, particularly the collection and interpretation of proxy records, is capable of producing a body of evidence that can reveal many details of climate variability over time and space. Our results show, in a comparative manner, the degree to which the various proxy types can be used to assess regional temperature variability on centennial time-scales. We conclude that during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread NH warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to that of the 20th century mean.

2.
91 Proxies in the extra tropical northern hemisphere. Source
B. Christiansen and F. C. Ljungqvist: The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature. Climate of the Past 8: 765–786, 2012

6 Conclusions

....

Our two-millennia long reconstruction has a welldefined peak in the period 950–1050 AD with a maximum temperature anomaly of 0.6 ◦C. The timing of the peak of the MWP in our reconstruction is in agreement with the reconstructions of Esper et al. (2002a) and Ljungqvist (2010).

+0,6C is higher then the current +0,48

3.
Chinese temperature reconstructions. Source

Ge, Q., Liu, H., Ma, X., Zheng, J., & Hao, Z. (2017). Characteristics of temperature change in China over the last 2000 years and spatial patterns of dryness/wetness during cold and warm periods. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 34(8), 941–951. doi:10.1007/s00376-017-6238-8

4. Conclusion

In this paper we report on a number of high-resolution proxies, paleoclimatic reconstructions, and new results through CCCP2k studies attained over the last five years. The following points can be concluded from this work: (1) Multi-proxy synthesized reconstructions for China show significant cycles in temperature variation over the last 2000 years, including 50–70-yr, 100–120-yr, and 200–250- yr cycles. At the same time, the amplitudes for decadal and centennial variation in temperature are 1.3◦C and 0.7◦C, respectively, and centennial variation is significantly correlated with long-term changes in solar radiation—especially cold periods, which correspond approximately to sunspot minima, as well as the frequency of large volcanic eruptions. Results further show that the linear warming trend across the whole of China was 0.56◦ ±0.42◦C (100 yr)−1 for the period between AD 1870 and AD 2000. This was very likely the most rapid in the last 2000 years, although a similar warming rate also occurred in intervals between cold and warm periods before the 20th century. The warmth of the 20th century may not be unprecedented over the last 2000 years; the temperature of two peaks at AD 1080 and AD 1250 during the MCA are comparable.

4.
Southern hemisphere; South Africa. Source

Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51.

Conclusions

The strong correlation between colour changes in annual growth layers of a stalagmite taken from Cold Air Cave in northeastern South Africa and regional annual maximum temperatures has allowed a statistical transfer function to be developed for estimating stalagmite-derived regional air temperature variation for the past 3000 years. The derived preliminary annual maximum temperature series is the longest continuous high-resolution terrestrial temperature series of its kind for the southern African Holocene. It appears that major warm episodes occurred at around 900 BC and 100 BC. Medieval warming was a distinctive feature of the record at around AD 900. The highest annual maximum temperatures in three millennia were recorded in an abrupt event at around 1500, when the anomaly reached 3°C above the 1961–1990 mean. Thereafter followed an abrupt change to the cooler period characterizing the South African Little Ice Age. From 1500 to 1800 cooling was at its most pronounced in 3000 years and is estimated as around 1°C by the model. Little evidence of a post mid-nineteenth century warming is present in the proxy annual maximum temperature series

Want more?


By the way...
Skepticalscience.org is for climate science what answersingenesis.org is for the bible

Laughable.


The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #134 posted 01/10/20 8:19am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Peer review or stop

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #135 posted 01/13/20 7:39am

BombSquad

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

Did I quote you??


It's a general statement often made: "20xx was the warmest year bla-di-bla". It has been made by many media outlets and alarmists. And you probably yelled or at least defended that shit. But I'm too lazy to look that up.


