Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?

[Schmelzer]

Given that I have been named AGW denier too (even if I have never denied the correctness of any scientific paper), the points where I disagree with what the media present are based on arguments and do not contain any hypotheses about conspiracies. See my arguments here. Try to find a conspiracy theory.

What inspired this topic was the social media reaction ( some ) to this speech by Greta Thunderberg to the UN climate summit a few days ago.

Claiming that Greta was being manipulated and that she is mentally unwell.

A Conspiracy theorists denial of the facts and the attempt to poison the credibility of any speaker that contradicts the conspiracy theorists point of view.

First, it is a well-known fact and not a secret or defamation that Greta has mental problems. The information about this comes from the family itself. Then, those who argue about manipulation use also public information about their parents and groups and organizations related to them, so there is also no base for naming this conspiracy theory. Last but not least, this has nothing to do with any denial of facts because Greta acts on emotions, she does not present facts or argue about facts.

 

[parmalee]

First, it is a well-known fact and not a secret or defamation that Greta has mental problems. The information about this comes from the family itself.

Apart from angst and despair stemming from the unwillingness of people with power to act, what "mental problems" does Greta have? And what bearing do these alleged "mental problems" have upon what she is attempting to communicate?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

To refer to someone with a lot of money as "greedy" is usually just a preface to espousing a plan to "distribute" that money. In other words, you make more than me and you are greedy if you don't give me some of that money.

You are colour my words with your outlook.

However I will accept responsibility for being too casual and assuming you understand what I mean.

Firstly I am not envious of folk with money and am reasonably well off..certainly such that I can have anything I want.

Greedy consumption... driving a 12 cylinder car for example..wasteful..tearing out a perfectly good kitchen because you find fashion dictates something different this year... routinely throwing out clothes and various personal items simply because you don't like them any more and as money is not a consideration you ignore that energy was used to produce them that produces carbon ...

Is it "wasteful" if someone has more than someone else?

No. I am stunned that you have no concept of wasteful.

I beggar in the street can be wasteful...he goes to the park , turns on the tap to have a drink ..has his drink and walks away leaving the tap running ..that is wasteful.

Leaving the tap running and not using the water..Leaving the lights on in the day time..throwing out food that could be eaten...what is so difficult to understand about the concept of waste?

Should everyone be required to live in the same size house?

You could make a case along those lines particularly if our energy consumption needs to be managed.

Think of the holes in the boat example...or does your philosophy demand that everyone should have the right to do what they want and that personal freedom always trumps the community?

Whatever the nuclear energy industry in Australia proposes is not the same as "denying" the science involved in climate changes.

I never said it was...what I was pointing out was the manipulation using climate change.

Calling someone a "climate denier" only bothers someone who is "denying" mainstream science.

Says you.I do not deny the science..or have you missed that? Just because you make stuff up does not make it true.

And all the people that I have discussed that aspect with are all on the side of the science...the use of the word is grossly objectionable and your take is wrong. Because you don't like what I say you reject the facts that I offer...what would you like me to do..obtain affidavits from those I ha e referred to above stating they find the word objectionable and that they are in step with the science..What would you say then? Oh that is too small a sample...I told you my experience and you ignore it and trundle on as if my facts do not exist.

You are close minded.

I don't know why I bother..look believe what you like..make up whatever reality you like..I really do not care.

. Being upset with the nuclear industry and the names that they use is no reason to refuse to accept the fact that man is affecting global climate changes.

You see here is your problem..for whatever reason you have it in your bead that I deny the science..look man read what I have said and point out where I have said that..anyways let me make y position as clear as I can..I do not deny the science, I read as many of the finding that I come across.. there is plenty of evidence that warming is occurring... the hypothesis that it is caused by man although not provable (As far as I know) seems pretty reasonable given the correlations drawn by many scientists. My life style has me doing all that I can on the assumption that the proposition that the warming is man made is most likely true..solar panels, growing trees concern above consumption etc..I do not refuse to accept that the change is due to man and I don't know why you think other wise..but please point out where in any earlier text a d I will explain what I mean.

I suppose you don't like me calling Al Gore hypocrite but that causes you to miss where I curse him for not practicing what he preached and in so doing gives ammunition to those who look for reason to reject the problem he presents but by his actions totally ignores...

