Climate Change

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
The Milankovitch cycle associated with positive/negative feedback loops, most importantly albedo change and methane. The problem now is that according to these natural cycles we should be cooling but...the opposite is occuring and it is accelerating and the 12 degree temp rises you describe show what is possible once the feedback loops really get going:eek:

Despite the scepticism fueled by vested interests, I have personally stopped flying, try to mend rather than replace, gone all but vegetarian, changed energy to 100% renewable and deinvested pension from anything to do with fossil fuels. This has saved me/made me quite a lot better off. I fail to understand why more people are not taking actions, if only for financial reasons.

This is a good link: WWF Footprint Calculator

Try it and post on here, how you are doing. I am at 9 tonnes p/a...85% of 2020 target

Hi Bann Special

Sorry I must have missed something. If you re-read, my question was about how temperatures went up 12 degrees, were stable, then went down 12 degrees (with associated sea level range change of 12m). All within +/-1,000 years and in the absence of humans (industrialised or not). Milankhovitch cycles acting on long timeframes (100ka, 40ka, 23ka) don't seemingly explain that, do they? Even Summerhayes in Earth's Climate Evolution does not grasp that nettle and admits there are many other potential issues. Speaking of which I'll have to see if I can post one of the images from that (pending copyright issues) so we can see the "Hockey Stick Illusion" has a historical precedent. And, err, whilst these things happen, and will be a major logistic issue, they happen naturally and cannot be geoengineered out of. No mind.

As for the carbon footprint guesstimate, I'm actually on 72% and 7.8tonnes, but that's also mainly because of a lack of flights this year. Maybe it just means the questions are bunk:confused:

I could easily improve it by shooting the dog, but I'd rather improve it by killing more of my line-caught salmon for the table and eating more shot venison and other game etc. (both much more sustainable than mass produced food of any type) rather than go veggie again (I was one, and part time vegan for over 10 years when young and dafter) as that necessitates converting swathes of river banks to silt-run off fields and intensification of fertilisation to add to the degradation of salmon habitat...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 21851

Guest
I'm 187% and 18.6 tonnes. Only glad they didn't include business travel! Never mind, I pay tax on every single gram of CO2 I produce. That's what it's all about, taxation. Politicians love global warming because they can slam ridiculously high taxes on everything such as 185% tax on the price of petrol/diesel. To give you an idea how valuable fuel duty is to politicians, if there was no fuel tax at all, your fuel cost today would be 42p per litre but the prime minister would need to announce a 6p in the £ increase in income tax across the board or cut the NHS budget by 1/3rd to cover the loss of fuel duty.
It's a pattern you see most years. Something or other is studied and the results are announced as bad for you or the environment then a year or two later tax is slapped on it and most people don't feel like rioting while the government can claim to be the party of low (income) taxation. In the 70's the scientists told us we were heading for an ice age so they started bumping up taxes on fuel, coal etc. all causes of anthropogenic global cooling. Then when the scientists said that actually the earth is warming instead and we are heading for man made Armageddon (no hamsters please) of a different kind, they continued bumping up taxes on stuff we are using to kill the planet while not losing votes.
I'm not blaming scientists at all. They just do what they do, learning by doing; most of the time at the bleeding edge. It's all about taxation and votes.
IPCC stands for InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change and they are driving the entire agenda. The clue is in the (my) capitalised part of the name. Until governments butt out and leave the scientists to do what they do best without interference from politicians then we might actually get some clarity on the issue, if indeed there is an issue.
The Americans get hammered for their stance on climate change but theirs is quite a practical approach. Given that it is not certain that it is anthropogenic, and given that there isn't a viable or guaranteed solution today, they worked out the cost of dealing with climate change is much less than the cost of trying to prevent it. Back to economics again, as always.
 

salarchaser

Well-known member
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
2,665
Location
Cheshire
119%

That doesn't include the tractor, quadbike, daugher's horses or petrol generator.

Saying that, red diesel is only about 48p a litre. :eek:
 

westie4566

Well-known member
Messages
9,866
Reaction score
4,936
Location
Aberdeen
80% including the' large diesel' I drive for business!:D

Admittedly I haven't flown as much as usual this year....so that probably helped!:p

Has anyone else read the 'tips' section?

