Editors Note: At the time of this articles posting I was unable to fully verify or disprove the information of this article. I must say this does not fully reflect the views of C-Gaymer on Climate change. I can, however, verify these claims made in the article and confirm they are in line with my own views:
1. Many Climate Change Scientists have manipulated data, they are a disgrace to the scientific community and damage the cause of raising awareness about and combatting manmade climate change.
2. Under the Obama Regime government agencies like the EPA routinely engaged in dishonest and destructive behavior for various reasons from keeping their budgets to attacking the political opponents of the regime. The EPA is no exception and Mr. F.L.A.G. convincingly makes the case that the Colorado mine disaster was intentional.
3. I fully agree and support the Presidents decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord. Having actually looked into the accord after the fact, I can confirm it was a useless attempt to look like leftist governments were combatting climate change. In reality, they only restricted the economies of western governments like the United States while giving a free pass to dictatorial regimes like China to pollute and destroy the Earth. It is a worthless document much like the Iran Nuclear Deal. Another part of Obama’s Failed Legacy.
Here at C-Gaymer, we are Eco-Conservatives. This means we acknowledge Manmade Climate Change and the need to combat it. Unlike our dishonest and ignorant Liberal Counterparts, however, Eco Conservatives believe in the power of the free market and believe in incentivizing companies to seek green solutions and alternatives to things such as plastic waste or Energy. It is more effective than lies, witchhunts, and petty rhetoric. To learn more about being an
Eco Conservative, visit http://www.republicen.org. Know that this website does not fully reflect our views either, but they are a great place to start learning about being an Eco-Conservative, and we need to take the reigns of that movement. Thank you for your time.
Not Hawaii but you get the point. From You Only Live Twice
Isn’t this interesting. For April, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached its highest point ever, as recorded in Hawaii. Right before a volcano erupted near the observation site. Except instead of linking those two, scientists said this carbon dioxide came from the burning of fossil fuels. Maybe I’m too much of a cynic, but if these scientists don’t issue a correction or at least explain why A: Al Gore was only saying last year that CO2 emissions were on the decline and B: why CO2 from a volcano does not affect CO2 readings in the atmosphere near said volcano, I’m pretty sure they’re abusing the fact that we can’t distinguish CO2 that came from a volcano from CO2 that came from humans, in order to promote their climate change agenda.
Maybe what I said is totally impossible because of altitude (but then how did CO2 reach that section of the atmosphere for them to read such high levels in the first place?), maybe it’s exactly what happened. We don’t know, so advantage liberals because guess what: most scientists are liberal. Scientists have a monopoly on knowledge, and they use that to their political advantage to shove through whatever agenda suits them, claiming that if you oppose them then you oppose reality. Though reality comes along and bites them in the ass (as we saw with the liberal scientists of the Soviet Union) even when scientists hide from the truth behind their iron curtains of “knowledge”, the fact that opponents like me don’t have so wide a knowledge base still leaves the scientist with enough ethos/ego to dismiss any criticism.
It Was Supposed To Save The World
Let’s run with the scientists’ assessment though. Hawaii is quite a long ways from anywhere that didn’t sign the Paris Climate Agreement (the unenforceable agreement that anyone could cheat on, but was supposed to save the world) or abide by it. In fact, you’d have to go all the way to Idaho or Arizona or Alaska before you hit a spot that doesn’t abide by the Agreement that’s supposed to have saved our planet. The way air currents travel though, none of the air from those states would be reaching Hawaii in an
As you can see from this photograph taken 20 miles from DC, all of the pollution from the rest of the backward business-loving Republican strongholds has left a layer of smog so thick that it causes anyone looking at it to hallucinate so vividly they think they actually see a pretty wooded path.
unfiltered form (especially after passing through the lush green paradises of treaty signatories India, Russia, and China). They WOULD, however, be reaching me here in the nation’s capital in their purest, most CO2-laden form. The Left has already made the atmosphere quite toxic here, sans pollution. Now, for there to be enough CO2 in Hawaii from the mainland USA’s horrid pollution that Hawaii would still record the highest CO2 levels ever after the rest of the world greened itself, that would mean that the East Coast would look like Beijing or something.
