I read that hoping for the six dire warnings that came true.


 I was saying that of the thousands of predictions, maybe six came true.  That's a pretty poor percentage, I wouldn't rely on those predictions since they rarely come true.  But then again, a prediction coming true has rarely mattered, just ignore that one and go to another.

 To really do this we would need to define what You consider to be a "Dire" warning in detail so people aren't bringing up pre-modeled weather pattern charts that did come true just to find out you don't think its a "Dire" warning.

 Also we need to define what percentage of a prediction must be verified for it to be "True" by your definition since no weather prediction has ever been 100% accurate as they work in ranges not exact temperatures at exact minutes on exact days.

 For instance I have millions and millions of data points for agriculture land in my area and millions of yield numbers that prove specific planting methods increase yield if a certain weather model is used.  We have over a decade of consistent outcomes.  But I am told that is not something I can "See" when I was tasked with showing a weather model that I can see working.  The logic is I can't prove the weather change was man-made.

 So since I can't prove weather change is man-made, I can't "see" that all the higher production yields used a climate warming weather model.

"What crops are you planting? How do you get your weather to do what the model says?"

 I don't get the weather to change, farmers use weather models to know what to plant.  They plant what grows best in the weather they live in.  Some use weather models to predict what the weather will be.


 I am just using it as an example that no amount of evidence of any kind will be considered proof of something until the person asking for proof defines what it is.  I have tons of data showing a global warming weather model works, in a very specific area for a specific type of agriculture, but on here the request was changed from showing something I can "see" to now proving weather is man-made.  

 Again my point is we need to know what you think a "Dire" warning is, and what evidence do you consider to be "True" in order for your question to be answered.  

The only thing you left out was what the definition of is is............


 Thats fair.  In context to this conversation "is" means the established finished definition of "Dire" in it's relation to the word "warnings" when combined to describe predicted global pattern weather outcomes specific to a timeline of 55 years previous to the date of this posting.

 Lets not pretend people haven't asked for "proof" only to turn around and say the evidence provided is not "proof" even though they won't even read any of it.  

 My definition of "Dire" warning is different then others.  If the only acceptable definition is - The End of All Mankind - then effectively the proof one requests is impossible to provide thus wasting everyone's time.  It's like saying prove the ocean levels are rising and when the only evidence you will accept is Florida being completely underwater - but refusing to tell anyone that.

 I believe the primary reason people won't define their expectations when demanding evidence from others is because they need the wiggle room to get out of having that evidence actually being presented.  Defining your expectations puts concrete on those goalposts.

Show me what agency Hasn't been lying to America.
Use Your Eyes. Where Are The EVENTS that we have been being told were coming?
Mann,of hockey stick fame,destroyed the data that supported his scary future..
But I'm supposed to buy into it.

Nobody is saying it's Not getting warmer. Look at the geological history of the world. But because humans started watching it, measuring it, it's supposed to just Stay as it was, but Was WHEN? It's Never done Anything EXCEPT CHANGE.
The forces that ended The Last ice age and made survival for everything so much easier? Who Said they STOPPED? Unless they can be identified, how can you say that what caused the planet to Warm,which I would remind you Happened more than a week Before the Industrial Revolution, isn't STILL warming the planet?
How long will people continue to impose the guilt and fear On Themselves, believing that it is humanity that is responsible for All the Terrible Things happening?
And the Terrible things? Where are they? Children are stressed out! They have been raised by parents and told by the media and pumped full of it in school and they BELIEVE this ridiculous crap.
How long will people who have the intellectual capacity to LOOK at the dichotomy of what they see and what they have been told continue to believe it?

I'm not interested in a graph. I'm interested in the Dire Warnings, of which exactly NottaFUKKING One has come to pass.
Changing Weather patterns and drought are not not new. Flooding is not new. Humans have been given an abnormally gentle period and came to Call it Normal and anything outside of that needs Something to explain it.
They, people who want control and taxes,have been working to Convince Us, it's our fault.
Well, SHOW ME what is our fault!
Point to SOMETHING that is happening that is destructive to the future of mankind.
What exactly am I supposed to be worried about?
If you're a believer then you Know the Threats.. Or what are we working to Avoid?
What events in the Future are we trying to avoid?
The loss of ice in the Arctic?
It's been gone for Years, right?
The extinction of the polar bear?
More Now than when That was the Dire event that they were warning us about.
Barrier Reef?
It's DYING and there is Nothing we can do..

Ooopsies,, Thriving! Growing..

If it isn't defendable with a logical argument...
And it's Not tossed aside and no longer believed
Isn't That the Definition of Delusion?

But what is to be expected of people who support the agenda that has brought once great cities to economic ruin and runaway crime who demand their opinions be treated as Good Ideas and we should let them run America, because it's working out so well.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 01/03/23 at 10:32:13:



Yeah, Row,of Course I would deny a graph from an agency that is beholden to the same government that is trying to enact policy to protect us from this pretend problem.
I hope you understand that doesn't mean I don't want a conversation with you.

I didn't paste a link. I typed it All out.
In it you will see opportunities to respond.
If you Quote my post, you can insert your cursor,
Daayumm,when that was just a Thought, it sounded a lot better..

Anyway, click the end of a line
Hit enter a Coupla times, and drop your counter point..

"Yeah, Row,of Course I would deny a graph from an agency that is beholden to the same government that is trying to enact policy to protect us from this pretend problem."

 Unless The Gateway Pundit offers the exact same graph, then you historically do not deny it, and consider it truth.

 The point here being that acceptable information on a topic is not about what the information says, but where it comes from.

 This drastically reduces the ability to have a conversation because content of evidence is irrelevant.  The source of the information is what is  the driving factor, all while saying that the source shouldn't be important if the information is correct.  Does that make any sense at all?

 Saying the source is not important if the information is correct.  But also saying I will deny a graph from a specific source.  How can you even have a conversation with that approach?

More Now than when That was the Dire event that they were warning us about.
1500% increase in athlete deaths?
They are DYING and the vaccine is responsible..  in one year 8 million athletes will die from the vaccine.

Ooopsies,, Thriving! Growing athletic numbers..

If it isn't defendable with a logical argument...
And it's Not tossed aside and no longer believed
Isn't That the Definition of Delusion?

Cool!
Don't address the logical questions.