EPTI think you might need to do more research about the proposals that are out there then.
TL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 50
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
I think you might need to do more research about the proposals that are out there then. | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:23 FallDownMarigold wrote: If you don't want to be labeled as a conspiracy theorist then don't announce to everybody in a thread discussing the science of climate change that it's a ploy made to strengthen the UN This discussion isn't limited to the science of climate change as far as I can tell. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread there is a scientific, economic and political side to this topic. My concern is the use of a legitimate issue to further a political agenda. If you don't think this is possible then you need to wake up. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:28 TricksAre4Figs wrote: I think you might need to do more research about the proposals that are out there then. Nah, that isn't how this works. Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence, and if you are going to suggest that climate change is merely a cover for global governmental domination, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence of such a thing. Simply saying "go look it up for yourself" is almost always a clear sign that dung is being shoveled. | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:32 farvacola wrote: Nah, that isn't how this works. Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence, and if you are going to suggest that climate change is merely a cover for global governmental domination, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence of such a thing. Simply saying "go look it up for yourself" is almost always a clear sign that dung is being shoveled. Nothing outrageous about anything I've said. You can try to put words in my mouth, won't work though. Again, do some research before getting all up-tight. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:35 TricksAre4Figs wrote: Nothing outrageous about anything I've said. You can try to put words in my mouth, won't work though. Again, do some research before getting all up-tight. So, it's fair to say that you have nary a link nor reference to substantiate your claim? | ||
micronesia
United States24770 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:35 TricksAre4Figs wrote: Nothing outrageous about anything I've said. You can try to put words in my mouth, won't work though. Again, do some research before getting all up-tight. You may not think your claims are outrageous, but you are still making claims that should be backed up. The person who disagrees with you pointed out that your suggestion to "do research" suggests that you couldn't provide evidence for your claim, even if you tried. You responded to this by saying "do research." I don't really care if your viewpoint is accurate, or defensible, or not. If that is how you are going to respond to people disagreeing with you when making claims that many disagree with, then you shouldn't have shared your stance in this thread in the first place. Take some responsibility for your claims. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:31 TricksAre4Figs wrote: This discussion isn't limited to the science of climate change as far as I can tell. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread there is a scientific, economic and political side to this topic. My concern is the use of a legitimate issue to further a political agenda. If you don't think this is possible then you need to wake up. Ooh, the "wake up" card. Now we're definitely in conspiracy theory territory. | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
| ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote: Just google UN Climate Court proposals... There are parts of the UN that want to create a court with which to hand out environmental judgments, I fail to see how this necessitates a link between all of climate change science and world government. There have always been parts of the UN that sought to increase the UN's power, and yet here we today, with a UN that is profoundly toothless and mostly ineffective. I think it's fair to say that you needn't worry, lest you develop an ill-conceived presupposition about world affairs. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24770 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:45 TricksAre4Figs wrote: It's a sad day when people are pulling the conspiracy theory card on things that are actually happening in the public domain... If you're ignorant of these issues that's fine but don't attack people from a position of ignorance and try to silence them because you have an ill-conceived presupposition about world affairs. The best way to avoid being considered a conspiracy-theorist is to provide evidence for your claims, which can then be analyzed and discussed. This website (and many others of course) are constantly bombarded by conspiracy theory bullshit, so it's necessary when you think you have a valid point to do extra due-diligence and present your argument in a way that can be received intelligently rather than emotionally. "Look it up" is the worst thing you can possibly say when you are trying to demonstrate that your view is not one of a 'crazy conspiracy theorist'. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote: Just google UN Climate Court proposals... http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/12/12/fox-sees-reparations-in-un-climate-deal/185183 After a deal was reached at the UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa this weekend, Fox News immediately began distorting the agreement. Fox inexplicably reported on preliminary proposals instead of the final agreement and falsely portrayed adaptation assistance for poor countries as "reparations" that will cost Americans as much as "we spend on our own defense." this? | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:48 micronesia wrote: The best way to avoid being considered a conspiracy-theorist is to provide evidence for your claims, which can then be analyzed and discussed. This website (and many others of course) are constantly bombarded by conspiracy theory bullshit, so it's necessary when you think you have a valid point to do extra due-diligence and present your argument in a way that can be received intelligently rather than emotionally. "Look it up" is the worst thing you can possibly say when you are trying to demonstrate that your view is not one of a 'crazy conspiracy theorist'. I see your point. | ||
|
Wampaibist
United States478 Posts
I've read about the deccan traps being more like a longer lasting flood basalt, but does the full on temperature change ride hand in hand with the green house gas change? Or is there a lag period? if we could suddenly stop all anthropogenic climate change have we not seen the full change of our actions? | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 04:50 radiatoren wrote: http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/12/12/fox-sees-reparations-in-un-climate-deal/185183 this? I don't know what Fox is saying but to reiterate my concern: the large bureaucracy that is the UN wants to make climate change a tax issue. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 19 2013 05:00 TricksAre4Figs wrote: the UN wants to make climate change a tax issue Ok. So do the UN and nations that support the UN want to make it a tax issue because in their view it would help slow the progress of anthropogenic climate change? Or is it that the UN wants this new tax revenue to fund other projects, like taking over the world? | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 05:10 FallDownMarigold wrote: Ok. So do the UN and nations that support the UN want to make it a tax issue because in their view it would help slow the progress of anthropogenic climate change? Or is it that the UN wants this new tax revenue to fund other projects, like taking over the world? My point is that the moment you have an international world body, the UN, collecting taxes from sovereign nations and setting the benchmarks for acceptable carbon output you effectively have world governance. Perhaps you feel this is not a problem but call it what it is, world governance. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 19 2013 05:18 TricksAre4Figs wrote: My point is that the moment you have an international world body, the UN, collecting taxes from sovereign nations and setting the benchmarks for acceptable carbon output you effectively have world governance. Perhaps you feel this is not a problem but call it what it is, world governance. ...isn't world governance what the UN is intended to do? | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 05:22 WolfintheSheep wrote: ...isn't world governance what the UN is intended to do? Yes, but only if you're a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist who needs a tin foil hat and a one-way ticket to the loony bin. Otherwise no, world governance isn't real. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On August 19 2013 05:26 TricksAre4Figs wrote: Regardless of whatever evil plans the UN has for world dominance, it still bears no relevance to the actual topic of global warming.Yes, but only if you're a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist who needs a tin foil hat and a one-way ticket to the loony bin. Otherwise no, world governance isn't real. | ||
| ||