Christ what a load of boll''cks! Erm how am I supposed to car pool to go and see individual customers of mine...or by bus when I can do 80 miles a day in all directions.

Home...I've done everything possible to insulate my granite property....including having much of it back to bare stone and insulated. I bet I'm in a minute minority who's done that to this type of property.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
132
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
footprint

Forget copyright - it was IPCC AR standard fare even when Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (independently) demonstrated it for what it is: a thousand-years plus tree growth core proxy for temperature stitched straight on to a contemporary homogenised thermometric record deemed representative of both northern and southern hemispheric GAST- for the last thousand years !!!

Precisely what IPCC was looking for!
 

happy days

Well-known member
Messages
5,032
Reaction score
1,411
Location
Liverpool
If you're all serious about helping the rivers stop eating pigs and cows, and give the NHS a break while you're at it. Mind some of you will only live longer to moan longer.
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
IMHO the hysteria about CO2 is a distraction from the wholescale degradation of the biosphere: rampant consumerism, misuse of natural resources and pollution that has a quantifiable effect on life. That’s the crime of the focus on so-called AGW.

Remember when Millibland was in Environment. Lord knows what he and his advisors were thinking – ramp up diesel car usage (better CO2 footprint than petrol vehicles) and that’ll help. Fast forward a decade or less and here we are when folk have realised NOx is not good, particulates in the air are not good. Yikes, they directly kill people. Still…

So, back to The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science and Earth’s Climate Evolution. I think it’s important to remember what these graphs are – they are a representation of “Apples and Oranges” where proxy data from multiple sources are gathered together and mixed in a pot to guess what the change in temperatures over the centuries is. Well up to 1850 that is. But then of course, they all throw in a bloody great Kumquat and add in instrumental record (in itself an apples, oranges and kumquat mix!) to “prove” an increase in the temperature anomaly. In this way it’s a bit like the ICES comparing the 1970s salmon catch (rampant netting, rampant rod exploitation) with the 2013 salmon catch (massively reduced netting, next to no rod exploitation) and saying salmon are endangered, without realising there’s just no hard evidence they’re not there anymore (except the counters that say all is ok really).

Keirross just linked Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, but have a look at the palaeoclimate data in the IPCC report of 2007, linked here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

Figure 6.10 on p467. So apples, oranges and kumquats again. But lo, have a look what happens in the Dark Ages. From 850AD to 1000AD, Fig 6.10b (ECS2002) shows a range from -1.0 to +0.1, then reducing again below -1.0 by 1200AD. Fig 6.10c shows a 1.4-2.0 degree anomaly which appears larger than the current (supposedly AGW) one No wonder the Vikings went off growing veg in Greenland… So it's not as if what's happening now is unnatural.

ar4-wg1-chapter6IMAGE.jpg

So, we’ve got the unexplained Younger Dryas / Loch Lomond Readvance – basically a 24 degree C change (Summer averages increased from 4 degrees to 16 degrees then back to 4 degrees in 1,200 years – at an average change of 2 degrees a century!) and then the Dark Ages chill and warmth and decline into the Little Ice Age till ca. 1800AD. Climate change is real, it happens, it shapes evolution and extinction, naturally.

Now of course this is exploited by “denialists” and vested interests. But obfuscating the truth and denying there’s any possibility that this could all just reflect the normal natural asymmetric cyclicity of climate for unknown reasons (natural including changes in atmospheric composition, insolation, earth heat flux, volcanism, Milankovitch, global oceanic conveyors etc.) is equally morally bankrupt, IMHO. Science does not work like that.

Governments and Taxation does of course.

It really does distract from the real problems the biosphere faces due to rampant unchecked human population growth and unsustainable development.
 