So explain it to me liberal- you contend that the U.S. is the largest and only producer of CO2, as the restrictions present in the Paris Climate Agreement indicate (the treaty allowed every nation except the U.S. to increase its fossil fuel use, while the U.S. must keep reducing its use. For example, China, that pollutes much more than the U.S., with double the CO2 emissions of America, is allowed to indiscriminately pollute for 13 more years before the treaty restrictions start. Maybe the framers of the treaty read the fake news in the NYT, AJC, and Ecowatch that claims somehow the pollution stats are way off and the U.S. is worse than China. Remember, these science deniers are the ones telling us global warming exists, to begin with, the ones who say China with acid rain covering way more than a third of it and with lethal pollution in its waterways and crippling smog covering its cities is somehow less polluting than America with its swimmable rivers, distinct lack of acid rain, and clear-aired cities. Think I’m exaggerating on how much these liberals and scientists who warn us about global warming love China? A major politician involved in planning
Public executions are popular events where thousands attend, in the country that the UN believes has the best government for fighting climate change. As if the pictures didn’t make it obvious, their rationale for why they think China is the best government does (especially given what was presented in the “California Attacks Muslims” piece and what will be discussed here later). And all this time I thought liberals were against the death penalty, but I guess they only oppose it if the murderer in question is black and shot a cop. image from thesun.co.uk
how we stop polluting, the UN Climate Chief, said that China has the ideal model for action on global warming, despite as you may have read in the above links how China’s provinces simply ignore climate initiatives, and despite its failures. There is no clearer example of how distanced the climate change scientists/activists/politicians are from reality than what I have just outlined). Given your belief that the U.S. is the only cause of pollution, then how does liberal Hawaii with all it’s anti-global warming measures which only receives air from nations that signed the treaty, nations that had such low pollution that they were encouraged to BUILD polluting structures, record the highest amounts of CO2 ever in history? Surely after 24 months, the treaty would be showing some impact, yes? And remember- 9 of those months still had Obama in office. But I guess if you believe Obama winning the Democratic nomination was the day the seas stopped rising, you’d believe Trump’s inauguration is the day the sky caught fire.
Come to think of it, on the one hand the Left claims global warming is instant (No Arctic ice by summer 2008 as predicted earlier that year despite the fact polar ice has stayed about the same since 1979, Prince Charles said in 2009 there were only 96 months left to save the planet, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in 2009 there were only 50 days left to stop terrible climate catastrophe, the head of Canada’s Green Party said in 2009 there were only hours left to save the world) and there are points of no return that we’ve passed in date but not passed in damage to the climate (the Paris Climate Agreement was signed only at the end of 2015. 2015 was 26 years after the UN warned we had only 10 years- a warning which we followed with increased CO2 production. 2015 was 6 years after NASA warned that Obama had only 4 years to save the Earth. 2015 was 2 years after when Al Gore predicted that the polar ice caps would be gone by. 2015 was the same year the UN said the temperature would rise 2 degrees Celsius, the same year climate chaos was supposed to be unleashed on the world as predicted by France’s foreign minister, and the same year a bunch of other deadly predictions outlined later in this piece did not happen. You will find a lot of failed predictions by these alleged scientists and politicians), but they also claim that any solutions to global warming will take a while to be effective. So CO2 works instantly, but its sudden absence does not? And surely with all of the climate measures you’ve put into place while you ran the government and all of the climate measures the rest of the smarter, more liberal world has instilled we must see at least some reduction in CO2/climate change/temperature increase? (Vox summarized the party of scientists and climate warriors’ actions from 2009-2016 best with its headline “Obama had a chance to really fight climate change. He blew it.”)
Let’s be honest- with this as the face of the Left, we can pretty confidently say they never have to explain away any errors to their followers. Image from Urban Dictionary
They have a way of explaining away why the things they implement will have no measurable impact (much the same way as apocalypse predictors can always explain why the date they pick is wrong once it’s past, or buy themselves time by pushing it into the future… much to the chagrin of scientists that want to advance the date by 50 years to 2050 instead of 2100)– they say the CO2 emitted in previous generations is still there, so whatever we do now won’t be felt because of that earlier pollution.
So… if you can’t even distinguish CO2 from a volcano vs. CO2 from a car if ancient CO2 is still hurting us, how can you distinguish CO2 emitted 250 years ago from CO2 emitted 250 seconds ago? How do you know it’s still there? How do you even know what we’re adding to it? Do you count how many CO2 sources there are (meaning count factory by the factory) and update every day in case one or more shuts down? And if it takes so damn long to shrug off the effects of CO2 emissions, what if we’re ALREADY at the point of sustainable CO2 output, but we just can’t tell yet?
