Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Too funny, since when does a decrease of 2.6 C from 2012 to 2019 equate to one year?
You are making predictions of catastrophe based upon 150 years , when we know numerous natural climate changes have occured over hundreds of thousands of year
You can not argue both sides of that coin
You cant say 5 years is to short and 150 years is just enough to declare the science is settled and continue to ignore what has occured over a series of ice ages
That is an F for failure at any grade level
you are so far out of your depth here
This exactly why you are a scientific know nothing. You try to fit science into your conclusion, when it is science that must drives the conculsion
Again explain how the US temp can be declining when CO2 is increasing ?
the very straight forward explanation is CO2 is not the control knob for climate
That Mr. Science Ignoramus is not bait and switch, it is called a logical argument
At no point did I deceive anyone with promises & then turn around and offer something of lessor value.
i have been clear from word go. You do not understand this science and you likely never will
Me pointing out your lack of scientific understanding has been very consistent
How many times do you need to be told the surface temp record is a mess
And now the US temp decline is at odds with that data set & your CO2 theory
Now if you want bait & switch, you might consider talking to Michael Mann as he played now you see it, now you do not with a thousand years of temperature
hardly.
What has occurred in climate science (political agendas dictating how / what the science say) is absolutely shameful will set all science back by decades. Do you have any idea how harmful that will be the progress of society ?
Of coarse you do not.
Again, if that is how the uneducated perceive it that, it is not my fault
I did not tell you to quit school to join a union
0.56C is not 1C its a lot closer to half.
Since you think 1C is precise enough to declare the science settled and a looming catastrophe. then the difference between 1C and 0.56C is massive
Again if you had any scientific training or understanding you would recognise this quickly
But you lack those things and so instead you write stupid and incorrect conclusions
Sure I do.
John Christy >>> Science
Frankfooter>>>>>Propaganda
It is as simple as that comrade
Well now
Thats sounds pretty insulting
I will assume you cant be stupid enough to insult me and then report me to the mods for insulting you, so let me retort
You are a first class moron and one of the most dishonest and despicable POS I have ever encountered
Too funny
lets dive in to this
Here is the statement
The thing about a Scientific hypothesis is that it must be consistently supported against all experimental data testing
Do you not understand what all experimental data testing means ??
it means if even one experimental data set is inconsistent with the hypothesis , the hypothesis must be rejected
This is one experimental data which is looking to be quite inconsistent with your hypothesis
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/nation...dbaseyear=2000
U.S. Temperatures down 2.25 C from 2016
U.S. Temperatures down 2.6 C from 2012
That is unless you can scientifically explain it
Sadly for you, you are a moron and are incapable of scientifically explaining anything, let alone this
When you try to do math, obviously.
By the way, your link, like your understanding, is dead.
That's a really stupid thing to say, larue.
Sudden climate change has occurred in the past due to asteroids or massive volcanoes and while the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere has resulted in the fasted change ever to hit the planet without an asteroid or volcano, its quite possible. Your claim that both aren't possible is ignorant.
A 5 year trend in one country alone isn't enough but 150 years of global temperature that coincides with anthropomorphic CO2 increases is incredibly useful.
Try again.
1) your link is dead so your claim is at present just your personal opinion and that's worthless
2) Stop trying to use one country's temperature as a metric for global changes, that's bait and switch
You are incredibly dishonest or so ignorant that you don't realize your mistakes.
Your choice, but trying to judge global surface temperature projections against either one country's temps or the temperature in the clouds is bait and switch, totally dishonest.
How many times must I tell you that NASA and the 5 other global organizations that make those measurements are trustworthy and smart, and you are neither.
Trying to swap those measurements out with very old and irrelevant charts proves it.
Whine, whine, whine.
Mann is world renowned and respected.
You are not.
1) that claim is blown to shit by the acknowledgement that Exxon, Shell and Imperial oil all did their own research and came up with the same results.
2) that claims is also blown to shit by the understanding that your claims of political bias can't possibly be true with scientists from 150 countries and through multiple governments all coming up with the same findings.
You ignore the first part of your chart, where it starts at -0.3ºC.
That's cherry picking of the lamest sort.
mr science, I'm not the one doing the research, I'm posting the work of thousands of scientists from over 150 countries as represented by the IPCC./
While I'm flattered you think I'm smart enough to have done it all myself, I have to give them all the credit.
All I do is post summaries of legit work, as opposed to the propaganda you post from your single, oil funded, kooks.
Good thing for you I don't report insults to the mods, 'cuz you'd be banned again for this one.
(though I do owe phil a couple....)
Your hypothesis failed as your link is dead.
Dead, dead, dead.
