|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 24, 2023 8:12:53 GMT
Once again you make a false argument to deflect the narrative away from your cultism. The campaign for net zero on the premise that AGW will lead to catastrophic climate change should be headed by an eminent scientist capable of making a compelling argument rather than an unqualified teenager . Making up false claims doesn’t refute the obvious but false claims are the preferred tactic of cultists . Your cultist argument is the problem . As you said. Repeating yourself doesn't change my argument. You have no argument , just a stream of false claims and straw men. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 24, 2023 8:17:50 GMT
They hate the argument that an eminent and articulate scientist should replace Greta as the face of the net zero campaign. Any false claim and strawman is fine to deflect away from the point . It’s pure cultism and it’s quite worrying tbh . If I may intervene without the risk of having my post being withdrawn, one reason ( there will be more ) is there are well informed scientists who aren't convinced by the warmist's arguments and will readily point out the everchanging revisions to the calculations when they don't produce the desired answer. Indeed. That could be inferred from a campaign supposed to be based on science but headed by an unqualified teenager . Its strange that it’s not obvious to the ones enamoured by Thunberg. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 24, 2023 8:27:40 GMT
That you insist on seeing a campaigner as a cult leader, and insist upon seeing me as one of her followers in spite of the fact that I do not follow her.....well that is the modus operandi of a typical denialist. If you dont want to be called a denialist, it might help if you stopped sounding like one. I don’t sound like one because I’ve told you that I agree with AGW . You sound like a cultist because you accuse me of being a denialist to hide your cultism . That’s what cultist do . I'm going to accept you in good faith and make a note of this thread. That you fully agree that climate change is happening and that its man made. Your only complaint is that Greta Thumberg has a voice in it, which you consider to be our climate change spokesperson. Incidentally, how did you vote in my poll? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 24, 2023 8:35:17 GMT
I don’t sound like one because I’ve told you that I agree with AGW . You sound like a cultist because you accuse me of being a denialist to hide your cultism . That’s what cultist do . I'm going to accept you in good faith and make a note of this thread. That you fully agree that climate change is happening and that its man made. Your only complaint is that Greta Thumberg has a voice in it, which you consider to be our climate change spokesperson. Incidentally, how did you vote in my poll? Even after pages of posts you still deliberately make false claims . Then you post this nonsense about accepting me in good faith. As someone who whines about trolling ( even a little diatribe and discussion on a thread dedicated to it ) you seem to embrace it . Stop lying in a mind zone thread . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2023 8:43:19 GMT
They hate the argument that an eminent and articulate scientist should replace Greta as the face of the net zero campaign. Any false claim and strawman is fine to deflect away from the point . It’s pure cultism and it’s quite worrying tbh . If I may intervene without the risk of having my post being withdrawn, one reason ( there will be more ) is there are well informed scientists who aren't convinced by the warmist's arguments and will readily point out the everchanging revisions to the calculations when they don't produce the desired answer. Only a tiny percentage of the worlds scientists deny global warming is taking place and with little backing. For one thing, sea level has measurably risen, ice sheets are visibly melting, global temperatures have been measured to be increasing. CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas which is transparent to visible light but opaque to infra red, which means it lets in light but when it hits a surface and converts into heat it tends not to let it out. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been measured to have pretty much doubled since preindustrial times. Basic science suggests that in the absence of some other natural force counteracting it, eg the sun cooling down or volcanic ash blocking light, such a large increase in CO2 is bound to cause warming. And that most if not all of this increase in CO2 is man made is pretty much obvious as well as there has mean no measurable increase in natural CO2 production but massive increases in the amount of CO2 produced by human activities related to the burning of coal and oil in various forms and ways. Even a layman can join those dots. Yet it is curious how so many people of a certain age refuse to see this, view those of us who follow the science as "cultists" whilst demonstrating to all sensible people that it is they who are in denial about reality. Obsessing about Greta Thunberg who is a mere campaigner and using her prominence as an excuse to ignore the scientists as Bentley has been doing is just another example of desperate intellectual straw clutching. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 24, 2023 8:49:17 GMT
