Scott Adams believes in climate change, "most climate scientists believe in it so I guess it's true" he said on Rubin Report.
Well most academia are funded by the cabal and Adams is a simpleton.
The climate changes, that's what it does, how fast, how it changes and how we contribute is another matter. These people are claiming that the insignificant change happening over the last 150 years is all man made, while huge changes and cycles are clearly natural
They claim that there is an increase in extreme phenomena, but they carefully select their timeline to exclude things that have been documented and happened when the co2 levels were a lot lower.
Search Tony Heller on youtube, find his channel and see that the climate changing is true, but it is actually a lot milder than it was in the past and we are a lot better at dealing with the changes
Plus co2 has led to record crops and record Forest growth, most species that were endangered in the 90s are no longer at the brink of extinction
Which is why these people aren't actually proposing solutions - like nuclear - but are pushing stuff like carbon credits, climate refugees, redistribution of wealth and climate racism...
He spends so much time reading MSM that he likes to buy into some of it so he feels like he's discerning.
Alex Jones does a little better with it in that he knows the MSM is lying about everything every time. But he goes too far in trying to retell the truth.
The MSM is always lying. I don't always know how or about what, and I don't know what the truth is, but they're lying, so at least I know what isn't true and can get a fair idea of the truth by deduction.
You wouldn't even need to bring up academia funding. Start off by asking when was the survey that showed the opinion of "most climate scientists" and go from there.
You don't need to even do that. A consensus of belief isn't proof.
Half of the scientific answers we have today for things were once against "scientific consensus". Not being allowed to question things is unscientific. Claiming people who dare question it are "deniers" (deliberately invoking Holocaust deniers) to shame other scientific theories is even more so.
He always trusts in experts and believes nobody can understand anything complex. He's got some good points on persuasion, but he's functionally bereft of critical thinking. He still has no idea why climate crusaders are still against nuclear. Hint: because it's a solution that doesn't require global governance. He doesn't believe that climate change is just a front for communism or globalism.
He admits being wrong in his predictions 20% of the time.
IMHO he's just wrong about 20% of the time.
Scoffs at notion of wprld being run right now by a global cabal of satanic cannibal pedophile child-traffickers reaching from the Palace to the Vatican to the CIA and beyond.
Scott Adams believes in climate change, "most climate scientists believe in it so I guess it's true" he said on Rubin Report. Well most academia are funded by the cabal and Adams is a simpleton.
The climate changes, that's what it does, how fast, how it changes and how we contribute is another matter. These people are claiming that the insignificant change happening over the last 150 years is all man made, while huge changes and cycles are clearly natural
They claim that there is an increase in extreme phenomena, but they carefully select their timeline to exclude things that have been documented and happened when the co2 levels were a lot lower.
Search Tony Heller on youtube, find his channel and see that the climate changing is true, but it is actually a lot milder than it was in the past and we are a lot better at dealing with the changes
Plus co2 has led to record crops and record Forest growth, most species that were endangered in the 90s are no longer at the brink of extinction
Which is why these people aren't actually proposing solutions - like nuclear - but are pushing stuff like carbon credits, climate refugees, redistribution of wealth and climate racism...
He spends so much time reading MSM that he likes to buy into some of it so he feels like he's discerning.
Alex Jones does a little better with it in that he knows the MSM is lying about everything every time. But he goes too far in trying to retell the truth.
The MSM is always lying. I don't always know how or about what, and I don't know what the truth is, but they're lying, so at least I know what isn't true and can get a fair idea of the truth by deduction.
You wouldn't even need to bring up academia funding. Start off by asking when was the survey that showed the opinion of "most climate scientists" and go from there.
You don't need to even do that. A consensus of belief isn't proof. Half of the scientific answers we have today for things were once against "scientific consensus". Not being allowed to question things is unscientific. Claiming people who dare question it are "deniers" (deliberately invoking Holocaust deniers) to shame other scientific theories is even more so.
He always trusts in experts and believes nobody can understand anything complex. He's got some good points on persuasion, but he's functionally bereft of critical thinking. He still has no idea why climate crusaders are still against nuclear. Hint: because it's a solution that doesn't require global governance. He doesn't believe that climate change is just a front for communism or globalism.
He admits being wrong in his predictions 20% of the time.
IMHO he's just wrong about 20% of the time.
Scoffs at notion of wprld being run right now by a global cabal of satanic cannibal pedophile child-traffickers reaching from the Palace to the Vatican to the CIA and beyond.
Still not too shabby for a self described lefty.
His stuff on persuasion is gold