So, since the data failed the test, your hypothesis is hereby labelled bullshit.
Actually when you do the math it is 7 years
2019-2012
you saw the chart, you know what it means
Stupid you say??
Once again you are not bright enough to understand the statement, so you should ask for help
You say 5 years is too short
You say 150 years to just right, like goldilocks
And You ignore a long history of continual natural climate change that includes multiple ice ages, one of which we are still exiting
Not only is that cherry picking, you thread the needle of a 150 year period across hundreds of millions of years and say, "The science is settled we have a catastrophe"
BTW as soon as I heard that "The Science is settled" statement, I knew there was something not right about this.
That was huge tactical error
Any true scientist from any scientific field will agree Science is never settled
Sorry, that is an F in any grade
Says you and well .....you do not understand science. correlation does not prove causation. That is undeniable in science
in real science you need to PROVE your hypothesis , not guess and say there ya go
Again you ignore natural climate variability and focus in on a relative minute out of a relative centuries history
you have seen the graph on the NOAA website, are you arguing that a dead link changes the obvious temperature decline?
Please explain this in detail
there is no lower bound for your intellect is there?
Explain it or shut up, but do not think for a god damn minute you can dictate to me what I can or can not post, just because it is inconsistent with your position. what is wrong with you?
Bait and switch?
Apparently if someone shows a graph which you do not like, you cry like a little girl "Bait and switch" ...... "No fair" .... "you put up a graph which is different from my graph" Wa wa waa wa ... "Im telling"
Grow up
This is an adult discussion on a scientific issue, provide us with a scientific explanation or get lost
How many times do I need to tell you the surface record data set is a mess
Again with the bait and switch garbage . "Wa, Wa, wa, wa"
For the last time you do not get to dictate what data, chart, statement or argument is presented by others
This is not a commie controlled board
WTF is wrong with you ??
Prove it is invalid scientifically or get lost
World renowned Yes, respected...... No
What he did with that hockey stick graph set science back decades
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08...ll-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/
Lost his lawsuit against Tim Ball , who labeled Mann as a fraud
It looks like Mann was ordered to pay Tim Balls legal costs
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...ed-to-pay-opponents-legal-costs-in-libel-suit
Mann & Climategate shows how messed up the alarmist are. No need for that sort of shit if you are right, but you are not right
No political bias in climate Science??????
You are a denyer
Jesus
You can not still be pushing that stupidity!!!
Read the chart labels or ask someone to help you. It is 0.56C as clearly labelled.
Chart reading is grade six level math
You have no business commenting on anything scientific , if you can not read a grade six level chart
Do you have any idea how awkward you look(a scientific know nothing) , trying to argue about science
It is like watching a turtle who has been flipped on its back
it is like watching a japanese sumo wrestler attempt ice skating
It is like Justin Trudeau explaining his budgeting expertise
IT is like asking a 5th grader to solve a calculus problem
It is like Jeremy Corbon wanting to be Prime Minister
It just does not work
Give it up. You are so far out of your depth
No you are doing the propaganda just as I stated
too funny
#1. you do not know how the IPCC is structured, Definitely not as you describe
#2. The IPCCs mandate is strictly confined to anthropogenic climate change and only anthropogenic climate change .
For that simple reason alone it starts off biased and for that simple reason, it requires a wholesale turnover of the leadership group.
Believe me I do not think you are smart enough to keep a real job, let alone understand the work
You have proven you are a scientific-know-nothing so many times I have lost count.
Therefore the word science next your name is not an option.
However Your long , long history of pushing a commie / socialist nightmare onto the world has shown you like the propaganda, Dr Goebbels would be so proud of you
gee, I am pretty sure John Christy gets his money from the university in Alabama & last I looked NOAA was not oil funded
You just say shit with zero attachment to reality.
Oil funding?
Any money from the oil companies for any climate research is going to be fractions of a cent on a dollar relative to the biased funding from governments, the tides foundation or the rockefellers
Go apply for a grant asking for money to study natural climate variability as having an impact. Not a dollar to be found
Al Gore did his dirty work quite well while in office
your oil funding argument is disingenuous and getting real tired
You reported me to the mods , you were stupid enough to quote me and then write,
You have to be the most obnoxious person on this board, yet when you get push back, you tattletail.