If I may intervene without the risk of having my post being withdrawn, one reason ( there will be more ) is there are well informed scientists who aren't convinced by the warmist's arguments and will readily point out the everchanging revisions to the calculations when they don't produce the desired answer. Only a tiny percentage of the worlds scientists deny global warming is taking place and with little backing. For one thing, sea level has measurably risen, ice sheets are visibly melting, global temperatures have been measured to be increasing. CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas which is transparent to visible light but opaque to infra red, which means it lets in light but when it hits a surface and converts into heat it tends not to let it out. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been measured to have pretty much doubled since preindustrial times. Basic science suggests that in the absence of some other natural force counteracting it, eg the sun cooling down or volcanic ash blocking light, such a large increase in CO2 is bound to cause warming. And that most if not all of this increase in CO2 is man made is pretty much obvious as well as there has mean no measurable increase in natural CO2 resources but massive increases in the amount of CO2 produced by human activities related to the burning of coal and oil in various forms and ways. Even a layman can join those dots. Yet it is curious how so many people of a certain age refuse to see this, view those of us who follow the science as "cultists" whilst demonstrating to all sensible people that it is they who are in denial about reality. Obsessing about Greta Thunberg who is a mere campaigner and using her prominence as an excuse to ignore the scientists as Bentley has been doing is just another example of desperat intellectual straw clutching. I’m not the one obsessed by Thunberg . I’m not the one making excuses , fakes claims and strawmen to refute the obvious ie the net zero campaign should be headed by a scientist and not an unqualified teenager ( even to the point of calling me a denialist). Had you accepted my point rather than post a string of fallacies then we could of moved on . Instead you exhibited cultist behaviour. You are the problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2023 8:49:32 GMT
That you insist on seeing a campaigner as a cult leader, and insist upon seeing me as one of her followers in spite of the fact that I do not follow her.....well that is the modus operandi of a typical denialist. If you dont want to be called a denialist, it might help if you stopped sounding like one. I don’t sound like one because I’ve told you that I agree with AGW . You sound like a cultist because you accuse me of being a denialist to hide your cultism . That’s what cultist do . If you believe that man made global warming is a reality, why are you arguing like someone who doesnt believe in it, calling those who do cultists? I tell you what. You stop idiotically calling me a cultist for believing in what you yourself are claiming to believe in and I will stop calling you a denialist. How did you vote in Zany's poll by the way? Because you dont sound like someone who believes in AGW. People who believe in AGW tend not to regard everyone else who believes in it as cultists. You are not convincing me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2023 8:56:02 GMT
Only a tiny percentage of the worlds scientists deny global warming is taking place and with little backing. For one thing, sea level has measurably risen, ice sheets are visibly melting, global temperatures have been measured to be increasing. CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas which is transparent to visible light but opaque to infra red, which means it lets in light but when it hits a surface and converts into heat it tends not to let it out. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been measured to have pretty much doubled since preindustrial times. Basic science suggests that in the absence of some other natural force counteracting it, eg the sun cooling down or volcanic ash blocking light, such a large increase in CO2 is bound to cause warming. And that most if not all of this increase in CO2 is man made is pretty much obvious as well as there has mean no measurable increase in natural CO2 resources but massive increases in the amount of CO2 produced by human activities related to the burning of coal and oil in various forms and ways. Even a layman can join those dots. Yet it is curious how so many people of a certain age refuse to see this, view those of us who follow the science as "cultists" whilst demonstrating to all sensible people that it is they who are in denial about reality. Obsessing about Greta Thunberg who is a mere campaigner and using her prominence as an excuse to ignore