Comments by "" (@louistournas120) on "Sky News Australia"
channel.
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
billkikstra2225 You probably want to reply to me.
“so, l take it you're going to give up EVERYTHING that oil & gas has provided YOU???”
==I don’t think that any of us want to give up those things and return to the old days of horse and buggy and being a farmer.
It is important to face reality.
The claim being made by a couple of people here is that thousands of climate scientists, from around the globe have taken a bribe from EV manufacturers.
This is discussed on Wikipedia. Where is the evidence of these bribes?
Why are nearly 97% of them being unprofessional?
Why aren’t these scientists rich?
How much are they taking per y? 50,000$/y? 100,000$/y?
So, for the past 50 y or so, each climate scientist has collected over 2.5 M$. Does that make sense?
I asked some important questions but no one answers me:
Are you that corrupt? Are you willing to put your own reputation on a lie?
Because someone who claims that everyone in this world is corrupt it tells me about the morals about the person making the claim.
There is a difference between not wanting to give up our comfy lifestyle and research.
So, just be honest and tell us that you don’t want to lose your comfy lifestyle instead of saying that 97% of climate scientists are corrupt and by extension, every scientists in every field is corrupt.
And, you do understand that petrol will not last forever, right?
In the early 19xx, someone said there is an ocean worth of petrol under Texas.
Yes, back then it looked like there is a non ending amount.
Now that the population skyrocketed, it doesn’t look like a giant ocean anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrWhateverfits “without peer reviewing it thoroughly then yes they are colluding.”
==You started your sentence with an if.
Is it is fact that the climate scientists are not peer reviewing their work?
I am not saying that all research papers are peer reviewed. So, I am not looking for 1 example.
Is there an official source that says that the majority of their research papers are not peer reviewed?
Also, how could it be that scientists work independently arrive at the same conclusion?
“Did you also know that I can get a Biologist or even Gynecologist to say that the climate is in crises as long as they have a PhD.?”
==Niel Degrass Tyson says that you can find at least one scientists that doesn’t agree with something or says the opposite.
“So one you need to look into all of those Scientists and find out what their field of expertise is. You then need to look at who they work for if their field is in fact Climate related.”
==Sure. You didn’t say anything that I disagree with.
“so there are plenty of "Scientists" they would say false thing just for a paycheck.”
==I think I understand this sentiment. The idea is that you are a liar and you would lie for a paycheck. Maybe, a customer brings in their car and you make up some lie and change a few parts that don’t need changing.
But the thing about scientists is that they are not payed by the job, right? They get payed an X amount per year to do research. We don’t know much about the Earth so there is always data to fetch.
Also, since science is an open system, you and anyone can become a scientist and verify for yourself?
Would you accept that global warming is caused by humans if a close member of your family said so?
Do you trust your family members?
“No it is not the climate activists paying them, it is their organization.”
==Someone else said that climate activist are paying them, which is ridiculous.
“It is also Western governments and large corporations with interests in EV tech and green energy paying them. You can never fully trust any science unless you look into it yourself and read all data from all sources. It's easy to filter out the repeated stuff and just focus on what data each side is showing.”
==But if you do become a scientist, why would you trust yourself if you don’t have morals?
Earlier, you said you would lie for a paycheck.
“It is also Western governments and large corporations with interests in EV tech and green energy paying them.”
==It is often the government that gives money to research since research is sometimes not profitable.
Do you believe that the majority of climate scientists have decided to become criminals?
What makes you say that EV tech companies are paying them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PlutoniumSlums You can plant trees. Nobody is going to stop you.
But you can't stop big petrol. It is a multibillion dollar industry and there is a billion customers using the product.
We are also using it, whether it is gasoline, diesel, plastics, medicine and as an energy source to make NH3, HNO3, KNO3 and more.
I think very few countries can switch to alternative energy sources.
In Quebec, we have a lot of hydro power so there is a strong push to switch to electric cars.
The price of electricity is something like 0.07$kWh while other places, it is 0.40 and in some cases, over 1.00$.
Quebec doesn't have any petrol fields.
The only province that is backwards, conservative, thinking is Alberta where they have lots of petrol.
1
-
@zakaria497 “those cases are not the norm of humans, they are literally a anomaly, People that are born blind is not the norm of humans.”
==That is true, it is not the norm. In any case, the chromosome being XY or XX is not relevant in a cultural case. People in the past did not know that they existed. That is not how they defined who is a female and who is a male.
In humans, it has been found that males are missing a leg on a chromosomes, which gives it a Y shape. Most other animals aren’t missing it.
Also, having a defect, such as being blind is not something rejected by christians. So, why do they reject other defects?
And that is why it is better to be on the left. Educate kids that LGBT exist and teach them to respect them.
Humans comes in all shapes and sizes. Some have yellow hair. Some have black hair. Some have smaller teeth than others. Some have larger ears, etc.
Some people like green beans and some do not.
1
-
1
-
@seanworkman431 "then i the 1970's the big scare was an impending ice age, we were all going to freeze to death."
==The claim that in the 1970s, a global cooling has been predicated is based on Peter Gwynne Newsweek article in Apr 28, 1975. There were similar articles in Time Magazine, National Geographic, the New York Times.
The article is based on facts. From the 1940s to the 1970s, global average temperature was going down. We now know that the reason is soot and aerosols.
That has settled out and by the 1980s, there is an upturn and the planet is warming back up and it is rising at a rather rapid pace just like the CO2 level is rising at a rapid pace.
Also, climate science was still rudimentary in the 1970s. The number of scientists who though we were heading for an ice age was small and they were correct. We should be in an ice age period.
Another larger group of scientists were factoring in human activity and though the planet should be warming up.
So, the large group ended up being correct as from the 1980s and onward, global average temperature is just going up.
1
-
1
-
1