Home Forums Sasquatch Forum O/T: Climate Change hoax?

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 249 total)
  • Author
  • #160016

    The government there in the UK and Australia disarms its people; and they have idiots chasing people with animal tusk, and killing them like a scene out of the stone-ages and, you’ve got them fretting over “climate change.” Come on out to the Midwest ans see some real climate change but bring your snow blower and cold weather gear.

    We don’t panic when it rains isicles or snows – There are no symphonies of howls or agonizing over weather…the Europeans and Aussies do that.
    Good grief people wisen up. It’s okay to smell like sheep but you don’t have to act like them. Stand your ground and think for yourself and leave Fake News off.Now snap yourself out the trance your in.

    Amy H

    The earth can handle itself. It doesn’t need Homo sapiens. Read. Study. Quit being fed by the government machine.

    Recognize this planet is a dynamic equilibrium! It’s 4.5 billion years old. It’s gonna be a bummer if man is no longer inhabiting this rock. How many other species are extinct? Like it or not, we’re nothing special to this rock. Live well. Love. Make your life matter. Stop thinking you can control the uncontrollable.

    As Gum said, stop being sheep. The truth is out there.


    It is true that we are having bad droughts here in Oz.
    It is also true that we have had much worse during the last century.
    It is also true that the last century has been the wettest in many Millenia, according to geologists.

    We are an exceptionally dry nation that reached a carrying capacity of somewhere between 300 000 and at most 3 million inhabitants living nomadically… yet now we are approaching the mid 20 millions.

    We have built concrete suburbs over the few acres of fertile growing lands and are draining the Great Artesian basin at an alarming rate.

    A crisis is coming to Australia. Is it man-made?
    … partially, but the climate changing because of man’s activities pales in comparison to the real dangers ahead.

    Michael H

    Hilarious you’re all certain about Bigfoot and it’s existence but won’t trust black and white science.

    As for us being disarmed here in Australia nobody cares, we’ve never had a gun culture here we arnt groomed antisocial and scared of our neighbours. We handed our guns in after a massacre in 1996. There wasn’t many with guns to start with anyway and haven’t had a single mass shooting since. You’ve got a lot to learn. It’s no wonder the u.s is the world’s laughing stock at the moment.

    Michael H

    The real dangers are man Wolf …what’s the difference.


    The real dangers are man Wolf …what’s the difference.

    That’s the first true thing you’ve said. I do believe that man is dangerous. The self-justified fanatical egotistical kind. The kind that thinks it knows best and refuses to debate its ideas. The kind that believes in absolutes and refutes all opinions but their own. The kind that attacks others on social theories that suppresses freewill.


    Yeah, I’m aware of those lunatics.

    Michael H

    So you genuinely think global warming is fake? For what cause?

    Despite the clear evidence and 97% of scientists on the same page?


    Michael, it is not climate change that is fake.
    It is the alleged (by some) ‘fact’ that climate change is caused by man that is a hoax.

    Man pollutes, yes.
    Man overuses and makes infertile once-rich soils, yes.
    Man taints/sucks dry/wastes precious aquifers, yes.

    But climate change has been always happening, since the beginning of time on this rock. THAT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT!
    Man does very little that effects climate, his impact is negligible compared to the sun’s… ANOTHER IRREFUTABLE FACT!

    The discussion is NOT on ‘Climate Change’… it is on alleged ‘man-made Climate Change’ and the FACT that certain parties are using this furphy to once again steal and rob the people. My dearly departed Dad used to say ‘they’ would tax the very air we breathe if they could… well guess what… they worked out how to! And people are falling for it!

    As to the alleged ’96 Port Arthur massacre’… do your research.
    There is simply no way that Martin Bryant was capable of such an act. The poor kid was clinically an idiot who could not even hit a police car when the cops arrived at his house, yet you believe he was able to have a precision kill rate at the ‘massacre scene’?… a kill rate described by Australia’s most highly decorated soldier at the time as achievable only by one or two dozen of the world’s most highly trained soldiers?

    Don’t you think it at least suspicious the person responsible for implementing the UN Gun Laws designed to disarm world populations was in Australia days beforehand?

    Or that days before the ‘massacre’ a ‘morgue truck’ capable of carrying many bodies at once was dispatched to Tasmania of all places?

    Or that Howard had the legislation that would normally take months to write all written and ready to go within days?

    Mate, possibly you are from a city?
    I can assure you that 99% of country people here in Oz “cares” (and cared) a great deal about our freedoms. There were a hell of a lot of guns in our country back then (and still are despite the ‘laws’ rushed through by that treasonous pig Howard… buried and hidden away). I grew up with three in a rack above my own childhood bed.

    Exactly how many ‘mass shootings’ had occurred in Australia previous?… a big fat zero!

    And how many shootings of any size have occurred since, despite guns being ‘illegal’? = hundreds, if not thousands.

    Interestingly violent home invasions were a rarity before ’96 yet in the years since they have been occurring so often the media rarely even bothers reporting them any more. In just two recent years the new suburb just down the hill from where I used to live saw three violent murders and uncountable home invasions while I lived there!

    The once-peaceful road I lived in had about a dozen homes on it and mine was the ONLY one not broken into! (Big, scary Wolfhound… no gun, though I DID have a sign on the door saying I am 6’5 and armed to the teeth so choose another house, accompanied by a photo of the dude from the movie Machete)

    How on earth can any reasonable man disagree with the adage: “Criminalise guns and only criminals will have them”?