Soundmixer

Member
Messages
242
Reaction score
0
Location
Edzell Woods
Just did the WTF test.
Apparently I am 108%, 11.1tonnes of carbon.
I need to car share - Anyone in Edzell want to go to Dyce at 05.45 and finish at 15.30 on a non-regular basis because right now I am in Romania and the job has over run until Thursday not today.
I need more energy efficiency in my house - I have no loft but it needs insulated, 90% of my house is LED lighting and 19 degrees heating is too high.
I need to travel less - good thing they didn't ask about business air miles....
I need to buy more second hand stuff - when my washing machine and my dishwasher died in the same month, second hand was not on my mind.

What a load of tosh. I guess it is just meant to scare everyone. Since I bought my small diesel (boo hiss) I have really cut down on my fuel bill and since the whole house was double glazed, including the draughty porch, I have saved 350 litres of fuel a year.
This has all been done for my pocket and nothing else. Yes we should all be doing more to help reduce the crazy amount of waste the world seems to encourage but I do wonder what you have to do to get a good score with the WTF.

Euan
 

Handel

Well-known member
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
775
Location
London
If you keep going to the end you get a load of advertising for WWF and they try and get your name and address.
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
The more you look the less (brains) you find

Hot off the press :rolleyes:


This is the best map yet produced of the warmth coming up from the rocks underneath the Antarctic ice sheet.
This "geothermal heat flux" is key data required by scientists in order to model how the White Continent is going to react to climate change.
If the rockbed's temperature is raised, it makes it easier for the ice above to move.
And if global warming is already forcing change on the ice sheet, a higher flux could accelerate matters.
Antarctica's warm underbelly revealed - BBC News

It appears to be lost on those looking for evidence to confirm their bias, that er., changes in geothermal heat flux may have been the cause for the ice to melt, or the globe to change temperature (through buffering via the oceans, especially since 70% of the surface is underwater and so are the mid-ocean ridges and transform heating faults and we've only known about black smokers etc. for three decades...)

Unreal.


Anyway, to more interesting things. I’ve just finished reading The Hockey Stick Illusion (The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by A W Montford: 9781906768355 Paperback - Electric Chicken) and Earth’s Climate Evolution (Earth'''s Climate Evolution by C. P. Summerhayes: Wiley 2015-10-16, Chichester, West Sussex 9781118897393 hardback - Blackwell'''s) (other suppliers for each are available) and I’m confused.

One appears much more objective than the other and a lot more informative. It’s also a lot cheaper. The other seems based on bluster and banter and appears insulting in tone to anyone with an independent mind able to objectively assess data...

The book covers the invention of the “Hockey Stick” – how it basically cobbles together apples and oranges and presents a scary view of the present. How they selectively used proxies and manipulated data so that the evidence of the Mediaeval Warm Period was supressed. How certain researchers acted secretively, suppressing data, cherrypicking the bits that gave the results they wanted, ignored the evidence that didn’t, blocked FOI requests, and subverted the already dodgy “Peer Review” process even further. And then, it takes us to “Climategate” and the CRU hack.

In Earth’s Climate Evolution the issues raised in The Hockey Stick Illusion are commented on, albeit briefly. And Climategate is not even mentioned :confused:. Which is amazing really given the issues raised and the allegations. On wikipedia the issue is poorly handled and appears to have been written by the winners… But there’s a really shocking revelation - I find it really amazing that a massive slur against the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is made in The Hockey Stick Illusion. In that the author states:




“The fact that the IPCC promoted a Hockey Stick that was not central to the scientific debate simply because it was a good sales tool, and then defended it in the face of all criticism shows us that it is not a disinterested participant in the debate. It has chosen to be an advocate rather than a judge. It has an agenda. How then can those who are undecided on the global warming issue accept anything it says as an unbiased judgement on the facts rather than a statement of a political position?...

The [IPCC]’s need for a sales tool also suggests something important about the overall case for manmade global warming. None of the corruption and bias and flouting of rules we have seen in this story would have been necessary if there is, as we are lead to believe, a watertight case that mankind is having a potentially catastrophic effect on the climate. What the Hockey Stick affair suggests is that the case for global warming, far from being settled is actually weak and unconvincing.

The implications for policymakers are stark. They have granted an effective monopoly on scientific advice to an organisation that has proven itself to be corrupt, biased and beset by conflicts of interest. Their advisors are a law unto themselves





Now, anywhere else on Earth, if that was not a true statement, given the way science is, the author would be up before a beak. He would surely be sued. Because he was not, I think it fair to say that it seems a true charge.