Seriously, where are the experiments on how long it takes CO2 from source A to infect the atmosphere across the globe? Because if the U.S. is the only polluter as the Paris Climate Agreement’s punitive anti-American measures indicate, then obviously everything we do here has a worldwide impact. (I’m not disputing that one nation’s pollution can have a global impact; folks in San Francisco import some of their smog from China… but that can’t be since as I said according to liberals China pollutes so little that it has the ideal model for fighting climate change and can, under the Paris Climate Agreement, increase its polluting!).
Scientists Would Tell Us!
Scientists say the Paris agreement will drop the world’s temperature increase by half a degree at the end of the century (instead of rising 2 degrees Celsius over 100 years, it will rise 1.5 degrees… assuming the science behind it works, but fake data and bad conclusions throw shade on that, with signatories such as China outright lying about their data despite being the best people at fighting climate change as we have been told… plus, climate warriors thought the Paris Agreement was crap until Trump decided he hated it, at which point its Lefty critics found true love with it) Yet at the same time, in only 15 years of polluting enough damage will be done to kill off 250,000 more people on average per year. In fact, according to the IPCC, in the last 40 years disasters have been caused by mother nature alone without man’s help (and they said there was a stall in the increase in temperatures, at least until the Obama Admin faked some data) despite also believing that human-induced global warming impacted EVERYTHING over that period.
Let’s not forget- these are the people who tell us we will never see snow again because of global warming, and then a year after a blazing headline carrying that info these people brazenly tell us we’re entering into an ice age because of global warming, after spending decades ridiculing the notion of a new ice age, which came after spending a decade promoting the idea of a new ice age. “The people” being the whole freakin’ scientific community if we are to believe that 97% buy into climate change. Oh wait, turns out that’s fake news. The Left thinks it’s settled science that global warming will end snow/cause an ice age/be limited by a treaty/not be affected at all by our actions so far. And skeptics are either stupid or evil for not simultaneously believing all four of these are true and all four are false.
You would have to be either at the peak of stupidity to have a head so empty that yesterday’s talking points are so readily and unquestioningly swapped for today’s (like believing simultaneously that Antarctica is affected by global warming less and more than the rest of the world… and ignoring that it was waaaaaay warmer anyway, before humans could even pollute), OR you are some kind of super genius that both can co-exist in your mind at the same time. This DOES explain why the Left gets oh so violent when faced with someone outside their belief bubble– violence is the action of the unthinking beasts in the jungle, and if the Left actually analyzed what they believe for consistency and accuracy they might stop believing it. Can’t have that now, can we?
You’ve Been Misled In Other Ways Too
Polar Ice Cap circa 2015, according to Al Gore. Image from evangelion.wikia.com
Remember the repeated instances where leading climate scientists were caught faking data (I love this urgent CBS headline: “Mistakes in Climate Report Fuel Skepticism“. Ya THINK?! Let’s summarize it- “people who are lied to become skeptical of claims made by the liars”)? Remember how gas was supposed to be $9 per gallon, and milk was supposed to be $13 per gallon as wildfires raged across the U.S. and New York is submerged, in the far-off year of 2015? Remember how the North polar ice cap was supposed to have disappeared by 2013, yet here we are 5 years on and it’s GROWING? You CAN’T say it’s because Democrats came into office. Mother Earth doesn’t CARE what party controls the government (no matter how many times liberals tell you reality favors them) if said party does nothing except ram through a healthcare bill! The only climate initiatives Democrats undertook were the Paris Climate Agreement and to make it so that if you spat on the ground the EPA could regulate it as a protected waterway! I guess Solyndra too, though the only thing green about that was the money that Obama’s wealthy friends made at the expense of taxpayers.
Granted, the Second Impact was a slight setback for the ozone layer. Image from evangelion.wikia.com
The ozone layer is another bundle of fun. First, we’re given the wonderful news that scientists say the ozone layer will heal by 2050. But wait! Turns out a year later scientists want to horrify us into a coma by saying that all along global warming has been stopping the ozone layer from healing… although it’d be nice if they told other scientists about that too, because they’re looking very disorganized, especially when they say a warming climate is healing the hole instead of destroying it. Doesn’t matter I guess, since one of the eco-friendly saviors who signed the Paris Climate Agreement is destroying the ozone layer. Oh yeah, and humans can and can’t take credit for the ozone layer healing, and they even say some holes in the ozone layer have nothing to do with humans.
What Do They Gain By Fearmongering?
