Let's Ban ! (Seriously)

This is really an idea to think about - as ridiculous it seems because we have corrupt cowards in . For humans, the idea would be great.

· · Web · 1 · 3 · 2

@33RDking @publicvoit
oh yeah, some predictions didn't turn out to be true, that's an ultimate argument that you're wrong, you stupid ecologists.


Well, the predictions were made on that-times situation. You know, world have changed many times, some things became more eco-friendly, some not.
Overall it's hard to predict something accurately because there're too many factors.

We can't say when exactly everything will fuck-up, but it will definitely happen. Sooner or later.

@crusom @publicvoit
Yes. "Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day". In the mean time let's turn off electricity in the west based on a technocratic studies while China disregards it and builds unlimited fossil fuel power plants. Eat bugs and confess your sins to the mother nature because "you will own nothing and you will be happy". You present no argument and label me without knowing anything about me. It proves to me how intellectually lazy you are. Spierdalaj maly kocie. Take a look at the climate change studies and how they completely disregard effect on weather by the solar cycles. I actually believe that the earth is in trouble but it has nothing to do with "carbon footprint".
Isn't it strange how there is a complete lack of conversation about a issue? Maybe because it has nothing to do with human activity? It doesn't fit into the wokeness narrative of SCIENTISM cult? Grow up.

@33RDking @crusom Good luck with your approach of ignoring basically the whole set of scientific results of the last decades. 😉
I'm sure you can prove everybody wrong by some random YouTube videos and web pages of people who aren't field experts. 👍
Sarcasm intended.

@publicvoit @crusom Good luck winning your argument by not addressing the issue at hand. Apparently you believe that scientific consent has never been proven wrong when almost all science has been proven wrong over time. World is full of followers, very few independent thinkers. Pun intended.

@33RDking @crusom You do not fully understand how the scientific process works. Changing the current state is absolutely normal and is based on current research results which aggregate over time. Usually, new insights do not contradict the previous model but they extend it to more specific cases.
Therefore, I really trust in science that has proven over many centuries and not random web pages. 🙄
Especially from non-field-experts.

@33RDking @crusom As you can see, I *was* addressing the issue at hand but it was on a different level than you thought. 😉

@33RDking @crusom The difference between , and real is that a researcher always accepts new insights as long as the scientific evidence is changing with advancements. Followers of obtrusive theories won't change their point of view regardless of arguments. Therefore, throwing arguments on the alleged topic is utterly useless.

"Science works, bitches."

@publicvoit @crusom You never addressed the issue at hand. You did not disprove the information presented. You simply pointed your finger at a removed imaginary person in a white lab coat and told me that the scientist has all the answers. If you talk to a religious fanatic he will tell you the same thing about God while pointing his finger in the sky. I encourage that you look at Milgram psychological experiments and how easy the populace can be persuaded by a person in a white lab coat to obey authority. You see "science that impacts policy isn't science, it's politics". Here is a very well established scientist explaining man made climate change and the political agenda.

@33RDking @crusom Ok, you do not even understand what I wrote and you completely misinterpreted Milgram (one/few coats versus the common scientific status). It is absolutely pointless discussing with a fanatic like you so this is EOT for me. 😔

@publicvoit @crusom I understand that you want to avoid looking at data and information in front of you because it would discredit your argument. I understand that the way to go about it is to deflect the conversation into discussion about complicated scientific procedures which will never reach conclusion. Not looking at whats in front of you makes you a DENIER.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Zur Übersicht von gehts hier:
Hier ist unsere Mastodon-Instanz: Teil eines dezentrales sozialen Netzwerks. Fokus auf den Raum Graz.