A lesson in History of Climate alarmism

Originally posted by zipperlip: ↑

Well bell, if you want to see a classic case of a poster twisting the 6 degrees of separation into a load of personified, self satisfying dribble with a tenuous link to other people’s misfortune and a total disregard for their families heartbreak and sorrow, right at the pointy end?
I think you should read your own post!

You have total faith in an unproven theory and think that if others don’t believe they’re stupid?

Haven’t you twigged to the fact that the posters that you habitually come up against here are people that have thought enough and have as strong enough opinion to debate the discussion with you and others?
Stupid people and the silent majority who don’t give a toss, wouldn’t bother or care.

I don’t mind the general slander of the other team but reducing the discussion to a personal level and using a sloppy, ineffectual suggestion that STB is stupid or upset about a puff piece in Bloomberg News only shines a light on your own insecurities or is it just a lack of maturity?

If you really had total faith in your belief that the fires in the east are the direct result of CO2 of the man made variety you would of had a shot at my statement, I left enough massive holes for a simple minded believer to, at a minimum, at least pull the proverbial

I hope you understand that I’ve only written this because I think both sides benefit from the discussion but it shouldn’t be to hard to frame the argy bargy in a general way as opposed to singling out a poster.
I know and understand that we all can overstep, in the joy of the discussion and I wouldn’t dream of shaping any discussion I’m involved in by reporting or interfering as I believe in free speech and giving everyone the opportunity to put their foot in their mouth.

Have a little think and try harder as we continue on our journey of discovery, please. zip

Expand

You ask;
"You have total faith in an and think that if others don't believe they are stupid?"

That is where confusion sets in as such emotive words often send people off at a tangent.

I suggest alarmists are more inclined to trust probability and the potential risk/ reward scenario in relation to acting or not acting on climate change.

Alarmists are IMO more able to give a clearer picture regarding probability compared to denialists who are more inclined to say all this climate alarm is hot air, crap and scientists living the good life off the gravy train.

Which argument is more likely to be adopted by ;

a. People with a solid grasp of science?

b. People who are not keen on paying more tax to kick start green energy adoption?

c. People who believe man didn't land on the moon, the earth is flat and God created fossil fuels for us to use as we like and CO 2 helps plants grow faster?

d. People who own shares or significant interests in industry or services reliant on fossil fuels?