Yet this gets narry a mention in the “Consensus” that is trying to foist AGW down our throats and pretend they mean “Climate Change”.

;)And Earth’s Climate Evolution makes nothing of this either.

This is a shocking indictment of the slope of the playing field.

But I still have a slight problem. It’s all well and good using dodgy proxies and selecting them to “get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period” so that the Hockey Stick-type graph can predominate. But you cannot erase the empirical evidence. The Vikings settled in Greenland and grew grapes in Northern Canada. They resided in Greenland for three or four centuries. Thousands of them farmed and fed cattle with hay. The evidence of pollen studies etc. indicate that the climate then was the same as now, “or even warmer”*.

At present no one does as the Vikings did, despite the need since Greenland is a lot more developed and with a much larger population. Hence we can surmise that actually, it was probably even warmer than it is now. Sometime around 1350-1400, as the climate slipped in to the Little Ice Age, and the last of the Greenland Vikings were frozen out of existence. So this major precedent for temperature levels higher than now in recent history (before the Little Ice Age we came out of around 1850) without excess CO2 is in addition to the other “inconvenient fact” of the Loch Lomond Readvance, explained in post #359 etc. above.

Earth’s Climate Evolution, as well as not dealing with the LLR, doesn’t explain why the Greenlandic Vikings did so well for a few centuries…

The biggest issue with all of this appears to be the lack of equivocality coming out of the climate consensus. I had previously understood science to be anything but concensus. The consensus was that “Einstein / Wegener / take your pick was totally wrong.” But it’s not how science works.

I can understand that this is because, politically, they need a (to quote Jeremy Corbyn) “Strong Message Here”, but do they have to cover up lies and deception and not root out the bad apples in their ranks, instead relying on labelling questioning scientists “denialists” at the drop of a hat? Al Gore and politics. In order to tax someone excessively you need to dumb down the issue and present a wall of disinformation.

But I would prefer it if there was a realistic appraisal. Here is something approaching that, by someone who is clearly a realistic climatologist who can’t be labelled a denialist. Really interesting IMHO:



The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century.

Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.

Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution.

It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100...

The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.

We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change. We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.

As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction.

Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.

Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate"




There is a very good explanation of The Uncertainty Monster here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1



There are far bigger fish to fry, Rome burns whilst Nero tells us minor gas concentrations are deadly: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41945650



*Jared Diamond, Collapse
 
Last edited:

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
3,599
Location
edzell
Found it interesting that co2 is allegedly on the rise for the first time in 4 years, ie stable for the 3 years before and yet it still managed to make the world hotter each year.
Think how great the rise will be now that co2 is increasing again!!!!
 

Wee-Eck

Well-known member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
283
Found it interesting that co2 is allegedly on the rise for the first time in 4 years, ie stable for the 3 years before and yet it still managed to make the world hotter each year.
Think how great the rise will be now that co2 is increasing again!!!!

The reason Co2 is rising is because that is the bit of climate change that they tax!!!:mad:
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
There was always going to be a backlash when David Attenborough (a geo who should understand a little about how life can survive fluctuations in climate given the PETM etc.) raised synchems as a major issue, and the lobbyists would try and get him on board for a bit of dumbed-down anti-CO2 rhetoric.

And lo, it came to pass



Climate Change Gulls.png


(seen [?scene] everywhere on earth, more regularly now than ever before)
 

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
132
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
clim pseance

Imagine it - Lord Deben vs Lindzen under parliamentary questioning...

Quick question: how much does Katowice's COP hope to hijack the world economy/per annum (as stated).

Is it:

1) 2.5 Petrodollars

2) Within the confines of the collective value of all gold resourced

3) A minimum of 1 $Trillion/yr escalating

Correct! It's 3!
 
Last edited:

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
132
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
There was always going to be a backlash when David Attenborough (a geo who should understand a little about how life can survive fluctuations in climate given the PETM etc.) raised synchems as a major issue, and the lobbyists would try and get him on board for a bit of dumbed-down anti-CO2 rhetoric.

