Global Cooling?

Originally posted by lockitt: ↑

Bellcurve.

My post was in reply to Nelson's rather nasty post attacking old farts who he thinks should simply pass onto the next life and, I think he was also suggesting that we leave our worldly belongings to the much more worthy younger generations.

I personally don't trust any scientist who is suggesting climate change whether they are claiming global warming or cooling.

Maybe I did not express myself clearly in my post or, maybe you simply read my post with the preconceived idea that I was arguing for global cooling against global warming.

I simply argue that scientists cannot be trusted with their opinions simply because they are scientists, after all, many so called scientists barely scraped through their degrees under our much prostituted education system.

I have very little education in comparison to what most young people receive in these modern days but, what I do have is a lot of street smarts from being totally self supporting from the age of sixteen.
Many so called educated people now still have their mum doing their washing, cooking and telling them what they should wear, not to mention having to hold their hand to cross the street.
Give me a practical person, like a tradie any day, compared to some theorist from a uni.

Some of us less educated plebs can put our heads out the window and declare that it is raining, or fine while many educated people put their head out the window and declare it is fine, even if they get drenched, because the scientists from the Weather Bureau told them there is not going to be any rain today.
What I am saying is treat any scientific claims with a healthy amount of doubt and if, after fifty years, their short term predictions have still not come true, them you should dismiss said claims as rubbish whether or not they claim warming or cooling.

The problem is that the whole science was not done scientifically.
As well as trying to prove that global warming was a fact, they should also have also tried to prove that it was not real.
They did not do that and so arrived at a flawed conclusion. The warmists still perpetuate the problem by trying to demolish any debate regarding their beliefs about warming by trying to insult deniers.

Lockitt.

Expand

Lockitt, thanks for your considered response.

as a reader though, it's actually quite insulting.

another climate change denier who parades their irrationality. and never lets facts get in the way of their opinion, which comes courtesy of News Corpse and other conservative narrative management operations, such as the Gina Rinehart owned so-called Institute of Public Affairs, but more correctly known as the institute of avarice.

imagine getting to 2020 and disbelieving science, though that at least has some backbone. The Dark Ages had so much going for them after all.

There's others who i believe are possibly even worse - the wishy washy brainwashed. They take a little bit of epidemiology here; a full dose of geology there and a double serve of oncology thank you very much; perhaps some meteorology when it suits ditto agronomy; no truck with psychiatry, psychology or sociology,; neurology (?) what's that; don't mind a teaspoon of astronomy, unsure about biology; surely 100% negative about ecology, and whatever happens equate climate science with the devil.

the cherry pickers, who parade their irrationality around, while probably arguing strongly for alchemy and astrology.

Cherry pickers, irrational, insulting, purveyors of pap.