Solyndra is an example- they get money! Politicians get power. Then there are treaties like the Paris Climate Agreement which, if obeyed, ensure that one of Europe and China’s
Snake Oil?! I thought this was an add for the Paris Climate Agreement! Image from yesterday’s papers
largest economic competitors (America) is crippled while the aforementioned countries flourish. It was supposed to be a “major leap for mankind” that ends pollution (except from the statesmen who polluted in order to travel and meet for the deal when skyping or something would have worked, so its no coincidence the leaders omitted their means of travel), ends ALL hurricanes, and probably give every millennial a check for going to school like they do in Australia (which seems a bit classist to me- why would kids who can afford to go to college need extra money? Give it to the indigenous peoples of Australia or minorities, or at least give more money to the folks that can’t afford college. Geez, I thought Australia was supposed to be liberal!). I guess it’s not surprising this agreement was about inflicting economic damage since an IPCC co-chair once revealed that all their climate plans were about redistributing wealth rather than saving the planet, that they had “almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”.
Of course, scientists get influence and money too, and thus a license to act recklessly. The aforementioned data fakery is an example. But we also get new examples. Would you believe that the wildfires in California are the direct results of their liberal climate policies? The drought in California is because that liberal state’s government is squandering its resources while farmers are growing food that’s best suited to Florida’s climate, or at least Vietnam’s, whereas California is largely desert and mountains? And then they hide their utter stupidity and irresponsibility by filling the pockets of some scientists with nice taxpayer-funded efforts to say that global warming is to blame.
UN stands for “Unlimited Nickels”, at least as far as scientists are concerned. The UN doesn’t have a clever acronym for “scientist”, they’re just wondering how long before scientists and their blunders thoroughly discredit the scientific community, so that the UN can avoid paying expensive grants and hire cheap aspiring novelists like Ben Rhodes, given the amount of fiction in the climate reports anyway. Image from wikimedia commons
Seriously, as liberals love to say, FOLLOW THE MONEY! If research by institutes that get funding from oil companies or the Koch brothers is automatically tainted, what about funding to scientists that A: comes from a government with an interest in proving climate change exists (like say the Obama Administration, or the liberal California administration), a government that would withdraw said funding if it disagreed with the conclusion and B: goes to scientists who already believe climate change exists despite major incidents of faked data that should have left them with the least little scintilla of skepticism (based on the claim that 97% of scientists believe in global warming despite the severe credibility gap). Is that not also tainted? (It’s pretty much a given that the funding source will bias a scientist or pick biased scientists no matter what the research is about.)
And what if these climate treaty meetings receive money from fossil fuel companies and then decide that certain fossil fuel-consuming means of transport are exempt? Doesn’t that mean, by your standard, that the Paris Climate Agreement was tainted? And let’s not forget- while the oil company scientists and Koch scientists have yet to be caught faking data (you only claim it’s faked because you disagree, not because you have internal emails talking about faking it, unlike us climate skeptics who have the dark secrets of your scientists’ private thoughts spread on the internet for all to see in their own words), the global warming scientists have been caught faking it MANY TIMES. Does this not warrant any skepticism? Oh yeah, like I said in the article “California Attacks Muslims” (it was only unposted for like a few days, I just wrote like crazy in that time, hence why I never link to it) liberals will easily believe their side simply because it’s what they want to hear. Scientists too, apparently.
When Reality Is Not On The Side Of Liberals…
I mentioned the wildfires and droughts that the Left are trying to paper over with their bogus scientists. Probably some of the same scientists that said the very policies that caused the drought and wildfires were sound. But let’s also not forget when the EPA polluted an entire river basin. The corrupt liberals with their corrupt scientists and corrupt research wanted to steal some land from the folks in Silverton, CO. So these liberals and scientists schemed together and ended up polluting a river, which led to the residents deciding to vacate as the government wanted, only at the marginal expense of an ecological disaster of massive proportions. And yet we are still supposed to TRUST these people who just destroyed the environment over a land battle when they say they want to PROTECT it?!
…They Craft A New One
In the Left’s reality, New York City really was flooded by 2015 and temperatures had risen to create extreme heat, just as the Left predicted. But the Paris Climate Agreement reversed this. Image from vttbots.com
Here’s another callback to the “California” piece- the Left wants us to put MORE trust in them! Their version of climate denial has been responsible for wildfires, massive pollution, and a neverending drought. Now they want us to trust them with even more power to fight the climate change that they cause and other climate change that they’ve been faking data about. Liberals like Bill Nye, instead of debating their farce, are demanding that people like me be jailed for mentioning the flaws in the Left’s climate ideology. Like I said- unthinking beasts. What these animators did in jest the Left did with deadly conviction- invented a lie, they believed in it and acted on it, and now wish to punish anyone that DOESN’T believe this lie. Climate scientists, instead of arguing their point or disproving their opposition, are now suing to stop anyone from opposing them. How scientific. Attorney Generals of liberal states even now are using their power to attack anyone that publishes data against climate change. If the science is settled, why can’t you argue your positions? Why are you suing to shut up anyone with data you don’t like if it’s so easy to contradict? What is it you are trying to hide?
