3 ms·

I’ve spent decades. They’re imbeciles! By the way, it’s still global warming but that was causing some confusion to some people because the weather locally mi

I’ve spent decades. They’re imbeciles! By the way, it’s still global warming but that was causing some confusion to some people because the weather locally might be cooler, warmer, wetter, dryer, etc. Hence, climate change seems to better convey what people actually see. Should we review what climate scientists actually said in the 1970s next? What’s your favorite anecdotal (ie non science) story you go to?

hereme888 1y ago
You think 90% of the world cares to follow what scientists said in the 1970's? All they care about is "They said 'global warming', but now some news report it's actually colder, and I've heard several scientists give presentations that it's all fake and not true. They just want to push their green agenda and are part of a conspiracy to [something]. And btw the earth is actually flat. All those satellite images are CGG, says all the youtube videos I've watched. And yea, vaccines cause autism because I've read a bunch of blogs online proving it." It's why governments try to curb online disinformation. Did you know conspiracy theories thrive among the less successful? Insulting them will only push them further away towards groups that gladly open their arms to them.
- melling 1y ago
  Did you know whether you are kind or insult them, you aren’t going to change their minds? The insult tends to leave a sting, and I’ve noticed people are less likely to add their misinformation the next time. At any rate, is there any climate change belief that you would like to discuss? Try to stay on topic. Digression is a common tactic. People quickly like to change the subject when they run into someone who knows why they are wrong.
  - hereme888 1y ago
    I thought my hinted answers were clear: the climate is always changing, hence the terminology is imprecise compared to the previous, specific "Global Warming". It fuels conspiracies. The science itself is difficult, and at times has been admittedly imprecise or biased. The overzealous politicians are given an alarmist presentation, and in turn propose exaggerated solutions that threaten current livelihoods. Instead of addressing specific points during airtime, people fall back to some imprecise political comment on the matter, itself fueling distrust because the average person, while "less educated", is still sharp.
    - melling 1y ago
      Which alarmism would you like to discuss? Can’t be vague if you want to address a problem. Another tendency is to complain about current policies without offering any solutions.
      - hereme888 1y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmJvvqYgfUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmJvvqYgfUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jtg9qBq110 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jtg9qBq110 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgMagIqZNuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgMagIqZNuA I'm not a politician. I don't offer policies. But I did specify policies, based on policies that have been proposed, and some that are thankfully being implemented. But unreasonable people want extremist implementations, and go against reasonable policies. I'm being as specific as it gets. Now, you can try keeping me on the defense, or give in and admit I've proved my point.
        melling 1y ago
        You watch a lot of garbage. The first video said nothing about climate change. (By the way DDT was banned.) The second started with Greta. I stopped immediately. None of it was science. Chris Wallace interview did nothing. No gotcha moments there. No wonder you have issues. Keep it simple. Tell me what we have wrong about climate change and I’ll clear it up.
        hereme888 1y ago
        We? Are you a climate scientist? Those are not videos I watch, but they are viral videos watched by people who want to believe that information. You need to start following what I'm actually saying. Another direct piece of evidence for what I very, very clearly stated. This will be my last reply because I've answered you directly and to the point, and you keep deflecting with some irrelevant rabbit trail.
        melling 1y ago
- melling 1y ago
  So, I got to the bottom of this. Someone watches a lot of “right wing “ alarmist garbage on the Internet then doubts everything. Mission accomplished.

hereme888 1y ago

You think 90% of the world cares to follow what scientists said in the 1970's? All they care about is "They said 'global warming', but now some news report it's actually colder, and I've heard several scientists give presentations that it's all fake and not true. They just want to push their green agenda and are part of a conspiracy to [something]. And btw the earth is actually flat. All those satellite images are CGG, says all the youtube videos I've watched. And yea, vaccines cause autism because I've read a bunch of blogs online proving it." It's why governments try to curb online disinformation. Did you know conspiracy theories thrive among the less successful? Insulting them will only push them further away towards groups that gladly open their arms to them.

melling 1y ago
Did you know whether you are kind or insult them, you aren’t going to change their minds? The insult tends to leave a sting, and I’ve noticed people are less likely to add their misinformation the next time. At any rate, is there any climate change belief that you would like to discuss? Try to stay on topic. Digression is a common tactic. People quickly like to change the subject when they run into someone who knows why they are wrong.
- hereme888 1y ago
  I thought my hinted answers were clear: the climate is always changing, hence the terminology is imprecise compared to the previous, specific "Global Warming". It fuels conspiracies. The science itself is difficult, and at times has been admittedly imprecise or biased. The overzealous politicians are given an alarmist presentation, and in turn propose exaggerated solutions that threaten current livelihoods. Instead of addressing specific points during airtime, people fall back to some imprecise political comment on the matter, itself fueling distrust because the average person, while "less educated", is still sharp.
  - melling 1y ago
    Which alarmism would you like to discuss? Can’t be vague if you want to address a problem. Another tendency is to complain about current policies without offering any solutions.
    - hereme888 1y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmJvvqYgfUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmJvvqYgfUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jtg9qBq110 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jtg9qBq110 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgMagIqZNuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgMagIqZNuA I'm not a politician. I don't offer policies. But I did specify policies, based on policies that have been proposed, and some that are thankfully being implemented. But unreasonable people want extremist implementations, and go against reasonable policies. I'm being as specific as it gets. Now, you can try keeping me on the defense, or give in and admit I've proved my point.
      - melling 1y ago
        You watch a lot of garbage. The first video said nothing about climate change. (By the way DDT was banned.) The second started with Greta. I stopped immediately. None of it was science. Chris Wallace interview did nothing. No gotcha moments there. No wonder you have issues. Keep it simple. Tell me what we have wrong about climate change and I’ll clear it up.
        hereme888 1y ago
        We? Are you a climate scientist? Those are not videos I watch, but they are viral videos watched by people who want to believe that information. You need to start following what I'm actually saying. Another direct piece of evidence for what I very, very clearly stated. This will be my last reply because I've answered you directly and to the point, and you keep deflecting with some irrelevant rabbit trail.
        melling 1y ago
melling 1y ago
So, I got to the bottom of this. Someone watches a lot of “right wing “ alarmist garbage on the Internet then doubts everything. Mission accomplished.