I made a claim about speed

you said it's wrong
I corrected you again.

ping pong


now you suddenly argue agaisntg random other claims from random bogeyman in your mind, you fool.

fine, if you want to do that talking to your own opposite selve, cool

but leave me out of it! and do not put your freaking self talk in an unconnected reply to my post, you confused little turd



GET YOUR FUCKING ACT TOGETHER FIRST, HOLYFUCKINGSHIT



Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #136 posted 01/13/20 7:44am

BombSquad

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

By the way...
Skepticalscience.org is for climate science what answersingenesis.org is for the bible

Laughable.

fine. wiki says it too in the first paragraph

it's all based on plenty of links, all available there

your old ignorant cherrypicking bullshit game is fucked up and irrelevant

and LAUGHABLE

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #137 posted 01/13/20 11:31pm

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

TweetyV6 said:


I made a claim about speed

you said it's wrong
I corrected you again.

ping pong


now you suddenly argue agaisntg random other claims from random bogeyman in your mind, you fool.

fine, if you want to do that talking to your own opposite selve, cool

but leave me out of it! and do not put your freaking self talk in an unconnected reply to my post, you confused little turd



GET YOUR FUCKING ACT TOGETHER FIRST, HOLYFUCKINGSHIT




Semantics.

I showed that even the rate (speed) of warming is not unprecedented.
How about that?


And let me point out one other thing: (But being the ingnorant little prick that you are, you probably won't read it and even if you'd read it you'd probably not comprehend due to your limited congnitive abilities)

The speed of warming as per instrumental data can be significantly less then how its depicted.
Why? (now it becomes very technical and you're entering my field of expertise; MSA, measurment System Analysis, looking at measuring method &- suitability and measurment data processing, -integrity and -accuracy)

In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI) has one of the most accurate set-ups for measuring temperatures; a PT500 element with a SIAM transmitter

The PT500 needle has an accuracy of ±0.05°C at 0°C
The SIAM transmitter has a resolution of 0.1°C

So the system-uncertainty is ±0.15°C at 0°C

Source: KNMI Specification (PDF Page 11, chaper 3 "Instrumenten & Techniek")


Now have a look at the temperature axis of our graphs and relate that to the above......
And keep in mind that over 98% of all other weatherstations don't have such an accurate measurement set-up...



You're as clueless as clueless can be.

You don't demonstrate any technical knowledge that have aquired yourself.
You're simply not fit to discuss this.
You're an uneducated little ignorant prick.



You are: D*U*M*B*S*Q*U*A*D


The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #138 posted 01/13/20 11:34pm

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Peer review or stop


All published papers are peer reviewed.
But then again... peer reviewed is overrated. Have a look on the facebook account of 'retraction watch' and be amazed how many publications are retracted.

Peer review has deteriorated to friends review

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #139 posted 01/14/20 7:27am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Tweety is the ultimate Gish Galloper.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #140 posted 01/14/20 11:05pm

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Tweety is the ultimate Gish Galloper.


Hey 2freaky"peer reviewed"4church1

Go find me the one peer reviewed EMPIRICAL RESEARCH (you know, based on actual data, not on model predictions) which beyond any doubt proves that man made CO2 causes global warming/climate change/severe weather disturbances.

Go fetch, Freaky... GO!

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #141 posted 01/17/20 12:55am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

But scientists have long dismissed such claims, which confuse isolated weather patterns with long-term climate trends. Last year, Australia experienced its hottest and driest year on record. One day of rain does not erase decades of data predicting that Australia’s fire seasons would do exactly what they have done this year — become longer and more intense.

“Weather is what we get, day to day, and this varies in the short term,” says an explanation from Australia’s Climate Council. “Climate is the long-term average of the weather patterns we experience, usually taken over 30 years or longer.”

"Families are torn apart, men women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find their parents have gone missing." - Anne Frank
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #142 posted 01/17/20 6:04am

jaawwnn

avatar

First you refuse to admit it's happening, then you admit it's happening but say it's not caused by humans, then you admit humans are causing it, start blaming black people for having too many children and accuse them of getting rich by playing the victim, you close your borders and start enacting more and more racist laws saying you have to protect your own.

This is the rough trajectory, each country will have its own quirks and group(s) to blame. They will always be the most marginal in that society though. We've seen it all before and we know the playbook.



[Edited 1/17/20 6:08am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 5 of 5 <12345
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Scientist says manmade climate change is not real - a political scam