The K M Links Game - January 2025 Week 1
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Extinction Rebellion Are Marching Today............
96 Answers
...........here in Manchester. I've got my poster ready and I'm going to greet them. My poster reads:
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL
YOU'RE ALL BEING MUGGED
That should raise a few heckles!
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL
YOU'RE ALL BEING MUGGED
That should raise a few heckles!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Research is showing links between Far-right, misogynistic older males and deniers of anthopogenic climate change.
Looks like AB would be an excellent community to test that hypothesis.
https:/
and this research institute set up to look at why people deny that humans are causing accelerated climate change:
https:/
Looks like AB would be an excellent community to test that hypothesis.
https:/
and this research institute set up to look at why people deny that humans are causing accelerated climate change:
https:/
Haha ^^If you don't agree with their fantasies it make you..........ta dah.... right wing. If you ever doubted that it was just politics and nothing to do with the glow bulls it is right there. Any bets on who the people were conducting the "research" and compiling the "statistics?(you're ahead of me here again aren't you) Yep the very same weirdos who are writing the doomsday chronicles....all in the name of lurve and peace maann. When they need a 15 yr old pigtailed autistic girl to be their World communicator you know that something is a bit awry.
^Talk about proving a point!^
//If you don't agree with their fantasies it make you...///
The difference is that there is testable, peer-reviewed science to demonstrate that anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It's really true.
Those who deny it are reading extreme right-wing sites that have a political agenda to fool anyone who is prepared to believe their propaganda, while offering no evidence against the hard science.
You can claim your guesses are somehow true, but the evidence and the research and the science shows that human actions are changing the climate.
//If you don't agree with their fantasies it make you...///
The difference is that there is testable, peer-reviewed science to demonstrate that anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It's really true.
Those who deny it are reading extreme right-wing sites that have a political agenda to fool anyone who is prepared to believe their propaganda, while offering no evidence against the hard science.
You can claim your guesses are somehow true, but the evidence and the research and the science shows that human actions are changing the climate.
The climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about nature or scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, about one - recently born - dirigistic and collectivistic ideology, which goes against freedom and free markets.
Vaclav Klaus
Vaclav Klaus
Not about science, eh?
That is an argument proposed by Nigel Lawson, another non-scientist.
They might as well say gravity is not about science. Gravity is abut mass, acceleration and other things that are not, strictly science. But science finds the evidence to show that gravity is real and predictable.
Scence is hard fact and climatologists have shown that climate change is happening; and the rate of change is accelerating with more use of fossil fuels by humans.
Lawson and Havel are economists and politicians. No wonder they try to move the debate onto social science terms, rather than hard climate science.
When hard climate science comes into it, they lose. So they try to move the debate onto terms where they can 'win'. They are good at arguing in a political dimension, so that is their chosen style of debate
They have no qualifications in the climatology area, and their attempts to de-bunk the science are no more valid than yours or mine.
They do have political and financial interests in denyng the hard scientific truths, and that is what they seek to do.
That is an argument proposed by Nigel Lawson, another non-scientist.
They might as well say gravity is not about science. Gravity is abut mass, acceleration and other things that are not, strictly science. But science finds the evidence to show that gravity is real and predictable.
Scence is hard fact and climatologists have shown that climate change is happening; and the rate of change is accelerating with more use of fossil fuels by humans.
Lawson and Havel are economists and politicians. No wonder they try to move the debate onto social science terms, rather than hard climate science.
When hard climate science comes into it, they lose. So they try to move the debate onto terms where they can 'win'. They are good at arguing in a political dimension, so that is their chosen style of debate
They have no qualifications in the climatology area, and their attempts to de-bunk the science are no more valid than yours or mine.
They do have political and financial interests in denyng the hard scientific truths, and that is what they seek to do.
There are plenty more links suggesting that the climate-change deniers are largely older white males in positions of power.
https:/
The thrust of the articles is that older affluent males are used to comfortable lifestyles and are established in their positions. They see that stability beng threatened by activists, such as Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
When Togo says it is about politics, he is in some ways right. The politically-powerful are using their power to mock and ridicule these intelligent, articulate young women in a bid to dilute the climate-crisis message.
