Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by ArchStanton, Jan 7, 2020.
Nope, I’m just willing to speak in absolutes.
There’s a difference between the posts I was responding to. One was demanding I supply information. Happy to do that.
The other came up with a subjective interpretation of a conversation and declared it fact. Then proceeded to call me arrogant because I chose not to bow down to his assessment. I don’t care for such lines of dialogue.
I have read the Koran as "revealed" to Muhammed through the course of his life in the Lings Sira and could find nothing to criticize about Islam as taught by Muhammed - according to Lings. So I would not be on what you consider to be "the right".
There are apparently some who consider all Muslims to be terrorists and Islam a terrorist religion. Have any of those people conducted terrorist attacks on innocent Muslims?
If so it would be fair to assume that any terrorist act against Muslims might have been carried out by these zealous enemies of Islam.
The man made global warming theory has always been promoted by the telling of "scary stories" to activate the ignorant. These fanatics should be suspects for any criminal act that advances their cause - "saving the planet".
No, they are saying that AGW is a hoax. You obviously don't know the difference or are pretending not to.
Whereas ScienceNews.org isn't?
Well you could admit your mistake.
Sure, but I'm not talking about you.
There was the Finsbury Park attack which targeted Muslims leaving a mosque.
Has there ever been an example of one of them committing a criminal act which advances their cause?
I mean just in general. You made it clear that you don't know enough about the subject, whereas now you seem totally confident about everything!
Actually you have been talking about me from at least this post last Thursday:
"No, but you know that I'm not. Again, let's say that a bunch of terror attacks (in ANY country) occurred which were suspected as possibly being Islamic attacks but were far from confirmed. And let's say that people on the left said that the attacks were committed by members of the far-right in order to promote the idea that Muslims are bad and shouldn't be allowed into the country. What would your reaction to that be?" chris155au
Environmental extremists have committed crimes to advance their cause. A current Google News search should verify that.
What are you referring to?
Yeah, I wanted to know what you think, but that doesn't mean that I included you in the "far right" mentioned in my scenario.
As in committed a crime which results in something which they can say climate change caused?
IN THE KNOW hero firefighter totally BRUSHES OFF question on climate change, giving the only EVIDENT reason for why these fires have been so bad. "I think it's the carbon credits - there's the scrub (bush) out there that's went up (in flames) that apparently Energy Australia (energy company) own, just for carbon credits, so there's no back burning through winter that happens, so the fuel load on the ground is just ridiculous. And of course if the carbon credits are still there, the burning off isn't gonna happen." But of course, we all know that there are no politicians against back burning! Yeah, there are no politicians who are against at least SOME backburning! This doesn't mean that green policies don't prevent all the backburning that there COULD be! More could be done! @Montegriffo, @DaveBN, @Bowerbird.
If the interests of any fanatic terrorist movement would be advanced by arson it is fair for investigators and the public to presume that those terrorists are involved.
Man made global warming activists are, in fact, doomsday fanatics and should be suspected whenever "wildfires" are set and used to advance their political agenda.
The use of Fake News and fabricated scary scenarios has been a tactic fully embraced by man made global warming fanatics from the start.
You fell for bots.
That's great, you've found a firefighter with an opinion.
Still doesn't change the fact that dryer than average conditions is contributing to more severe wildfires.
Same as in the US and in Europe.
Moreover, in conjunction with every other factor that starts a fire. There has always been arson, and probably always will be, but it's climate change that made these fires into what they were.
I'm not an expert, so my word can't be taken for it. As far as I understand it, yes there is. That being said, even if there weren't, it wouldn't mean that we couldn't heat it. Furthermore, there's cooling, and then there's just not making it hotter.
Which part of climate change? Clearly, the drier weather didn't create the fuel. So, was it just when it was wet, or AU got more rainfall than they normally would that is the change of which you're now concerned about? Better, clearly, for you, was worse, wasn't it....
Gosh... you sound so certain. Perhaps, because you know... you're on the internet and all.... you could actually cite a solution that testing demonstrates would, in fact, anthropogenically cool the climate. Oh, and make sure that whatever solution we implement doesn't cool it too much.. cause you know what that value is, right??
I'm not going to pretend this makes sense. Is your point that some parts of australia have had historic flooding so that means there can't be a drought?
Well, as I explicitly said, there is cooling and then there is simply not making it hotter. Also, the heat of course isn't the only problem. As an analogy, imagine you are 400 lbs, and consuming cases of mountain dew and multiple buckets of fried chicken and twinkies every day.
Do you know the exact number of calories and the exact food you should be eating every day?
Do you know for sure that eating less will prevent all health consequences you have already caused?
Do you know the perfect weight that you should be?
If you don't know the answers to the previous questions, does that then mean that you have no reason to reduce your caloric intake?
Should your first concern be eating too little and then becoming underweight?
Again, we don't 'control' the climate. Fried chicken doesn't 'control' our fat. Cigarettes don't 'control' the cancer in our bodies. But all three have profound effects.
And what can be done about that?
Separate names with a comma.