What else does the Left intend to do because of their “reality”? Well, of course, there’s the population control mentioned in the omnipresent “California” piece, in which the Left would pretty much decide that only liberals have children. Now we break into UN Agenda 21 (alias “smart growth”). Simply put: to fight global warming, every citizen in the United States will be confined to one of several super-cities (no suburbs because single-family homes are a no-no), leaving most of the country empty. You wonder how the Left will arrest climate deniers, how they’ll make sure you have only one kid, how they’ll execute any number of their measures? Well here’s one answer that they had for it, under the guise of environmentalism.
By the way- the good folks at the UN when discussing this were kind enough to mention that it has occurred to them to instill worldwide communism, destroy the middle class, and revert the world to a pre-industrial state (well, let’s be honest, everyone in the world except for them). So before you dismiss this Agenda 21 tangent as a conspiracy like a few Leftwing outlets have done (picking some of the more absurd claims, like the Jews being behind it, to make their case that ALL of it is a conspiracy theory) why don’t you actually read the statements from the people who you gave the power to implement this? And why don’t you take a look at my “California” piece for the references to current, respected liberals that demand such population control? Motive, opportunity, and a history of such remarks are already established. Oh, and concurrent with Agenda 21’s introduction, we also have the Wildlands Project being introduced, which suggests 50% of the U.S. be depopulated (“rewilded“).
Remind Me Who’s Anti-Science?
A UN consultant gave us a statement to the effect that the UN believes wealth inequality causes global warming. SCIENCE!
But Earth-chan is so sick! Please help make her better by throwing all logic, reason, common sense, and really any brain functions that separate us from a herd of cows out the window. Speaking of a herd of cows, when I get to Agenda 21 you’ll see just how primitive of a state scientists want us to revert to. Propaganda image from Eurokeks
The ones who fake data supporting climate change, call upon state Attorney Generals to intimidate climate change deniers, and want to imprison anyone with a dissenting point of view? THESE are scientists? That’s what the Left has done, that’s what “scientists” have cheered, you want me to think that they are IN FAVOR of science? You want me to seriously believe that the majority of “scientists” who buy into this crap can credibly be called scientists? If your idea is so indefensible that you must protest against opposition, invent fictitious data because there’s no evidence supporting your assertion, and imprison dissenters then it’s readily apparent to anyone with an IQ above a potato that your idea can’t credibly be considered part of “science”, unless we tack a “pseudo” in front of the word.
It’s ironic too- as mentioned in the “California” piece, the Left attributes all sorts of oppression to religion. Including repression of scientific discovery. Yet here we have the Left doing its best Spanish Inquisition impression, with climate change deniers as latter-day Galileos. I guess the moral is this: no matter how ignorant you are, so long as you have a mind open to learning and discovery you’re more of a scientist than 97% of our scientific community.
But you’ll never get a paper published because it’s now all just a contest to get funding from liberal institutions and the people deciding what gets published are all a bunch of liberals hellbent on shoving their agenda down everyone’s throat, while the rest of the scientific community that might later claim to be sheep in this mess are openly abandoning the idea of scientific inquiry in favor of unswerving devotion to dogma. Scientific awards and academic journals are now on par with the Oscars- just forums for liberals to pat themselves on the back about how liberal they are while taking shots at nonbelievers. “Nonbelievers” is a very polite term- based on the Left’s utter contempt for people they deem inferior, ie people that don’t believe propaganda, and based on the Left’s drive for control of population (and the Left thinking that they’ve cured Down’s Syndrome by killing all babies born with it), I fervently believe that “nonbeliever” is more accurately replaced with “Lebensunwertes Leben”. Why don’t you ask a liberal and find out?
Scientists want it to be illegal for me to insult them. But when they decide to attack countries that have cleaned-up their act, to punish a country that has done quite a lot to cut down on pollution, and to put on a pedestal the country which is the biggest example of anthropogenic climate change/government not caring about it and say they’re the one whose example we must follow, these scientists open themselves up to insult for such a backward, self-defeating, contradictory response that is in defiance not only of the urgent reality these scientists have imagined but in fact of reality itself. This can’t be considered libel because my statements are factually correct- liberals and the scientific community (more liberals) say we have very few hours/days/weeks/months/years to stop man-made climate change, and they tell us the best way to do this is to follow the example of the one country that, if it were to suddenly vanish, would cause the temperature increase to drop .5 degrees Celsius just as the Paris Climate Agreement aimed for.