The research suggests that the climate-skeptic argument appeals to older males, who are unsure about the role of women in society and do not want to change lifestyle.
So we have something of an impasse. Older men utterly reject the arguments of these intelligent, articulate climate-change activists, and the tools they use include insults ("weirdos"), spurious comments ('Pigtailed autistic") to reinforce their own sense of superiority.
Others listen to the messages and want to take action to change the mindset of the older men, which makes the older men feel even more threatened.
I don't have solutions, except to suggest that politeness is always in order.
https:/
The thrust of the articles is that older affluent males are used to comfortable lifestyles and are established in their positions. They see that stability beng threatened by activists, such as Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
When Togo says it is about politics, he is in some ways right. The politically-powerful are using their power to mock and ridicule these intelligent, articulate young women in a bid to dilute the climate-crisis message.
The research suggests that the climate-skeptic argument appeals to older males, who are unsure about the role of women in society and do not want to change lifestyle.
So we have something of an impasse. Older men utterly reject the arguments of these intelligent, articulate climate-change activists, and the tools they use include insults ("weirdos"), spurious comments ('Pigtailed autistic") to reinforce their own sense of superiority.
Others listen to the messages and want to take action to change the mindset of the older men, which makes the older men feel even more threatened.
I don't have solutions, except to suggest that politeness is always in order.
Ohh dear. Play the "older" white male and the wimmin card. No racism card this time then?
Do you include the older males in the less than white China and India who pour scorn on the cack handed "science"? I have a theory too. There are some who feel it may be diligent to listen to their "older" peers if only for the experience they have gained during their lives. As yet I have not come across any examples of civilisations that have survived and flourished by listening to the advice of children. Now don't get me wrong, I am quite in awe of children. I used to be one. Notwithstanding I am therefor in a position to state that children are inherently stupid, When I look back I realise that I was. It is not their fault of course, they need the time to learn and make balanced choices that are not based on their recent indoctrination or immediate emotional needs. It does therefor make me less than willing to pay heed to a movement that feels it needs a less than rational child to be their global ambassador. You really need to inspect the findings of Jennifer Marohasy, rather than the mumblings of Greta Thunberg, and familiarise yourself with the research that proves that it was warmer by far in the middle ages and exposes the unicorn droppings myth that CO2 can trap heat. By the way there were no cars, planes, power stations, or industrial processes in the middle ages, much less unicorns, although they may have been invented then. It may be timely to remind you that this site does not take kindly to posters having more than one "profile", and frowns upon encouraging other posters to support your views by way of off site "communication".
P.S Will Elton John be helping with your carbon footprint offset when you fly to Spain in November?
P.P.S. Do they still burn peat in Ireland?
Do you include the older males in the less than white China and India who pour scorn on the cack handed "science"? I have a theory too. There are some who feel it may be diligent to listen to their "older" peers if only for the experience they have gained during their lives. As yet I have not come across any examples of civilisations that have survived and flourished by listening to the advice of children. Now don't get me wrong, I am quite in awe of children. I used to be one. Notwithstanding I am therefor in a position to state that children are inherently stupid, When I look back I realise that I was. It is not their fault of course, they need the time to learn and make balanced choices that are not based on their recent indoctrination or immediate emotional needs. It does therefor make me less than willing to pay heed to a movement that feels it needs a less than rational child to be their global ambassador. You really need to inspect the findings of Jennifer Marohasy, rather than the mumblings of Greta Thunberg, and familiarise yourself with the research that proves that it was warmer by far in the middle ages and exposes the unicorn droppings myth that CO2 can trap heat. By the way there were no cars, planes, power stations, or industrial processes in the middle ages, much less unicorns, although they may have been invented then. It may be timely to remind you that this site does not take kindly to posters having more than one "profile", and frowns upon encouraging other posters to support your views by way of off site "communication".
