You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Trump is a lot greener than you think he is
11 years ago, I would of agreed with you. Now I'm more skeptical about the skeptics than the scientists. Saying that the 97% claim is a tired argument and has been exposed as manipulation, looks very much like the 4th most used climate myth here https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Thanks for your comments. A fact is that, 11 years ago you had 11 years less exposure to the global warming agenda. I tried to change the narrative to the meaningful but as with the majority of people you are obsessed with a concept that even you agree, when rationally analysed, is irrelevant.
You want to remain a rabbit in headlights and just talk about global warming and the fear and the horror and who is the blame, rather than doing anything. Your call.
As with anything in politics, both sides have an agenda. I've also been exposed to 11 years of the climate change deniers agenda. I don't agree that climate change is irrelevant, you're trying to twist my words. The debate is pointless, because unlike me, most people take one side and then only agree with information that will bolster their argument. You have demonstrated that very well. I mentioned 11 years ago because that's when I started a thread about a documentary I had watched, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". After seeing that, I was convinced that global warming wasn't as big a threat as the majority of scientists were making out. It took a few years for me to change my mind and I don't think the 140742 replies to my first post helped much. I had to look at all the information myself. It's funny that you have to resort to calling me a "rabbit in headlights". I just have a different opinion to yours and I should of known better than to reply to your post in the first place.
Have you? I have not seen much climate change denial in the mainstream. Its fear mongering everywhere. When people look at the issue rationally they get shot down by the ideologues and the believers for thought crime.
Again, this post was intended to change the conversation away from fear mongering hype and towards the real issues where people can have real solutions. But you are intent on reverting the conversation back to the agenda which has failed to achieve anything. Why is that?