How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God

a reply to: jrod

Asked and answered numerous times before...I'm not holding hands and skipping down that road yet again. You have always ignored, refuted, or disregarded everything before. I have learned my lesson. I'm like that old fish that doesn't bite at hooks anymore...

Watched either video yet?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So what you posted on this thread(page 2) are the arguments that made you a skeptic?

Nope. Still on my cellphone that is not YT friendly. Why can't you give us(others and myself who are burdened by watcing YT clips) a brief summary?

If you have information that could change the mind of a reasonable person, why not share?
(You may might change my mind, but I'm not the only person who reads these threads

the problem is people worrying about this after reading it on their phone, in their car on their way to buy french fries a reply to: jrod

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So what you posted on this thread(page 2) are the arguments that made you a skeptic?

That's a tiny slice of the pie.

Why can't you give us(others and myself who are burdened by watcing YT clips) a brief summary?

Asked an answered. I'm not going to do the work that doesn't need to be done--again, you have had ample time to watch the video if it really was your intention to do so (and it was a reply directly to you, for your benefit...it wasn't really meant for everyone else, who also can find a way to watch it).

If you have information that could change the mind of a reasonable person, why not share?

I've provided counter-data to your claims numerous times on ATS, over quite a few years at this point. Regurgitating things simply to appease you is not in my best interest. It's like Tough Mudders and Spartan Races...once you've been through enough of the grueling events, you come to the realization that it's just not something that you really feel a need to do anymore.

Yes, providing data multiple times in multiple threads on ATS is tantamount to a grueling event...especially when it generally gets glossed over.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

When have you provided data that tells a 40% increase of CO2 will NOT have consequences?

If you want to dispute the source of CO2, then provide 3vidence that it is not coming from human sources.

Lastly, no I do not have time to watch youtube clips, and they dont work well on my old busted phone that often has spotty and slow internet connection. It should only take a few minutes for you to type a summary....less time than it took you to post on this thread. Maybe RickyD will have the time.

a reply to: jrod

Just end it. You obviously have never paid attention to me (or at least committed much to memory), and that fact that you imply that you never have another type of device that connects to the internet, while possibly true, leaves me skeptical.

I don't think that you care about contrarian evidence to your own acceptance of the AGW theory, and I don't think that you care to watch the videos which discuss evidence--it's that simple for me, so I'm not going to cater to that perceived attitude.

Best Regards--this thread, for me at least, has run its course.

None of the world major growing economies are ever going to embark in suicidal idiotic western proposed bans on fossil fuels. The west itself is simply outright lying.
The west, especially the EU has created a bubble around electric cars during the past 8 years or so. This is about to burst that's why we are seeing idiotic claims from France and other countries to be ready to abandon fossil fuels within 15-20 years. Also these are very poor claims, as in less then 5 years they will all be gone and these anti-economical suicidal policies will come down like a brick. What they are saying on the media is purely to keep the bubble up as long as they can.

Western clowns themselves know very well that it will take a small improvement in the way that internal combustion engine work to render any possible electric car company completely bankrupt. Such engines already exist for some military usage in Russia, China and the US but are restricted at the moment due to their quasi-secret nature.

I am talking about and internal combustion engines that can operate with diesel or gasoline and in its current efficiency could give a BMW330-equivalent the efficiency of 100km / 1Liter

40% increase in CO2..

So what?

"Well, muh feedback effect, ice caps will melt, US will be underwater, blah, blah, blah."

Nope, maybe we should be calling it "Beneficial Anthropomorphic Global Warming".

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: jrod

Just end it. You obviously have never paid attention to me (or at least committed much to memory), and that fact that you imply that you never have another type of device that connects to the internet, while possibly true, leaves me skeptical.

I don't think that you care about contrarian evidence to your own acceptance of the AGW theory, and I don't think that you care to watch the videos which discuss evidence--it's that simple for me, so I'm not going to cater to that perceived attitude.

Best Regards--this thread, for me at least, has run its course.

In case you stumble upon a decent alternative theory, let us know. Decent, as in "not shallow youtube vids from big oils PR management idiots but actual data". Nemesis maybe? Nibiru?
You're out on more than one limb with calling those vids evidence. They're not worth the fuzz and didn't address the topic to begin with. Just saying.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thank you for your input and your timely reply.

As for the videos, they were directed at JROD's complaint about Al Gore being brought into the discussion, and both videos discuss Al Gore. And I never called the videos evidence--in fact, I included them following the phrase, "Just for fun (and it directly addresses the claim in your quote)."

Let's not pretend that I said more than I did.

Just saying.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Fair enough. With regards to our topic I think Al Gore is just a strawman, the one every big oil spindoc carries around btw. You see that, right?

Al Gore is a liar, too, thus all lies and disinfo are fine? I could understand such a stance, if that's what you're getting at, but I wont agree. And why should I?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The 3rd reply in my OP mentioned Al Gore, that poster was the 1st reply, in 5 minutes. The article I posted takes a fast reader at least 15 minutes to get through.

It was like the poster did not bother to read the article, he just wanted to quickly denounce any notion of man made climate change. Given the star count, his mindless fallback argument is more popular than my OP.

It's rather stupid to stick your head in the sand and deny, deny, deny, when it's just as easy to take some form of action to at least attempt to counter drastic climate change. taking action would most likely boost industry, create jobs, and in the end, cause no damage. Or we could just say, "I think it's bogus" and see what happens.

Who knows? Maybe what happens benefits mankind for centuries, or may nothing comes of it. What's the harm in addressing an issue that we simply don't know enough about? What's wrong with being proactive?

I really don't get the resistance simply for the sake of resisting.

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

Those who reject the notion of human induced climate change reject NASA, NOAA, and any other reputable source of information, at least it appears that way. They will listen to bloggers and shill groups like the Heartland Institue.

I think the problem is reading through scientific research is boring to most, and time consuming. While groups who reject human induced climate change have much more entertaining articles and blogs that often get an emotional response. We all hate taxes, so selling the idea that climate action is a scam to tax us more is an appealing idea. Most people do not trust the government, so it is easy to sell the idea that government institutions like NOAA and NASA are lying to us. Al Gore obviously is an easy strawman to tear down....

It was almost comical to me at first, but now we have a president, house, and senate who all deny man's role in the changing climate. Their actions or inactions could have consequences that future generations will pay for.

a reply to: jrod

C'mon, who on Ceres cares? You already have over a million and I'm running on fumes only.



Given the rate in which we see arctic sea ice melting, Nemesis should be visible already. Where is the alternative hypothesis now? Ya know... there's this 10°C (!) sea surface temp anomaly East of Greenland and the Jet Steams look like they've smoked too much confusion, too.
Just to mention Al Gore in this reality is kinda hilarious at best, we deserve better PR management than that.

earth nullschool link

originally posted by: jrod
It was like the poster did not bother to read the article, he just wanted to quickly denounce any notion of man made climate change. Given the star count, his mindless fallback argument is more popular than my OP.

But, but you're just a sheeple! lol

Wake up g'damn you D:

Topsy-turvy land.