the scientists as Bentley has been doing is just another example of desperat intellectual straw clutching. I’m not the one obsessed by Thunberg . I’m not the one making excuses , fakes claims and strawmen to refute the obvious ie the net zero campaign should be headed by a scientist and not an unqualified teenager ( even to the point of calling me a denialist). Had you accepted my point rather than post a string of fallacies then we could of moved on . Instead you exhibited cultist behaviour. You are the problem. If you think I am the problem you clearly understand very little. Thunberg is not a leader, just one of the most high profile campaigners. Yet for telling you that truth I am supposedly part of some cult that usually only exists in the heads of climate change deniers. I do not even follow Thunberg myself. I tend to get my information from books, TV and radio documentaries, and New Scientist magazine which I buy every week. I might suggest the latter for you as a source of science education, rather than using Thunberg's existence as an excuse not to listen to the scientists, which truly is intellectually feeble. You are the most unconvincing supposedly believer in AGW that I have ever met and doubt that it is true. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 24, 2023 8:56:52 GMT
I don’t sound like one because I’ve told you that I agree with AGW . You sound like a cultist because you accuse me of being a denialist to hide your cultism . That’s what cultist do . If you believe that man made global warming is a reality, why are you arguing like someone who doesnt believe in it, calling those who do cultists? I tell you what. You stop idiotically calling me a cultist for believing in what you yourself are claiming to believe in and I will stop calling you a denialist. How did you vote in Zany's poll by the way? Because you dont sound like someone who believes in AGW. People who believe in AGW tend not to regard everyone else who believes in it as cultists. You are not convincing me. Then stop acting like a cultist . My point was about the campaign and it’s main flaw . I never addressed the reality of AGW until you and the other poster called me denialist . You still can’t help yourself by calling me a denialist again , even after I have told you otherwise. It’s a classic cultist reaction . As soon as I questioned Thunberg heading the campaign two of its followers went into knee jerk false claims and strawmen mode. The campaign for net zero should be headed by an eminent scientist who can proffer a compelling argument based on the catastrophic results of climate change not an unqualified teenager. How you two think that equates to being a denialist can only be explained as having a cultist mentality. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 24, 2023 8:58:32 GMT
I don’t sound like one because I’ve told you that I agree with AGW . You sound like a cultist because you accuse me of being a denialist to hide your cultism . That’s what cultist do . I'm going to accept you in good faith and make a note of this thread. That you fully agree that climate change is happening and that its man made. Your only complaint is that Greta Thumberg has a voice in it, which you consider to be our climate change spokesperson. Incidentally, how did you vote in my poll? I thought the poll wasn't supposed to identify individuals so why are you asking. All I can tell you is that your view continues to be in the minority. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 24, 2023 9:00:26 GMT
I’m not the one obsessed by Thunberg . I’m not the one making excuses , fakes claims and strawmen to refute the obvious ie the net zero campaign should be headed by a scientist and not an unqualified teenager ( even to the point of calling me a denialist). Had you accepted my point rather than post a string of fallacies then we could of moved on . Instead you exhibited cultist behaviour. You are the problem. If you think I am the problem you clearly understand very little. Thunberg is not a leader, just one of the most high profile campaigners. Yet for telling you that truth I am supposedly part of some cult that usually only exists in the heads of climate change deniers. I do not even follow Thunberg myself. I tend to get my information from books, TV and radio documentaries, and New Scientist magazine which I buy every week. I might suggest the latter for you as a source of science education, rather than using Thunberg's existence as an excuse not to listen to the scientists, which truly is intellectually feeble. You are the most unconvincing supposedly believer in AGW that I have ever met and doubt that it is true. Thunberg is the face of the climate change campaign . Don’t try to deny it . She is far , far more well known that any climate scientist. Once again you call me a denier because I question who is the head of a campaign but not the basis of the campaign . Classic cultist reaction . Every time you post . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 24, 2023 9:05:02 GMT