This is like refusing to accept gravity because someone called you a name that you don't like and you're going to continue to doubt gravity until they stop calling you a name.

You are talking thru your hat.

Look think what you like. If you think waste and "greedy"consumption is ok, and if you think Al Gore is good for the movement, and you want to ignore the fact that folk are upset by the use of "denier" and that is BS then think away...but you really are not thinking in my view.

I don't care.. but note this...I act..I practice what I preach..you know solar panels, modest fosil fuel consumption not selling my trees ...tell me what have you done?

Yes I am annoyed because you fail to read what I have said and hence I have blurred up...

Moreover what few understand is calling those who do not accept that there is a problem nasty slimy names will not get you anywhere..backing practising hypocrite simply because they are on your side does more harm and damages your credibility.

And rejecting a call for less waste as somehow threatening your ideal of freedom and suggesting I am just jealous is so shortsighted.. mate I don't have to be jealous of anyone ...not understanding that there is most likey hidden money seeking to profit and not giving a damn is unbelievable.

Nice chatting with you as usual ..I hope you and yours are well and every one is in good health, happy and content.
Have a great day.
Alex

 

[Schmelzer]

Apart from angst and despair stemming from the unwillingness of people with power to act, what "mental problems" does Greta have?

According to Wiki, Asperger syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism.

And what bearing do these alleged "mental problems" have upon what she is attempting to communicate?

Ask those who make claims about such a bearing or so. I have simply objected against QQ's accusations against those who discuss their mental problems.

 

[Quantum Quack]

First, it is a well-known fact and not a secret or defamation that Greta has mental problems. The information about this comes from the family itself. Then, those who argue about manipulation use also public information about their parents and groups and organizations related to them, so there is also no base for naming this conspiracy theory. Last but not least, this has nothing to do with any denial of facts because Greta acts on emotions, she does not present facts or argue about facts.

There was no need for her to argue facts except one salient fact and that being the lack of any real action to prevent a climate catastrophe that so many in this world are anticipating.
She is only being a young version of David Attenborough any how...
I suppose you think Sir David Attenborough has mental problems as well?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ask those who make claims about such a bearing or so. I have simply objected against QQ's accusations against those who discuss their mental problems.

how does her mental problems or alleged manipulators, change the message she delivered so accurately and sincerely?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are colour my words with your outlook.

However I will accept responsibility for being too casual and assuming you understand what I mean.

Firstly I am not envious of folk with money and am reasonably well off..certainly such that I can have anything I want.

Greedy consumption... driving a 12 cylinder car for example..wasteful..tearing out a perfectly good kitchen because you find fashion dictates something different this year... routinely throwing out clothes and various personal items simply because you don't like them any more and as money is not a consideration you ignore that energy was used to produce them that produces carbon ...



No. I am stunned that you have no concept of wasteful.

I beggar in the street can be wasteful...he goes to the park , turns on the tap to have a drink ..has his drink and walks away leaving the tap running ..that is wasteful.

Leaving the tap running and not using the water..Leaving the lights on in the day time..throwing out food that could be eaten...what is so difficult to understand about the concept of waste?



You could make a case along those lines particularly if our energy consumption needs to be managed.

Think of the holes in the boat example...or does your philosophy demand that everyone should have the right to do what they want and that personal freedom always trumps the community?



I never said it was...what I was pointing out was the manipulation using climate change.



Says you.I do not deny the science..or have you missed that? Just because you make stuff up does not make it true.

And all the people that I have discussed that aspect with are all on the side of the science...the use of the word is grossly objectionable and your take is wrong. Because you don't like what I say you reject the facts that I offer...what would you like me to do..obtain affidavits from those I ha e referred to above stating they find the word objectionable and that they are in step with the science..What would you say then? Oh that is too small a sample...I told you my experience and you ignore it and trundle on as if my facts do not exist.

You are close minded.

I don't know why I bother..look believe what you like..make up whatever reality you like..I really do not care.



You see here is your problem..for whatever reason you have it in your bead that I deny the science..look man read what I have said and point out where I have said that..anyways let me make y position as clear as I can..I do not deny the science, I read as many of the finding that I come across.. there is plenty of evidence that warming is occurring... the hypothesis that it is caused by man although not provable (As far as I know) seems pretty reasonable given the correlations drawn by many scientists. My life style has me doing all that I can on the assumption that the proposition that the warming is man made is most likely true..solar panels, growing trees concern above consumption etc..I do not refuse to accept that the change is due to man and I don't know why you think other wise..but please point out where in any earlier text a d I will explain what I mean.

