Comments by "hg2" (@hg2.) on "Top Climate Expert: Crisis is Worse Than We Think & Scientists Are Self-Censoring to Downplay Risk" video.
-
Have these stupid climate quacks ever wondered why the change in CO2 concentration from 0.000200 to 0.000400 could cause such a catastrophe?
In percentage terms it's 0.02% to 0.04% increase on CO2 concentration. Big Deal!
In parts per 1,000,000 it's gone from 200 parts per million to 400 parts per million, and it's had no provable effect on climate, only conjecture and assertion, easily contradicted by observation, e.g.
The Little Ice Age,
no change in temp lately,
Viking settlements in Greenland,
20 periods of glaciation,
The Maunder Minimum
etc
etc
Of course, if you're an effeminate Starbucks twerp looking to get laid with some cheap pick up conversation about how "environmentally sensitive" and "sustainable" then maybe you do buy into the quackery of global warming if it helps you get laid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have these stupid climate quacks ever wondered why the change in CO2 concentration from 0.000200 to 0.000400 could cause such a catastrophe?
In percentage terms it's 0.02% to 0.04% increase on CO2 concentration. Big Deal!
In parts per 1,000,000 it's gone from 200 parts per million to 400 parts per million, and it's had no provable effect on climate, only conjecture and assertion, easily contradicted by observation, e.g.
The Little Ice Age,
no change in temp lately,
Viking settlements in Greenland,
20 periods of glaciation,
The Maunder Minimum
etc
etc
Of course, if you're an effeminate Starbucks twerp looking to get laid with some cheap pick up conversation about how "environmentally sensitive" and "sustainable" then maybe you do buy into the quackery of global warming if it helps you get laid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Andrew
Your question should apply to the aggressive hustlers and exhibitionist idiots in pages like this.
Instead your glorified what's wrong with you "question" is just obnoxious, condescending, conceited insult, characteristic of these climate quacks in general, of which you are one.
The soviet union was very good at "committing" dissidents, and you'd fit in well as a hatchet man of a regime like that, shithead that you are.
I've said this a million times and I'll repeat again, for the benefit of Creep Andrew, the conceited turd in sheep's clothing:
Climate Quackery is not about science. It's about power,
imposing taxes,
building bureaucracies,
advancing careers,
feeling superior by imposing pagan feel-good rituals (e.g. "recycling"),
inflicting human sacrifice,
institutionalizing superstition.
If that doesn't make a person angry, then you are a piece of shit (you already are, but I'm giving you a chance to redeem.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dear climate realists and non coolaid drinkers with the patience to debate here,
1) the climate quacks are always trying to bully us with their "consensus" , that's a given.
In addition to the evidence (data) not being there, there stupid models are false because their predictions are failures. I stick my neck out and say science isn't even about evidence (data), it's about predictive success. To wit, if your predictive hypothesis is correct, you can recreate the data with experiment. The climate quacks and hustlers (like this video) are complete failures here, and this is all the evidence you need to shut down the bullying, quackery and hustle. Professional scientists don't hesitate to point this out.
PS: another thank you to the people with common sense and climate realism to take the time to do battle with these tax supported opportunists with an aggressive human sacrifice agenda. You are defending our freedom, standard of living, and quality of life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have these stupid climate quacks ever wondered why the change in CO2 concentration from 0.000200 to 0.000400 could cause such a catastrophe?
In percentage terms it's 0.02% to 0.04% increase on CO2 concentration. Big Deal!
In parts per 1,000,000 it's gone from 200 parts per million to 400 parts per million, and it's had no provable effect on climate, only conjecture and assertion, easily contradicted by observation, e.g.
The Little Ice Age,
no change in temp lately,
Viking settlements in Greenland,
20 periods of glaciation,
The Maunder Minimum
etc
etc
Of course, if you're an effeminate Starbucks twerp looking to get laid with some cheap pick up conversation about how "environmentally sensitive" and "sustainable" then maybe you do buy into the quackery of global warming if it helps you get laid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1