I don’t sound like one because I’ve told you that I agree with AGW . You sound like a cultist because you accuse me of being a denialist to hide your cultism . That’s what cultist do . If you believe that man made global warming is a reality, why are you arguing like someone who doesnt believe in it, calling those who do cultists? I tell you what. You stop idiotically calling me a cultist for believing in what you yourself are claiming to believe in and I will stop calling you a denialist. How did you vote in Zany's poll by the way? Because you dont sound like someone who believes in AGW. People who believe in AGW tend not to regard everyone else who believes in it as cultists. You are not convincing me. And again you deliberately make a false claim that to question Thunberg as the head of the net zero campaign is to question the basis of the campaign. Completely dishonest and cultist . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2023 9:08:51 GMT
If you believe that man made global warming is a reality, why are you arguing like someone who doesnt believe in it, calling those who do cultists? I tell you what. You stop idiotically calling me a cultist for believing in what you yourself are claiming to believe in and I will stop calling you a denialist. How did you vote in Zany's poll by the way? Because you dont sound like someone who believes in AGW. People who believe in AGW tend not to regard everyone else who believes in it as cultists. You are not convincing me. Then stop acting like a cultist . My point was about the campaign and it’s main flaw . I never addressed the reality of AGW until you and the other poster called me denialist . You still can’t help yourself by calling me a denialist again , even after I have told you otherwise. It’s a classic cultist reaction . As soon as I questioned Thunberg heading the campaign two of its followers went into knee jerk false claims and strawmen mode. The campaign for net zero should be headed by an eminent scientist who can proffer a compelling argument based on the catastrophic results of climate change not an unqualified teenager. How you two think that equates to being a denialist can only be explained as having a cultist mentality. You can call a duck a flying elephant as much as you like but it doesnt make it true. In calling me a cultist simply because I believe in the science and do not share your hostility to a particular campaigner, who I personally do not follow anyway, you are blatantly lying about me to my face just to be provocative. I don't believe you want to believe in the science. You sound like someone who doesn't. How did you vote in Zany's poll again? You sound highly disingenuous and your obsession with Thunberg as a supposed leader is very cult like itself, the cult of intellectual denialism. If you actually believe in AGW, how about being a lot more constructive and stop obsessing about Thunberg who isnt even a scientist and doesnt claim to be and whom neither of us follow and talk about the actual science? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 24, 2023 9:11:24 GMT
Note that two posters on here claim that questioning an unqualified teenager as head of a campaign based on science instead of a scientist equates to denying the science .
Strange .
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 24, 2023 9:15:07 GMT
Then stop acting like a cultist . My point was about the campaign and it’s main flaw . I never addressed the reality of AGW until you and the other poster called me denialist . You still can’t help yourself by calling me a denialist again , even after I have told you otherwise. It’s a classic cultist reaction . As soon as I questioned Thunberg heading the campaign two of its followers went into knee jerk false claims and strawmen mode. The campaign for net zero should be headed by an eminent scientist who can proffer a compelling argument based on the catastrophic results of climate change not an unqualified teenager. How you two think that equates to being a denialist can only be explained as having a cultist mentality. You can call a duck a flying elephant as much as you like but it doesnt make it true. In calling me a cultist simply because I believe in the science and do not share your hostility to a particular campaigner, who I personally do not follow anyway, you are blatantly lying about me to my face just to be provocative. I don't believe you want to believe in the science. You sound like someone who doesn't. How did you vote in Zany's poll again? You sound highly disingenuous and your obsession with Thunberg as a supposed leader is very cult like itself, the cult of intellectual denialism. If you actually believe in AGW, how about being a lot more constructive and stop obsessing about Thunberg who isnt even a scientist and doesnt claim to be and whom neither of us follow and talk about the actual science? It’s not my obsession I am pointing out the cultist behaviour of two posters who believe that claiming a scientist should lead the net zero campaign rather than an unqualified teenager equates to denying the science . Not once have either of your addressed the point . Instead you repeat the same false claims . You are the obsessed ones not me . |
|
