Is Global Warming scientism or just fake news?

[freshmeat]

Hi Ron.

You can fuck off again now.

As far as I can tell, it's not Ron.

It's just another dumbass.  You can't swing a dead cat without hitting one, these days.

Roger,

I note your reply above and suggest that your answer pales into irrelevance in the face of larger, more pertinent questions. Naturally, I, as your Docktor, Confessor, Gardener, indefinite alibi, Finanical Adviser, Unrequited Lover, Bookie, Banjo Repairman, Real Estate Agent, Vizier and Legal Woo consultant, have to take you to task for some of these.

Firstly, WHY the fuck is this kind of idiocy spreading so quickly in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence.

There is no counter evidence, there is only the prevailing wind of Ice Age denial.

We have already established via the UN's own publications that the scam of taxing the planet via carbon taxes was conceived entirely independent of and prior to the advent of global warming hysteria/scientism/fake news. With entirely different justifications.

That's step 1 in a 20 step program to disabuse you of the cwazy silly notion that GW is settled science.

[MMIX]

We have already established via the UN's own publications that the scam of taxing the planet via carbon taxes was conceived entirely independent of and prior to the advent of global warming hysteria/scientism/fake news. With entirely different justifications.

No, you haven't. You have just made a totally unsubstantiated assertion.

That's step 1 in a 20 step program to disabuse you of the cwazy silly notion that GW is settled science.

If you want to play at armchair scientist you might at least do a bit of research. Maybe Wiki it or something?
I would suggest you start with "History of climate change science"
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science   #First_calculations_of_human-induced_climate_change.2C_1896

Högbom found that estimated carbon production from industrial sources in the 1890s (mainly coal burning) was comparable with the natural sources.[19] Arrhenius saw that this human emission of carbon would eventually lead to warming. However, because of the relatively low rate of CO2 production in 1896, Arrhenius thought the warming would take thousands of years, and he expected it would be beneficial to humanity

So it is an old and well established science.

[LMNO]

[Chelagoras The Boulder]

okay, i'm calling it,

[Cain]

He's been banned, for a variety of reasons (multiple accounts among them) so no need to worry.

[Bu🤠ns]

Building a Better Coral Reef https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/climate/coral-great-barrier-reef.html

I saw this today where they want to rebuild the Great Barrier Reef through what they called, "assisted evolution"

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Bu🤠ns]

https://www.facebook.com/unify/videos/10155046569752909/

Also this one describes how whales also reduce CO2 .... So cool

[The Wizard Joseph]

Building a Better Coral Reef https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/climate/coral-great-barrier-reef.html

I saw this today where they want to rebuild the Great Barrier Reef through what they called, "assisted evolution"

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I REALLY hope that this will work out. The reefs are super important for bio diversity and the food chain.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

He's been banned, for a variety of reasons (multiple accounts among them) so no need to worry.

Who else was the little twerp?

[POFP]

He's been banned, for a variety of reasons (multiple accounts among them) so no need to worry.

Having multiple accounts (Including comedic puppets) is a bannable offense? Or is that in reference only to creating another account to bypass a ban/deceive administration?

Also, I spent about 10 minutes searching the forum for the rules and can't find them. But I could be retarded. 

[P3nT4gR4m]

There are no rules but the retarded thing is not mutually exclusive so I'd maybe still get that checked

[POFP]

There are no rules but the retarded thing is not mutually exclusive so I'd maybe still get that checked

  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

He's been banned, for a variety of reasons (multiple accounts among them) so no need to worry.

Having multiple accounts (Including comedic puppets) is a bannable offense? Or is that in reference only to creating another account to bypass a ban/deceive administration?

Also, I spent about 10 minutes searching the forum for the rules and can't find them. But I could be retarded. 

They are in the registration screen.

Having multiple accounts is in fact one of ECH's few rules.  Funny alts are tolerated as long as they are funny and not used as a passive-aggressive Hugh thing.  Until they're not.

But lining up several accounts and then using them to evade bans is in fact a bannible offense.

[POFP]

He's been banned, for a variety of reasons (multiple accounts among them) so no need to worry.

Having multiple accounts (Including comedic puppets) is a bannable offense? Or is that in reference only to creating another account to bypass a ban/deceive administration?

Also, I spent about 10 minutes searching the forum for the rules and can't find them. But I could be retarded. 

They are in the registration screen.

Having multiple accounts is in fact one of ECH's few rules.  Funny alts are tolerated as long as they are funny and not used as a passive-aggressive Hugh thing.  Until they're not.

But lining up several accounts and then using them to evade bans is in fact a bannible offense.

Ohh okay. That's what I figured the policy was, but didn't know for sure. Thanks!

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

let's just begin with the beginning and go from there. The roots of this whole Global Warming hoax:

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/papers/paper_townsend.pdf

behold a document drafted by the UN itself in 2001 which explicitly warns that it not even be quoted without permission.

The document itself discusses options for financing the UN's global anti poverty initiatives which have been grossly underfunded because wealthy nations won't bother to contribute, despite public pledges. It basically reads like "what do we do?"


Scroll down to page 3.

The Zedillo Report.

The Zedillo Report was the product of a UN panel set up under Kofi Anon to identify options to the voluntary financing schemes that had thus far proven inadequate. And it's conclusions were that the UN's anti poverty programs could be financed either by effecting a Tobin Tax on global transactions or a carbon tax.

The Carbon Tax was the preferred option (page 4) because it was considered "politically more realistic" and because it could be justified as "making polluters pay".

NO MENTION OF GLOBAL WARMING. Efforts to commence the carbon tax are still underway in the form of the Kyoto, Doha, Paris agreements and amendments.

As the campaign to convince wealthy nations to contribute to the UN's war on poverty programs the UN ramped up the IPCC to build a scientific case for applying this tax (for poverty relief) to carbon consumers who were aggrevating alleged global warming.

The IPCC, as everybody knows is a UN body and is the primary driver of global warming study and hysteria.

6/10 Work in some refrences to chemtrails, the Freemasons, ancient aliens, and Hillary Clinton