And lo, it came to pass



View attachment 33873


(seen [?scene] everywhere on earth, more regularly now than ever before)

I'm sure that same b*stard scoffed my burger at Arbroath cliffs...

A's early involvement was as you know, via BBC. Brilliantly done fascinating stuff etc but recently rampantly pushing existential threats. Been got at for sure.

Changing days whilst we become kinda by hors a 'new enlightenment'.

'Science' is at a significant trouble point here - you must see that via your work.

We're not gonna get out of our current collective dogma until the brassed occupying roles get it.
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
The beeb had an interesting article this week about a beetle formerly found in UK that now only occurs in hot southern Europe. It was found in UK and carbon dated to a mere 4,000 years ago.

Post ice-age when supposedly, according to temperature proxies, the UK never got over a 16 degree summer average. But of course we know all about the extreme temperature variations the British isles faced after the main ice sheet went (summer averages went from ~0 to ~16 degrees and back to ~zero then back to ~16 from the end of the ice age proper to the Loch Lomond Readvance to its end, all in ~3,000 years). All doubly difficult for the promoters of the "Anthropogenic C02 production causes warming" hypothesis.

So, like the salmon fossils in the Black sea etc., this beetle's presence in UK is able to add an interesting aspect to how climate changes, at face value. Here is the story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55827408
Bog beetles finally reveal their remarkable age - BBC News

Given the recent "project reset" whereby Prince "Brian" Charles and "Saint" David A and Bozza and Biden are still banging on about climate change when the western world appears to be "going Chinese" and more and more poor folk are going to the wall because of the overreaction to CV19, this is truly interesting.

Did the beeb make the obvious link that there was a recent short period of much warmer climate in UK that can't be explained by C02 flux?

Course not.

Didn't even spot the problem for the AGW hypothesis...

PS - updated "climate change gulls" image here, brought bang up to 2020/2021 where disposed muzzles and ineffectual PPE and synchems are a big threat to the natural world.


Covid19 Gulls Muzzled.png
 

Maggy

Well-known member
Messages
384
Reaction score
274
The beeb had an interesting article this week about a beetle formerly found in UK that now only occurs in hot southern Europe. It was found in UK and carbon dated to a mere 4,000 years ago.

Post ice-age when supposedly, according to temperature proxies, the UK never got over a 16 degree summer average. But of course we know all about the extreme temperature variations the British isles faced after the main ice sheet went (summer averages went from ~0 to ~16 degrees and back to ~zero then back to ~16 from the end of the ice age proper to the Loch Lomond Readvance to its end, all in ~3,000 years). All doubly difficult for the promoters of the "Anthropogenic C02 production causes warming" hypothesis.

So, like the salmon fossils in the Black sea etc., this beetle's presence in UK is able to add an interesting aspect to how climate changes, at face value. Here is the story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55827408
Bog beetles finally reveal their remarkable age - BBC News

Given the recent "project reset" whereby Prince "Brian" Charles and "Saint" David A and Bozza and Biden are still banging on about climate change when the western world appears to be "going Chinese" and more and more poor folk are going to the wall because of the overreaction to CV19, this is truly interesting.

Did the beeb make the obvious link that there was a recent short period of much warmer climate in UK that can't be explained by C02 flux?

Course not.

Didn't even spot the problem for the AGW hypothesis...

PS - updated "climate change gulls" image here, brought bang up to 2020/2021 where disposed muzzles and ineffectual PPE and synchems are a big threat to the natural world.


View attachment 56025
Thanks for posting, I’ll watch C5 tonight. Is the abandoned apparent hill-farm features of North York’s relevant from c 13C ?
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
Thanks for posting, I’ll watch C5 tonight. Is the abandoned apparent hill-farm features of North York’s relevant from c 13C ?

Nae worries. Probably are in the same way as the long period (400-500 years) of Viking habitation on Greenland before the approaching "Little Ice Age" did for them.


Still, never let truth or history stand in the way of a good scare story...

