- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,218
- Reactions
- 4,443
Truly delusional comment. Try some facts.
AGW denialism is straight out of the tobacco lobbyist's playbook.
Truly delusional comment. Try some facts.Smoking lobbyists were not into "denialism" either. They already knew the facts behind it (decades after). Profiting off a situation while feeding false data is not "denialism".
Corporations lying is not "denialism".Truly delusional comment. Try some facts.
AGW denialism is straight out of the tobacco lobbyist's playbook.
Get a decent education - your comments are beyond the pale.Corporations lying is not "denialism".
You believing that no one is making money from climate change is denialism. Business profiting from lying is not.
Propagandist last time I checked. Although I know how you lot like abusing the "denialist" label (buzzword for CC advocates).Get a decent education - your comments are beyond the pale.
Exactly.Corporations lying is not "denialism".
You believing that no one is making money from climate change is denialism. Business profiting from lying is not.
This is a summary of my earlier link:Propagandist last time I checked. Although I know how you lot like abusing the "denialist" label (buzzword for CC advocates).
Its propaganda not denyaganda. "Denialist" insinuates that they refuse to believe the facts. That isn't whats going on. They know the facts and are spreading misinformation. I know denialist, denier, denialism has been picked up as the "label" but its not a solid fit.This is a summary of my earlier link:
"At the beginning of the fifties, research was published showing a statistical link between smoking and lung cancer. At the same time the tobacco industry’s own research began to find carcinogens in smoke and began to confirm the relationship between smoking and cancer. This posed a serious problem for the industry: whether to admit to the health problems and try and find marketable solutions, or whether to basically deny everything."
Climate science denial actually engaged some of the very same tobacco health denialists in the early days, and their theme is wholly borrowed from the lies and distortions of that disgusting industry.
How exactly, wayneL?Exactly.
Whilel there are still big dollars being made in fossil fuels, if one were to follow the money faithfully there's huge fortunes being made via the green agenda. Look to see who the biggest alarmists are and follow the money.
OMG, you live in an alternative universe. Try the likes of Bolt, Jones and a few crazies in the Coalition, and the One Nation twit called Malcolm Roberts who continue to be on the public record claiming the facts are lies. Every day there are media articles I could link to which show some new fool re-creating climate facts because they believe climate change is a massive scam."Denialist" insinuates that they refuse to believe the facts. That isn't whats going on.
No, again you confuse concepts. "Gullible" better applies to that group.Those that believe those lies would be labeled under "denialists" in my book.
You literally mixed these two things up when they are same group..
No, again you confuse concepts. "Gullible" better applies to that group.
Denial is plain and simple NOT BELIEVING THE SCIENCE.
If you believe lies you are stupid!You literally mixed these two things up when they are same group.
Nope - except that it seems to work for you.All the above that you mentioned can be classed as deniers.
They deny the overwhelming science based on a few notes of propaganda from polluters.If you believe lies you are stupid!
The distinction is that stupid people don't need to deny anything, just believe stupid stuff! For example, they will say "climate always changes" and CO2 is good for plants! They don't need to think about the science, because everything is just "weather" and you can't predict that.
On the other hand, denialists, when confronted with the science, claim it is false, fraudulent, manipulated or doesn't prove anything.
Nope - except that it seems to work for you.
You know "denier" was originally "those who rejected religion"Nope - except that it seems to work for you.
Joe, this post tells you why Global Warming threads need to be banned on General Chat. It seems that 135 pages of evidence isn't enough for Bas ..!What might be really special would be voicing opinions informed by evidence.
Or is that pushing the boat a bit too far ?
Explod, you add a 'Like'? You're better than this!What might be really special would be voicing opinions informed by evidence.
Or is that pushing the boat a bit too far ?
Empirical data has nothing to do with the opinions of people on a stock forum. That is merely a reflection of the marxist control of the narrative.I refer people to the poll on this site
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/global-warming-how-valid-and-serious.9058/
Where over 50% say GW is serious and a matter of urgency, and another 30% say that we should take some action to reduce greenhouse gases.
That means that those who say GW is not a problem represent only 20% of the members of this site who aren't generally known for their Left leaning views.
Empirical data has nothing to do with the opinions of people on a stock forum. That is merely a reflection of the marxist control of the narrative.
As ever, I refer people to my well-documented moderate views on this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?