P.S Will Elton John be helping with your carbon footprint offset when you fly to Spain in November?
P.P.S. Do they still burn peat in Ireland?
^The ranting of a person complely ut of touch with the modern world^
One of the differences between you and I is that I take notice of sites that use moderate language, don't place emotionally-charged adjectives in front of nouns, and value rationality.
I don't beleive for a moment that, in real life, you are so ignorant and inarticulate that you are unable to argue rationally. But you do rather come across that way on the web.
//cack-handed "science"// Science carried out b people with left-hand dominance - I have no problem with that, so long as it is good science.
//There are some who feel it may be diligent to listen to their "older" peers if only for the experience they have gained during their lives.//
When the world is not changing, advanced age and the experience that comes with it is valuable. However, when the world (and society) is changing rapidly, as it is at present, that age and experience may serve more to send the new generation down an unhelpful path.
Whatever we learned (I am also an older white male) in decades past, is not necessarily relevant to the modern world of information wars, social media and instant flow of information and ideas. The next generation is learning how to manage misinformation and disinformation spread over social media.
//It does therefor make me less than willing to pay heed to a movement that feels it needs a less than rational child to be their global ambassador.//
Your rudeness and insults aside, those who think about climate change have not made Greta Thunberg a global ambassador for anything. She has taken that upon herself and people have listened and responded to her message, because she is only a messenger, articulating the ideas of a generation that has not ignored the balance of nature like our generation did.
//familiarise yourself with the research that proves that it was warmer by far in the middle ages and exposes the unicorn droppings myth that CO2 can trap heat//
You think I have not researched this? Yes, the planet was warmer in the middle ages, but the rate of change in the last three decades is greater than ever in the past. That is anthropocene. Man-made. Proven. Fact.
And carbon dioxide absorbs energy in the visible spectrum and re-radiates energy at a lower frequency. That's the definition of a greenhouse gas. There are worse culprits, such as methane, which is being liberated by the kiloton as the arctic tundra defrosts due to , umm, climate change.
But to equate the greenhouse gas potential of carbon dioxide as "unicorn droppings" is an outright lie.
https:/
I have no idea what you mean by my travel to Spain in November, nor your reference to using other accounts. I joined here a few months ago. This is my only account. Perhaps, as you impugn me, you have other accounts that you use to attack other, genuine users. I really don't know. But your rantings and insults demonstrate your inability to argue a case effectively
One of the differences between you and I is that I take notice of sites that use moderate language, don't place emotionally-charged adjectives in front of nouns, and value rationality.
I don't beleive for a moment that, in real life, you are so ignorant and inarticulate that you are unable to argue rationally. But you do rather come across that way on the web.
//cack-handed "science"// Science carried out b people with left-hand dominance - I have no problem with that, so long as it is good science.
//There are some who feel it may be diligent to listen to their "older" peers if only for the experience they have gained during their lives.//
When the world is not changing, advanced age and the experience that comes with it is valuable. However, when the world (and society) is changing rapidly, as it is at present, that age and experience may serve more to send the new generation down an unhelpful path.
Whatever we learned (I am also an older white male) in decades past, is not necessarily relevant to the modern world of information wars, social media and instant flow of information and ideas. The next generation is learning how to manage misinformation and disinformation spread over social media.
//It does therefor make me less than willing to pay heed to a movement that feels it needs a less than rational child to be their global ambassador.//
Your rudeness and insults aside, those who think about climate change have not made Greta Thunberg a global ambassador for anything. She has taken that upon herself and people have listened and responded to her message, because she is only a messenger, articulating the ideas of a generation that has not ignored the balance of nature like our generation did.
//familiarise yourself with the research that proves that it was warmer by far in the middle ages and exposes the unicorn droppings myth that CO2 can trap heat//
You think I have not researched this? Yes, the planet was warmer in the middle ages, but the rate of change in the last three decades is greater than ever in the past. That is anthropocene. Man-made. Proven. Fact.