I suppose you don't like me calling Al Gore hypocrite but that causes you to miss where I curse him for not practicing what he preached and in so doing gives ammunition to those who look for reason to reject the problem he presents but by his actions totally ignores...



You are talking thru your hat.

Look think what you like. If you think waste and "greedy"consumption is ok, and if you think Al Gore is good for the movement, and you want to ignore the fact that folk are upset by the use of "denier" and that is BS then think away...but you really are not thinking in my view.

I don't care.. but note this...I act..I practice what I preach..you know solar panels, modest fosil fuel consumption not selling my trees ...tell me what have you done?

Yes I am annoyed because you fail to read what I have said and hence I have blurred up...

Moreover what few understand is calling those who do not accept that there is a problem nasty slimy names will not get you anywhere..backing practising hypocrite simply because they are on your side does more harm and damages your credibility.

And rejecting a call for less waste as somehow threatening your ideal of freedom and suggesting I am just jealous is so shortsighted.. mate I don't have to be jealous of anyone ...not understanding that there is most likey hidden money seeking to profit and not giving a damn is unbelievable.

Nice chatting with you as usual ..I hope you and yours are well and every one is in good health, happy and content.
Have a great day.
Alex

the reality is that all that so called excess will have to come to a halt whether we resort to name calling or not...
We can either do it in an orderly fashion or we can do it in a state of chaos...and Human nature will dictate the result.

 

[spidergoat]

A good first step would be to address waste and greedy consumption.

That is an aspect of large scale polluting interests shifting the blame off legislation and onto personal responsibility. In other words, don't blame the fossil fuel industry for 100 years of political corruption and science denial, blame the consumer for their buying choices.

 

[billvon]

Well I feel that the use of " denier" could be limited to the Holocaust out of some respect that I can not clearly identify. And irrespective I have no doubt the choice of the word by the global warming crew was deliberate and to think for one moment that use of the word would not be emotive would be niave...some political correct word should be used..can you tell me the only word available that is suitable is "denier" ... really the choice was and is sinister. Why not sceptic ?

Because they are not skeptics.

I know several skeptics; one works here at UCSD. He is skeptical that climate change will always increase the intensity of storms. A given storm will likely hold more water, and very large storms (that reach the tropopause) will be more intense due to the temperature differential - but he argues that those are a very small percentage of storms, and most will not be made more intense. He does not deny the climate is changing, or that anthropogenic gases are the primary reason, or that many changes will be problematic. So he is characterized by skepticism, not denial.

Compare that to a climate change denier. On Monday, they might deny that the temperature is changing at all, because someone found an error in a NASA GISS data set. "Al Gore is LYING! There is NO WARMING! It ended in 1998!" On Tuesday, they may decide that it's all natural. "Look, no one is denying that there is warming. But it's a natural cycle! The climate ALWAYS changes! Get over it!" On Wednesday, they might decide that it's a good thing. "Sure, we might have something to do with it. But look - CO2 is an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer that will feed the planet and turn it green again! And who doesn't like to be warm? Heck, we will save the polar bears with all this warming!"

He is not consistent on any scientific premise in the entire discussion. The one and only consistent part of his position is denial.

Imagine a similar situation where Sean Hannity, a media personality and strong Trump supporter, decides he doesn't want to be called a Trump supporter because of all the negative press about Trump - he feels like he will be tarnished by association. So, while he continues to strongly support Trump, he does not want the 'insulting' term "Trump supporter" applied to him, and insists that the media and public call him "truth supporter."

Should we oblige him?

..heck where is the thesaurus...let's make a list of alternative words..how many will we find? And the more we find the more one can question the use of "denier" ...the fact is the word in its application to climate change does, believe it or not, upset some people..is that so difficult to understand?

Not at all. They want to be seen as brilliant independent thinkers, and whenever anyone questions them, they will react poorly. So they'd much prefer a word like "skeptic" or "independent thinker" or "alternative expert" or something. Any word that indicates they are denying science will be rejected by them.

So what word would you propose?

