Yes and no, what? The OP was saying that this article was debunking climate change.
You're saying yourself that the article is defending the climate change argument. Even if you think it's a lame attempt, that's what they're doing. They're not in any way debunking it.
It's a pretty far stretch to say that this article, which is defending climate change (even if it's doing so lamely) is somehow a secret WH attempt to redpill people, like some kind of weird reverse psychology or it doing such a lackluster job that it somehow convinces people that climate change is a hoax.
I'm not sure why people feel the need to make these "nuh-uh!" type posts in response to me saying that the OP grossly misunderstood what the article was saying, and that trying to present this as it debunking anything about climate change will simply discredit you in the eyes of whoever it is that you're trying to redpill with it.
I mean, seriously. It's like people are addicted to shooting themselves in the foot, and making themselves a laughingstock while they do so.. And the entire Q community along with them.
And who would that be, other than people who were already skeptical of climate change theory to begin with? Do you think many normies fit that label?
My entire reason for posting was to try to prevent people from attempting to redpill normies with that article, thinking that it's debunking climate change. Because the vast majority of people who read it aren't going to "read between the lies" of the article.
If you want to send this to your Uncle Bob, who already doesn't believe Climate Change is real, so you can share a few giggles over the ineptitude of the people who wrote the article, then that's great. Send it to him. I'm sure he would enjoy it.
But if redpilling normies is the goal (which I thought was our main objective here), sending them this article and telling them it debunks climate change is not going to turn out like you want.
I swear, it's like people have just spontaneously forgotten that normies have an overwhelming tendency to believe whatever the current consensus among scientists says is true. It's why they're still normies after almost a decade of Q being known.
I'm really trying to understand why people are bent on arguing with me about this. It's like people can't understand how someone can think climate change is BS, but at the same time realize that this article isn't debunking climate change.
Yes and no, what? The OP was saying that this article was debunking climate change.
You're saying yourself that the article is defending the climate change argument. Even if you think it's a lame attempt, that's what they're doing. They're not in any way debunking it.
It's a pretty far stretch to say that this article, which is defending climate change (even if it's doing so lamely) is somehow a secret WH attempt to redpill people, like some kind of weird reverse psychology or it doing such a lackluster job that it somehow convinces people that climate change is a hoax.
I'm not sure why people feel the need to make these "nuh-uh!" type posts in response to me saying that the OP grossly misunderstood what the article was saying, and that trying to present this as it debunking anything about climate change will simply discredit you in the eyes of whoever it is that you're trying to redpill with it.
I mean, seriously. It's like people are addicted to shooting themselves in the foot, and making themselves a laughingstock while they do so.. And the entire Q community along with them.
It's debunking to those who can read between the lies (as is everything else) but with the extra help of the graph
And who would that be, other than people who were already skeptical of climate change theory to begin with? Do you think many normies fit that label?
My entire reason for posting was to try to prevent people from attempting to redpill normies with that article, thinking that it's debunking climate change. Because the vast majority of people who read it aren't going to "read between the lies" of the article.
If you want to send this to your Uncle Bob, who already doesn't believe Climate Change is real, so you can share a few giggles over the ineptitude of the people who wrote the article, then that's great. Send it to him. I'm sure he would enjoy it.
But if redpilling normies is the goal (which I thought was our main objective here), sending them this article and telling them it debunks climate change is not going to turn out like you want.
I swear, it's like people have just spontaneously forgotten that normies have an overwhelming tendency to believe whatever the current consensus among scientists says is true. It's why they're still normies after almost a decade of Q being known.
I'm really trying to understand why people are bent on arguing with me about this. It's like people can't understand how someone can think climate change is BS, but at the same time realize that this article isn't debunking climate change.