Before you start ranting on about how anti-science I am for opposing scientists that wouldn’t know real science if it walked up and started throwing Erlenmeyer flasks at them, let me make my position even more clear: man-made climate change happens (otherwise my criticism against China would be bizarre). The problem is that A: the Left is blaming only the United States despite our fairly unpolluted countryside, B: the Left demands a worldwide totalitarian regime be installed to save us from their hyperbolic predictions of fiery death that have never come true, and C: the Left wants to silence opponents of their lies by jailing people/totally controlling the rest of the people right down to deciding if they’re worthy enough to reproduce (as established in the “California” piece). Their Final Solution to the Climate Question.
The UN’s new climate chief indicated in a recent interview that he too thought China was the best model for how to fight climate change. Image from wikimedia commons
And unfortunately, because of liberals, man-made climate change will doubtless continue and even reach the levels they are warning against. Not because of the U.S. which they target, we’re doing alright at least compared to where we used to be (except in liberal cities like smog-covered LA or NYC in which just one sip of the Hudson will probably give you cancer). Rather, it’s because of the countries the liberals are giving a free pass to pollute as they like (as established above with the description of what the Paris Climate Agreement allows, which makes this CNN piece saying China is near a point of no-return hilarious as the Climate Agreement lets China DRAMATICALLY INCREASE its polluting) while forcing the U.S. to make up the difference. As point of fact, while the U.S. is forced to withstand punitive, economy-damaging measures, we also are forced to PAY other countries (and Palestinian terrorists) so that they can keep polluting (the treaty is non-binding and there is no enforcement measure such as cutting off funds to a country that abuses them or ignores the agreement; the only reason America is forced to do anything is because of the Leftwing political leadership that brought us this agreement). But then again, as mentioned above, liberals have admitted at least twice that this is not about fixing the environment. It’s not about fairness or equal enforcement. It’s about wealth redistribution and ending capitalism. And even if we don’t believe the Left’s 97% claim, as seen at a Forbes link above we still have 80-90% of the scientific community on board with this radical ideology and inevitable genocide of political opposition.
All this just so that China and India can keep exemplifying the ills of man-made climate change or even accelerate their pace of polluting, as the Paris Climate Agreement permits. By the way, if China has the ideal form of government for fighting man-made Climate Change, would that also mean the USSR was ideal? Because you might want to rethink that assessment too… just as the UN has been rethinking its assessment of how effective the Paris Climate Agreement was. Doesn’t matter, it never was about the climate anyway, as stated before.
Why is it that I, the allegedly anti-science knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnon guy blasting scientists and environmentalists for hyping man-made climate change, am the one who seems to know more about real man-made climate change than they do? I assume I do, otherwise, the Paris Climate Agreement which scientists marched in support of would look a lot different, and they certainly wouldn’t support bad actors/major polluters like China being given free reign to pollute as they please. Maybe I’m the only one mentioned here that actually believes in man-made climate change, maybe the scientists are just rallying behind it in a cynical attempt to usher in worldwide communism and destruction to their political opposition (their opposition is easy to identify- whoever believes their contradictory statements unquestioningly is with them, whoever doubts them is the enemy). Wouldn’t be the first time someone used an ostensibly laudable cause as a Trojan Horse, and scientists already have a pretty bad reputation morally–speaking (something also cynical, aside from my outlook, but I noticed I had a very hard time finding info on Soviet and Chinese human experiments, with most of the search results for both countries being links to American experiments, and any search for China had Unit 731 listed near the top. I wouldn’t be surprised if either A: Google didn’t want their favorite governments to look bad so they hid results, B: academics didn’t want their favorite governments to look bad so they didn’t study it, C: journalists didn’t want their favorite governments to look bad so they never reported on it, or D: all of the above).
I Leave You With One Last Smear Of The Scientific Community
They’re idiots (and yes, these folks who claim that people who rape/behead/burn people alive are the real victims DO represent the scientific community). This is the state of our scientific community… and explains why we’re still such a primitive species, technologically. But you liberals reading this probably believe we’re still primitive because science itself is sexist because it deals in absolutes, ie. sexist because 2+2 will always equal 4. Whatever.