    Hell, even a bloke who claimed he lost his wife at Port Arthur stopped debating me when I asked him if he could choose to relive the day but be carrying a pistol would he?

    Amy H

    Read Michael. Dig into the literature. If you’re not astounded by what you find, then you’re not looking in the right place.

    Seriously, “effective conservation science data not dogma”, look it up. Published by Oxford university press. Many scientists have articles in it. Parroting what you hear from an obvious far-left perspective is shameful. You seem smart. Your paradigm needs a shift.


    The Paris Agreement on Climate is Another Scam to Ripoff Taxpayers and Enrich the Politicians
    Q!!Hs1Jq13jV6 3 Dec 2019 – 1:43:47 PM


    Who audits where the money actually goes?
    What % is typically categorized as costs?
    How to ‘steal’ taxpayer money?
    The ‘Con’:
    >Determine ‘topic(s)’ that have emotional pull (connect) on ‘vocal’ types
    >Create media blitz [scare] campaign (‘talking points’)(‘alarmist’)
    >Use ‘pro-narrative minded’ authorities on subject to provide foundation to support
    >Deploy ‘circular reporting’ and ‘group-think’ tactics (echo chamber) to artificially raise ‘public outcry’
    >Use ‘public outcry’ to justify billion dollar taxpayer spend
    Who audits where the money goes?
    % to original mandate?
    Salary of a US Senator?

    Salary of a US Congressman/woman?
    Salary of a US President?
    Salary of a US Vice President?
    Net worth pre_office?
    Net worth post_office?
    How do elected officials become mega/multi-millionaires?
    Logical thinking.


    “Despite the clear evidence and 97% of scientists on the same page?”

    How do you think they arrived at that 97% figure? Did they conduct a poll of scientists? No.

    The 97% is based on two papers, like the Cook study. The number was calculated by surveying papers written on climate change. It included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming. This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. Its a farce. It’s an argument from silence — that since the papers didn’t say it was not primarily manmade they stamped a yes vote on them that it was even though that was not stated.

    We have politicians saying 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible. Again, this is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. Its politicians and the media who take what they want it to say and spin it their way.


    So, Michael, the 97% figure is grossly skewed. Moreover, these universities, etc., studying climate change and writing these papers are dependent on funding, and that money, including grants from governments, would dry up if they stood up against the general consensus. There are many scientists who claim they are blackballed because they don’t tow the line and cannot be employed by these institutions whose papers were surveyed. So, the survey sampling is one sided.

    Maybe you aren’t aware of all the scientists crying foul. Here’s a quote for you,

    “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
    The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere”. (OISM)

    The signatories agree with these statements:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

    You see Michael, its not denying there has been climate change. Often times the climate alarmists spin how we are “climate deniers,” like we deny there is climate change. We don’t. We question the catastrophic predictions of climate alarmists. Its also disputed how C02 relates to global warming.

    So, let me echo what Amy wrote, “Read Michael. Dig into the literature. If you’re not astounded by what you find, then you’re not looking in the right place.”


    The Con——

    California burning.
    False flag with the climate change .
    Pelosi want work hard for a new battle against the climate change.

    How do elected officials become mega/multi-millionaires?
    Logical thinking.



    Man didn’t cause climate change because the world’s climate has been changing before man existed and it’s controlled by the earth and the sun (not man). Therefore, no matter what man does, he can’t fix something that’s natural. That would be stupid and vain.

    Amy H

    Paragraph 1-3 of effective conservation science;

    All scientific inquiry is vulnerable to misapplication of statistics, unrepeatable results, and confirmation bias. Cognitive scientists have made the case that clinging to our beliefs despite contradictions evidence is fundamental to human nature (Mercier and Sperber, 2017; Sloman and Fernbach, 2017). They argue that propensity for bias arises from our evolution as hypersocial animals and settings in which winning an argument and borrowing other people’s ideas have been favored by natural selection. Of course rigorous training is supposed to make scientists aware of these risks and prove us with methods, such as deploying double-blind experiment to mitigate this lack of objectivity.
    The struggle for objectivity is especially acute in conservation. Conservation scientists tend to be motivated by the goal of protecting biodiversity, as well as curiosity and the joy of discovery. They often have a clear image of the world they’d like to live in—a biodiverse world filled with wild and undisturbed places. That desire for specific outcomes can lead to any challenge of conventional thinking as falling outside of the bounds of “true conservation” (Forman, 2012] Or as a “dangerous worldview” (Wilson, 2016] as opposed to being a hypothesis to be tested.
    None of this is new. Over 20 years ago, the official scientific journal of the society of conservation and biology published a series of papers debating the role of advocacy in conservation science. The views ranged from ardent assertions that conservation scientists must be advocates who overtly act on their science to rejoinders that advocacy risks undermining the legitimacy of science. There is no question that conservation scientists must tread carefully, if only because their findings can directly influence whether a species is listed as endangered, whether a federal dam is relicensed, or whether a reduction in mercury emissions is considered to be worth the cost of compliance. At its best, conservation science has immediate and real world consequences. For this reason mistakes or misrepresentation do not live in scholarly journals, but they may take root in land, water and ocean management.

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 249 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.