 

[billvon]

Those who argue about manipulation use also public information about their parents and groups and organizations related to them, so there is also no base for naming this conspiracy theory.

Every conspiracy theory out there uses "public information." Anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers and Apollo hoaxers regularly present publicly available papers, images, radio recordings and videos as "proof" of their conspiracy theory.

Last but not least, this has nothing to do with any denial of facts because Greta acts on emotions, she does not present facts or argue about facts.

"cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees"
"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018."

 

[billvon]

A good first step would be to address waste and greedy consumption.

Agreed there.

Second step would be rather than call folk "deniers" to realise their concerns are legitimate when they see a hypocritical world with the rich drilling holes in the boat whilst demanding others bail faster.

People who have concerns aren't deniers.

Honestly..look at All Gore how good for the credibility of the movement of he practiced what he preached.

Greta Thunberg came to the UN to give a speech in a sailboat. She was crucified for that. She was a "hypocrite" because some of the boat's crew flew back to Europe. She was a "hypocrite" because the sailboat took energy to build. So I don't see how it matters in terms of public opinion; anyone advocating for slowing down climate change will be called a hypocrite no matter what they do.

Or that mug out here..forget his name..but got Australian of the year for his climate change input and buys a water front property...seems he did not really believe sea levels were rising after all...that sort of thing...

?? How does that demonstrate hypocrisy? Worst case sea level rise by 2100 is 1.2 meters. By 2050 it is less than half that. If a 50 year old guy buys a waterfront home that is safe as long as sea levels rise less than a meter, how is that hypocritical?

 

[Schmelzer]

how does her mental problems or alleged manipulators, change the message she delivered so accurately and sincerely?

Ask yourself. All that I have done is to note that Greta has indeed mental problems and that this is nothing but a well-known fact. And that those who claim manipulations do this based on arguments about her parents and connected organizations which are also public domain.

So, both things are in no way conspiracy theories. If those guys who use these points in their own argumentation really have a point or not is a very different question, as well as what is their point. Given that I'm not interested in ad hominem arguments at all, I will not even take a look at such arguments.

All I can tell you is that I have seen some Russians and Germans writing similar things, their main point is simply the "you are played by professionals" point which iceaura likes to use to defame me. So, it is, by its nature, an ad hominem: Those who support this movement play dirty polit-technological tricks. Even if true, the aims of the movement could nonetheless be correct.

I suppose you think Sir David Attenborough has mental problems as well?

Your supposition shows that you are unable or unwilling to interpret my texts in a reasonable way.

And this seems to be a quite common feature here.

1.) I do not speculate about the mental problems of other people, because this would be cheap ad hominem. All I have done was to correct your error - you were obviously not aware that Greta really has some mental problems.

2.) I do not support any argumentation based on those mental problems, given that they would be only ad hominem.

(Aside: All that I do is to look with some technological interest at how this movement is organized. The basic techniques are well known and worked out in detail, we have seen many applications of these techniques in all those color revolutions. So the well-organized mass media hype is standard. But there may appear something new, unexpected, like in this case the use of a child with mental problems as the leader.)

Every conspiracy theory out there uses "public information." Anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers and Apollo hoaxers regularly present publicly available papers, images, radio recordings and videos as "proof" of their conspiracy theory.

Ok, once you want to name them conspiracy theorists, feel free to do it.

"cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees"
"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018."

And this is what has impressed the people in her speech? Not the purely emotional "How dare you!" and "We will not let you get away with this"?

 

[Seattle]

You are colour my words with your outlook.

However I will accept responsibility for being too casual and assuming you understand what I mean.

Firstly I am not envious of folk with money and am reasonably well off..certainly such that I can have anything I want.

Greedy consumption... driving a 12 cylinder car for example..wasteful..tearing out a perfectly good kitchen because you find fashion dictates something different this year... routinely throwing out clothes and various personal items simply because you don't like them any more and as money is not a consideration you ignore that energy was used to produce them that produces carbon ...

No. I am stunned that you have no concept of wasteful.

I understand the dictionary definition of wasteful. Buying new clothes and remodeling a kitchen isn't my idea of "wasteful". Someone else may consider buying telescopes, an RV to sit in while using a telescope and such as wasting resources.