Meanwhile, as the West has reached for China's totalitarian rulebook and we are now normalised with accepting Lockdown and mass restriction on our lives, movement, travels, I've been wondering about natural climate variability even more. Of course Lockdown affects our fishing, and so the possibility of being Locked down and not fishing again, regularly, because of this looms large...

Greta, COP26, Biden recently have all been much more in the news as CV19 wanes, more vocal about "something needing done" for climate change than they ever were about protecting folks rights. Biden seems to have realised better to make waves about this than try and muzzle the free States.

Meanwhile (and the self appointed "Fact Checkers" will probably keep stumm about this) the machination about Lockdown ably promoted by the MSM will probably come in handy...

Here's an interesting article
(source here) indicating the fundamentals we may face:




"Leaked: The next scare CNN intends to push

They can't milk COVID fear forever. They themselves admit it.

CNN technical director Charlie Chester said, "There's a definitive ending to the pandemic. It'll taper off to a point that it's not a problem anymore."

But Chester said a lot more than that in front of a hidden Project Veritas camera, as reported on the Economic Policy Journal website.

We've heard it said that the COVID lockdowns and hysteria will be transferred to "climate change" once this passes. Well, ol' Charlie is pretty blunt about their intentions:

Chester: “I think there's a COVID fatigue. So, like whenever a new story comes up, they're [CNN’s] going to latch onto it. They've already announced in our office that once the public is -- will be open to it -- we're going to start focusing mainly on climate.”

Chester: “It's going to be our [CNN’s] focus. Like our focus was to get Trump out of office, right? Without saying it, that's what it was, right? So, our next thing is going to be climate change awareness.”

Veritas Journalist: “What does that look like?”

Chester: “I don't know. I'm not sure. I have a feeling that it’s going to be like, constantly showing videos of decline in ice, and weather warming up, and like the effects it’s having on the economy--”

Veritas Journalist: “Who decides that?”

Chester: “Head of the network.”

Veritas Journalist: “Who is that? Is that [Jeff] Zucker?”

Chester: “Zucker, yeah. I imagine that he's got his council and they've all like, discussed, like where they think--”

Veritas Journalist: “So, that's like the next--”


Chester: “Pandemic-like story that we’ll beat to death, but that one's got longevity. You know what I mean? Like there's a definitive ending to the pandemic. It'll taper off to a point that it's not a problem anymore. Climate change can take years, so they'll [CNN will] probably be able to milk that quite a bit.”

Veritas Journalist: “So, climate change overload.”

Chester: “Be prepared, it's coming. Climate change is going to be the next COVID thing for CNN.”

So there it is, right out in the open.

They'll keep pretending that "extreme weather events," which have actually been on the decline, are rising rapidly because of climate change.

And on and on.

And just as with the lockdowns, people who think that any problem that may exist can be handled without radical changes to society and the economy will be dismissed or ignored.

We have to do whatever we can to undermine the idea that Dr. Fauci saved us from a worse fate by his wise recommendations. Anything we do to throw cold water on that claim will be helpful in preventing future absurdities, and make it marginally harder for them to use the COVID precedent to justify crazy controls in other areas of life."
 
Last edited:

Andrew B

Well-known member
Messages
3,028
Reaction score
2,314
Location
Colne
For what it’s worth I do believe in climate change. That said as I felt all along there a whole bunch of Psy oppery going on with the like of Greta Thunberg who was an obvious grift and has since been found out to be a puppet when she forgot to delete some dodgy email and basically revealed to the whole world that she’s an asset.
Sad state of affairs to use a child in this way.
 
D

Deleted member 10733

Guest
For what it’s worth I do believe in climate change. That said as I felt all along there a whole bunch of Psy oppery going on with the like of Greta Thunberg who was an obvious grift and has since been found out to be a puppet when she forgot to delete some dodgy email and basically revealed to the whole world that she’s an asset.
Sad state of affairs to use a child in this way.
There is an interesting documentary series on her on the BBC right now, explaining where she comes from, how she started this and what her intentions are. Helps clearing up all the lies that are fabricated about her.

If you can provide the "dodgy" email, please do. I've been following this child from the very beginning, and never came across any proof that she is "an obvious grift and an asset" or that she is used in any way. Maybe you should watch the documentary.
 
Top