And carbon dioxide absorbs energy in the visible spectrum and re-radiates energy at a lower frequency. That's the definition of a greenhouse gas. There are worse culprits, such as methane, which is being liberated by the kiloton as the arctic tundra defrosts due to , umm, climate change.
But to equate the greenhouse gas potential of carbon dioxide as "unicorn droppings" is an outright lie.
https:/
I have no idea what you mean by my travel to Spain in November, nor your reference to using other accounts. I joined here a few months ago. This is my only account. Perhaps, as you impugn me, you have other accounts that you use to attack other, genuine users. I really don't know. But your rantings and insults demonstrate your inability to argue a case effectively
//I have no idea what you mean by my travel to Spain in November//
Okay make it the South of France. Best not rely on memory too much then .
You do use the word rational and all it's variants a lot, as if over eager to prove that you may have some claim to it. Sadly as able as you feel yourself to be in the projection of your own shortcomings onto others, you are less skilled at adopting the clarity that your self chosen sobriquet suggests. Your other one is less confusing. But not by much.
Okay make it the South of France. Best not rely on memory too much then .
You do use the word rational and all it's variants a lot, as if over eager to prove that you may have some claim to it. Sadly as able as you feel yourself to be in the projection of your own shortcomings onto others, you are less skilled at adopting the clarity that your self chosen sobriquet suggests. Your other one is less confusing. But not by much.
//their founder/leader is a fruitcake.//
Come on now Webbo.......he is deemed a genius in that naive organisation. I am currently looking at their links with the 5G proposals and their covert placements in the information gathering "community". Proper dodgy......worse than their science and probably more dangerous. They don't target China because Huawei looks like providing the technology to do the surveillance work on the "dissenters". Stay alert.
How come he only had is hooter broken once?
Come on now Webbo.......he is deemed a genius in that naive organisation. I am currently looking at their links with the 5G proposals and their covert placements in the information gathering "community". Proper dodgy......worse than their science and probably more dangerous. They don't target China because Huawei looks like providing the technology to do the surveillance work on the "dissenters". Stay alert.
How come he only had is hooter broken once?
//I've got my poster ready and I'm going to greet them. My poster reads:
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL
YOU'RE ALL BEING MUGGED//
Careful, CS, that could be construed as a “hate crime” :-)
//The difference is that there is testable, peer-reviewed science to demonstrate that anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It's really true.//
That was OK until you included the adjective “anthropogenic”. Then it becomes conjecture. You have to prove a causal link and by definition that is subjective. It can be an assumption – a very reasonable assumption - but it cannot be proved by science, “testable, peer-reviewed” or otherwise. Climate change has happened and continues to happen for reasons other than the activities of humans. The difficulty is unravelling the two so you have to accommodate opinions other than your own.
BTW, I have no reason to doubt the role of women in society. :-)
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL
YOU'RE ALL BEING MUGGED//
Careful, CS, that could be construed as a “hate crime” :-)
//The difference is that there is testable, peer-reviewed science to demonstrate that anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It's really true.//
That was OK until you included the adjective “anthropogenic”. Then it becomes conjecture. You have to prove a causal link and by definition that is subjective. It can be an assumption – a very reasonable assumption - but it cannot be proved by science, “testable, peer-reviewed” or otherwise. Climate change has happened and continues to happen for reasons other than the activities of humans. The difficulty is unravelling the two so you have to accommodate opinions other than your own.
BTW, I have no reason to doubt the role of women in society. :-)
Forget about climate change - whatever we do in this country will be far outweighed by what will be emitted by the biggest CO2 culprits like China and the USA.
What will do for us way before any change of climate is over-population: by far the most serious problem facing the world. And hot on its heels comes resistance to antibiotics, but that's for another thread....
What will do for us way before any change of climate is over-population: by far the most serious problem facing the world. And hot on its heels comes resistance to antibiotics, but that's for another thread....
Latest Posts
Why Were The Edinburgh New Year...
News2 mins ago
Shopping & Style4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
News19 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.