Do we really need a judge for this kind of thing? I don't see many 12 cylinder cars going down the road but if the idea is upsetting to you then...OK. I don't think it has a major bearing on climate change though.

I beggar in the street can be wasteful...he goes to the park , turns on the tap to have a drink ..has his drink and walks away leaving the tap running ..that is wasteful.

Leaving the tap running and not using the water..Leaving the lights on in the day time..throwing out food that could be eaten...what is so difficult to understand about the concept of waste?

Nothing is difficult to understand. Why are you stuck on this? Shall we not address global climate change until after everyone turns out all the lights that you deem unnecessary? Is there a big problem with people leaving lights on during the day?

Says you.I do not deny the science..or have you missed that? Just because you make stuff up does not make it true.

And all the people that I have discussed that aspect with are all on the side of the science...the use of the word is grossly objectionable and your take is wrong. Because you don't like what I say you reject the facts that I offer...what would you like me to do..obtain affidavits from those I ha e referred to above stating they find the word objectionable and that they are in step with the science..What would you say then? Oh that is too small a sample...I told you my experience and you ignore it and trundle on as if my facts do not exist.

You are close minded.

I don't know why I bother..look believe what you like..make up whatever reality you like..I really do not care.

Why do we continue to talk about a word that you and your friends find objectionable? OK, you don't like the word "denier". Now what?

You see here is your problem..for whatever reason you have it in your bead that I deny the science..look man read what I have said and point out where I have said that..anyways let me make y position as clear as I can..I do not deny the science, I read as many of the finding that I come across.. there is plenty of evidence that warming is occurring... the hypothesis that it is caused by man although not provable (As far as I know) seems pretty reasonable given the correlations drawn by many scientists. My life style has me doing all that I can on the assumption that the proposition that the warming is man made is most likely true..solar panels, growing trees concern above consumption etc..I do not refuse to accept that the change is due to man and I don't know why you think other wise..but please point out where in any earlier text a d I will explain what I mean.

I suppose you don't like me calling Al Gore hypocrite but that causes you to miss where I curse him for not practicing what he preached and in so doing gives ammunition to those who look for reason to reject the problem he presents but by his actions totally ignores...

You are talking thru your hat.

Look think what you like. If you think waste and "greedy"consumption is ok, and if you think Al Gore is good for the movement, and you want to ignore the fact that folk are upset by the use of "denier" and that is BS then think away...but you really are not thinking in my view.

I don't care.. but note this...I act..I practice what I preach..you know solar panels, modest fosil fuel consumption not selling my trees ...tell me what have you done?

Yes I am annoyed because you fail to read what I have said and hence I have blurred up...

Moreover what few understand is calling those who do not accept that there is a problem nasty slimy names will not get you anywhere..backing practising hypocrite simply because they are on your side does more harm and damages your credibility.

And rejecting a call for less waste as somehow threatening your ideal of freedom and suggesting I am just jealous is so shortsighted.. mate I don't have to be jealous of anyone ...not understanding that there is most likey hidden money seeking to profit and not giving a damn is unbelievable.

Nice chatting with you as usual ..I hope you and yours are well and every one is in good health, happy and content.
Have a great day.
Alex

I don't particularly like Al Gore and if I did it would not be relevant here. Everyone can be called a hypocrite by someone else who disagrees with how they live their life. Some poor person in Africa could consider you a hypocrite. Does that make you one? No. Would it matter even if it were true? No.

We are talking about climate change and you are talking about words that you find offensive and practices that you feel are large contributors to global climate change such as people driving 12 cylinder cars, leaving lights on in the day time and taking showers that are too long?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So what word would you propose?

I have lost interest.
And really what is the point when no one is interested in my concern.
Just forget that I raised the point.
Thank you for your input.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

?? How does that demonstrate hypocrisy?

There is a saying..not only must justice be done but must seen to be done. And at that time there were Labour politicians scarring pensioners that their homes would be flooded by sea level rise...I don't recall any sensible qualification but I do recall BS scare tactics.
Folk listening to that guys doom and gloom re sea level rise saw it as hypocritical.
Alex

 

[Benson]

There are a lot of issues being intermixed here. Saying that "the earth has always undergone change and always will" is not the point. That's not the change that is being discussed. It's the speed with which the change is occurring that is what is being discussed.

It's factual. It's not just a personal opinion that one can either agree or not agree with.

