A plea from my Electric Company to Conserve Power

Status
Not open for further replies.
You tell me! You are attempting to discredit peer-reviewed literature published by researchers from major universities with nothing more than a biased hunch that they are somehow compromised. You provide NO evidence other than it “could” be possible. If science could be legitimately discredited with your rationale then nothing could ever be trusted. Yet science makes the world go around as you inevitably type away on a device that is 100% the product of the system you attempt to challenge. You have provided no contrary evidence, just the possibility that these scientists MAY be part of some global multinational conspiracy. Your position is a joke believed by people too unsophisticated and unknowledgeable to know when they are out of their depths and when they should ****. But you have an opinion, and you found other idiots online with the same misguide opinion and so there must be something to it. The articles I posted show you are in a very small minority of those who know about climate science but it won’t matter because you don’t want to believe that them. That’s the differences between us - all I know about climate science is what the vast majority of climate scientists state. I know I don’t understand it in depth but when the vast majority of scientists come to a consensus it’s the best bet. You on the other hand believe you are capable of understanding and agreeing with a small tiny minority of scientists. I call ********…YOUR opinion isn’t worth the cost of the electrons you used to post your responses, not unless you have a PhD in climate science. Your opinion is a meaningless, as is mine, so I defer to the MAJORITY of experts.
This guy has qualifications yet because it doesnt fit you narrative you casually dismiss it. BTW the clown that published the paper on global cooling is famous (infamous) and still around preaching this gibberish.

Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction long
range (months and years ahead) forecasts. He has a First class degree
in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from
Queen Mary College. He has published numerous peer-reviewed sci-
entific papers, starting from an early age, on subjects ranging from
meteorology to cosmology and galaxy formation and has presented
at many international conferences
 
This guy has qualifications yet because it doesnt fit you narrative you casually dismiss it. BTW the clown that published the paper on global cooling is famous (infamous) and still around preaching this gibberish.
It’s a single guy vs thousands of other climate scientists. Qualifications DO NOT trump consensus. This is true in every field of science. In every field there are bat **** crazy scientists with qualifications. There are scientists who KNOW they’re full of **** but they get funding BECAUSE they have a contrarian view. It’s hard to do solid science when you’re competing with all the other legitimate scientists and sometimes easier to be the lone wolf. Add in politics and strong feelings by the public and now these contrarians can even enjoy some notoriety and fame. If what they were writing was convincing good science, it would cause the majority of scientists to come to their side. You don’t think oil companies wouldn’t be willing to fund anti-carbon admissions science if there was legitimate data there? You think Exon Mobil is just sitting on the side line when the data clearly shows what they sell isn’t the problem? Get a grip. They don’t fund it because they already know the science conclusively shows what they sell is a problem.
 
It’s a single guy vs thousands of other climate scientists. Qualifications DO NOT trump consensus. This is true in every field of science. In every field there are bat **** crazy scientists with qualifications. There are scientists who KNOW they’re full of **** but they get funding BECAUSE they have a contrarian view. It’s hard to do solid science when you’re competing with all the other legitimate scientists and sometimes easier to be the lone wolf. Add in politics and strong feelings by the public and now these contrarians can even enjoy some notoriety and fame. If what they were writing was convincing good science, it would cause the majority of scientists to come to their side.
Did you even bother to read the article? You mean legit scientist like this fraudster?


What about this?

 
Agenda driven science will be our greatest downfall. Those with money in the game are the biggest frauds.
Yet, somehow the oil industry isn’t getting in the climate science funding game? They’re just sitting this one out. If agenda driven science exists it must be identified on an individual basis - all that’s happened here is an entire field of science has been accused of agenda driven science without a single piece of evidence.
 
This fraud makes billions of $$ for all sorts of people, without it the carbon credit fraud where an EV manufacturer can sell credits. Dont believe for a second this so called science is not driven by massive amount of money. Just one example..

 
Did you even bother to read the article? You mean legit scientist like this fraudster?


What about this?

So what’s? Some scientists lie doesn’t mean all scientists lie. Better yet, he and his wife were caught. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.
 
This fraud makes billions of $$ for all sorts of people, without it the carbon credit fraud where an EV manufacturer can sell credits. Dont believe for a second this so called science is not driven by massive amount of money. Just one example..

That’s NOT EVIDENCE. That’s just speculation. Oil companies stand to lose TRILLIONS over time. Where are they in all this?
 
You tell me! You are attempting to discredit peer-reviewed literature published by researchers from major universities with nothing more than a biased hunch that they are somehow compromised. You provide NO evidence other than it “could” be possible. If science could be legitimately discredited with your rationale then nothing could ever be trusted. Yet science makes the world go around as you inevitably type away on a device that is 100% the product of the system you attempt to challenge. You have provided no contrary evidence, just the possibility that these scientists MAY be part of some global multinational conspiracy. Your position is a joke believed by people too unsophisticated and unknowledgeable to know when they are out of their depths and when they should ****. But you have an opinion, and you found other idiots online with the same misguide opinion and so there must be something to it. The articles I posted show you are in a very small minority of those who know about climate science but it won’t matter because you don’t want to believe that them. That’s the differences between us - all I know about climate science is what the vast majority of climate scientists state. I know I don’t understand it in depth but when the vast majority of scientists come to a consensus it’s the best bet. You on the other hand believe you are capable of understanding and agreeing with a small tiny minority of scientists. I call ********…YOUR opinion isn’t worth the cost of the electrons you used to post your responses, not unless you have a PhD in climate science. Your opinion is a meaningless, as is mine, so I defer to the MAJORITY of experts.
Now, simply turn your argument around and you’re in the same position. If you can’t see that government funding is a severe conflict of interest, there’s no sense in discussing anything with you. If I had a couple hundred million, I could get those same scientists to claim my farts cure cancer.

Anytime someone who is claiming an “existential emergency” that results in them making hundreds of millions of dollars from the implementation of those controls should never be trusted at face value. Considering they’ve collectively received well over $50 BILLION dollars for promoting climate change, well, that tells me all I need to know.

 
Last edited:
Now, simply turn your argument around and you’re in the same position. If you can’t see that government funding is a severe conflict of interest, there’s no sense in discussing anything with you. If I had a couple hundred million, I could get those same scientists to claim my farts cure cancer.

So since most science is funded by either government or private companies then NO research can ever be believed? That’s a crazy position for all the science that works in our lives and an untenable position moving forward. We may as well revert back to the Stone Age.
 
So since most science is funded by either government or private companies then NO research can ever be believed? That’s a crazy position for all the science that works in our lives and an untenable position moving forward. We may as well revert back to the Stone Age.
I don’t really have an issue with private company funding, as long as there is individual confirmation of the results. You know, the scientific method where the theory can be discussed and the results independently verified.

Nothing the climate change crowd has said over the past 40 years has happened according to what their models and spiels have claimed would happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top