HOME | DD
Valendale β Climate Deniers in a Nutshell
#climate #conservative #denial #idiot #idiots #propaganda #reactionary #rightwing #climatechange #climatedenial #climatescience #globalwarming
Published: 2014-10-15 11:38:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 1680; Favourites: 14; Downloads: 2
Redirect to original
Description
Global Warming is a hoax.Because it's cold.
Today.
Where I live.
Climate Deniers continue to be triumphalist every time climate cycles hit a low.
And continue to imagine that science is a mere matter of party politics.
And continue to lie about climate trends and repeat debunked pseudoscience propaganda put out by the oil and coal industry because they read it on a blog somewhere.
Winter is Coming, and the McExperts are on the way.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqβ¦
Related content
Comments: 14
Climate Change Alarmists have lost all credibility.
π: 1 β©: 1
Climate Deniers are worse that the polar bears suits.
From the perspective of the scientifically literate there are idiots on both sides, and the side climate deniers are on went full creatard, they listen to propaganda financed by oil and coal companies and believe it because it appeals to their political biases and feeds them soundbytes and blog tropes and a hand full of aid industry shills who are no different than tobacco science deniers.
Watch potholer54's series on climate change and debunk it if you think it's wrong.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't deny climate change, the causes of it are more the just the CO2 levels.Β The Climate Change Alarmists propaganda financed by unknown sources worry be more than the propaganda financed by oil and coal companies.
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course it's more than just CO2 levels, no climate scientist has ever claimed that CO2 was the only factor that effects the climate.
*propaganda financed*
The raw climate data isn't propaganda, when climate scientists observe a rise in surface temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice caps, thinning ice sheets, and an average upwards trend, that's not propaganda.
This isn't a matter of opinion or politics, the climate deniers want to make it about opinion and politics and invoke some conspiracy theory to explain away the evidence and pretend it's up for debate, and deliberately skew the evidence by cherry picking the data and falling back on conspiracy theories when that fails.
Among actual climate scientists there is no debate about whether the earth is warming, and there is very little debate about human impact, and what debate their is isn't about whether humans do impact the climate, it's about how much and how severely and what the long term effects might be.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not talking about scientists, I'm talking about The Climate Change Alarmists that claim climate change causes racism, earthquakes, and that the US should destroy it's economy while China is the main problem for green house gases.
π: 0 β©: 1
Who claims that it causes racism or earthquakes?
"that the US should destroy it's economy"
The ones calling for a Green New Deal actually want changes that would revitalize the US economy.
"China is the main problem"
Shanghai in particular is indeed a huge problem in regards to pollution, with global consequences, and not only for the climate.
π: 0 β©: 1
The stupidest things that are blamed on climate change come from actors.
Most Green energy plans would raise the cost of energy and cause rationing of electricity which would destroy the US economy.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Most Green energy plans would raise the cost of energy"
Specify, give an example of this "most" you're talking about. Because if you're talking about a Green New Deal built around sustainable and renewable energy sources, that wouldn't destroy the US economy nor would it lead to energy rationing, in fact it would have the opposite effects, it would stimulate the economy and increase the energy security of the US, lowering dependence on expensive and deletable fossil fuels.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sustainable and renewable energy sources are not reliable enough it this time to replace all forms of energy yet.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Sustainable and renewable energy sources are not reliable enough it this time to replace all forms of energy yet."
They're reliable enough to drastically reduce our dependence on depletable energy sources. They can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower the costΒ of energy, and make what non-renewable fuels we have last longer and allow them to be put to better use.
π: 0 β©: 1
They can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions but they are raising the cost of energy not lowering it.
π: 0 β©: 1
The cost of constantly replacing expensive and diminishing oil and coal is a constant burden than can be offset with renewables, bringing down the costs of energy. A green new deal could revitalize the economy, minimize costs, and help transition away from an unsustainable and costly system.
π: 0 β©: 0