Whether one's personal consumption is excessive or "greedy" is also beside the point as is worrying about bad policies that might be ineffective and only cost society more money. That's a valid concern but it is beside the issue of whether the change is real. It is.

Most people probably aren't that inefficient with their energy usage because it comes at high personal cost. It's not about black roofs. Black roofs are good in the winter and less effective in the summer. In general, it's more expensive to heat than to cool.

It's also not a matter of worrying excessively about what your neighbor is doing that you disapprove of. If your neighbor leaves a few extra lights on and has no kids and you have 4 kids, their carbon footprint is still probably less than yours.

You disapprove of their hobby but might not realize that your own hobby is just as "wasteful" in their eyes.

Where I live, high electric rates keeps most power usage pretty efficient. It's too expensive to do otherwise.

The biggest issues are transportation and industrial usage not one person taking a longer shower than another person would approve of.

Please read my full post and not the edited version by the other poster.

 

[Benson]

Yes but who actually understands...this surprised me.https://www.livescience.com/28493-when-sahara-desert-formed.html
Alex

I would appreciate it that you list my full quote and not cherry pick snippets. It avoids you from distorting what I said. Just had a poster look at your post with my edited quote and they've simply dribbled on unnecessarily.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

RV to sit in while using a telescope and such as wasting resources.

But I did not buy it. It was a gift from a stranger who found out that I had helped a friend of hers with free legal advice.

You clearly miss my point in all of this. Think of it this way. You find your household is spending too much money ...you know you need to find a better paying job but in the mean time you review your budget and seek ways to reduce expenditure....the way you wriggle to avoid such a simple realisation that wastfulness is a good place to start baffles me.

Nothing is difficult to understand. Why are you stuck on this? Shall we not address global climate change until after everyone turns out all the lights that you deem unnecessary? Is there a big problem with people leaving lights on during the day?

Your effort to trivialize waste baffles me.
You want to reduce ommissions


but think addressing the un necessary use of energy is irrelevant?
OK keep drilling holes in the boat.

OK, you don't like the word "denier".

At last some recognition ..thank you.

We are talking about climate change and you are talking about words that you find offensive and practices that you feel are large contributors to global climate change such as people driving 12 cylinder cars, leaving lights on in the day time and taking showers that are too long

You want to reduce ommissions and so do I, I see wasteful use of energy which I regard as part of the problem and being part of the problem think it would be a sensible approach to address this aspect...why would addressing waste be any less important than getting rid of incandescent light bulbs.
Think of it along the lines of a water problem...you know you need another water tank because the old one does not hold enough for your needs...while waiting for your new tank it could be a good idea to sweep the path rather than hose it down.
I am baffled to understand why given the desire and need to reduce ommissions why addressing issues that will save energy that is wasted for no good reason is not important.

I don't particularly like Al Gore and if I did it would not be relevant here. Everyone can be called a hypocrite by someone else who disagrees with how they live their life. Some poor person in Africa could consider you a hypocrite. Does that make you one? No. Would it matter even if it were true? No.

Well of course it is relevant.
You simply can not act inconsistent with your publically expressed position and you can say that is not so if that is what you believe but hypocracy has brought many folk down...
And look at the responses here to my concerns...And I am the highly concerned side, .....any observation or criticism is jumped on...so how do you expect to win folk over who don't believe you...I know tell them they are fools, that their concerns are stupid and Al can drive a V 12 if he wants..
Again nice hearing your responses and I hope your country can realise as it created the problem it should lead the world to a solution.
But perhaps do something about Law Vegas or at least understand why it causes the rest of the world to think the US is a joke when it comes to doing anything about climate change.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I would appreciate it that you list my full quote and not cherry pick snippets. It avoids you from distorting what I said. Just had a poster look at your post with my edited quote and they've simply dribbled on unnecessarily.

Sure but I can't do anything to edit now. I will look and see what has happened. And I certainly was not trying to distort what you said but if that has happened I offer you my apology. I shall look. Thanks for raising your concern. Have a great day.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Man made climate change is the conspiracy.

The earth goes through a natural climate change process, always has, always will. The man made part is, man has contributed to the climate change by simply speeding up the inevitable.

To save everyone perhaps looking for the original post and my attempt to fix any problem I may have created.
Alex