Grow up
What is dead here is your brain, You saw the chart. again a broken web link does change the temperature decline
Your argument just proves you are incapable of processing simple logic
Here is the statement
The thing about a Scientific hypothesis is that it must be consistently supported against all experimental data testing
Do you not understand what all experimental data testing means ??
it means if even one experimental data set is inconsistent with the hypothesis , the hypothesis must be rejected
This is one experimental data which is looking to be quite inconsistent with your hypothesis
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/natio...se_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
U.S. Temperatures down 2.25 C from 2016
U.S. Temperatures down 2.6 C from 2012
That is unless you can scientifically explain it
Sadly for you, you are incapable of scientifically explaining anything, let alone this
The link is fixed. A child could have fixed it. Next time fix it yourself. What is wrong with you?
Proposed CA Legislation Would Mandate Climate Alarmist Indoctrination in Public Schools
Parents and concerned citizens are crying “indoctrination” over a bill recently introduced in the California State Assembly which would make teaching about climate change mandatory in all California public schools.
The legislation, Assembly Bill 1922, was introduced by Democratic assemblywoman Luz Rivas, who represents District 39 in Southern California. The bill would amend the California Education Code to mandate that science education for both grades 1-6 and grades 7-12 include instruction on “the causes and effects of climate change.” The bill adds, “Appropriate coursework including material on the causes and effects of climate change shall be offered to pupils as soon as possible, commencing no later than the 2021–22 school year.”
From Rivas’s comments on the issue, it is clear that she takes a radical approach to the supposed threat of climate change.
“Climate change needs to be a part of our day-to-day academic discussion. This past decade has already started with extreme climate incidents occurring across the globe. As the youth that will inherit the brunt of climate change effects, we need them to be a part of the solution,” Assemblywoman Rivas stated in a press release. “AB 1922 will educate, help prepare, and give our next generation the tools to shape their futures in the wake of our current climate crisis.”
The assemblywoman also invoked teen climate activist Greta Thunberg. “Greta Thunberg, the 17-year-old activist, ushered in a new energy to the climate movement. Our youth are ready to join the solution,” Rivas added. “As our federal government takes a step back from environmental protection, California and our children are stepping in.”
But many question whether the bill would truly enhance students’ scientific understanding or just serve as a mechanism to push students toward radical climate activism.
“Back in the late 1990s, the California science content standards were carefully designed to teach students the science so that they could understand and evaluate rival global warming claims,” explained Bill Evers, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, in an interview with The College Fix. “Policy conclusions were not to be taught. Now California legislators want to require that students be indoctrinated in such conclusions and turned into advocates and activists.”
Dr. James Enstrom, an epidemiologist and researcher at UCLA, called the bill “dangerous” and “an effort to brainwash the kids.”
And Adam Houser, a staffer at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, argued that “this bill will only teach students a biased, one-sided view on the climate change issue: that the world is ending in 10 to 30 years because of human-made CO2.”
Houser also questioned whether the science behind Democrats’ radical plans to halt climate change is sound. “There’s a whole lot more to the story, and research from scientists like Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. William Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, and Dr. David Legates, who question how much of climate change is really driven by CO2 from human activity, should have just as much of a say in the curriculum as climate alarmist studies,” he told The College Fix.
Assemblywoman Rivas so far has not responded publicly to the criticisms of her bill.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/proposed-ca-legislation-would-mandate-climate-sara-dogan/
Parents and concerned citizens are crying “indoctrination” over a bill recently introduced in the California State Assembly which would make teaching about climate change mandatory in all California public schools.
The legislation, Assembly Bill 1922, was introduced by Democratic assemblywoman Luz Rivas, who represents District 39 in Southern California. The bill would amend the California Education Code to mandate that science education for both grades 1-6 and grades 7-12 include instruction on “the causes and effects of climate change.” The bill adds, “Appropriate coursework including material on the causes and effects of climate change shall be offered to pupils as soon as possible, commencing no later than the 2021–22 school year.”
From Rivas’s comments on the issue, it is clear that she takes a radical approach to the supposed threat of climate change.
“Climate change needs to be a part of our day-to-day academic discussion. This past decade has already started with extreme climate incidents occurring across the globe. As the youth that will inherit the brunt of climate change effects, we need them to be a part of the solution,” Assemblywoman Rivas stated in a press release. “AB 1922 will educate, help prepare, and give our next generation the tools to shape their futures in the wake of our current climate crisis.”
The assemblywoman also invoked teen climate activist Greta Thunberg. “Greta Thunberg, the 17-year-old activist, ushered in a new energy to the climate movement. Our youth are ready to join the solution,” Rivas added. “As our federal government takes a step back from environmental protection, California and our children are stepping in.”
But many question whether the bill would truly enhance students’ scientific understanding or just serve as a mechanism to push students toward radical climate activism.
“Back in the late 1990s, the California science content standards were carefully designed to teach students the science so that they could understand and evaluate rival global warming claims,” explained Bill Evers, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, in an interview with The College Fix. “Policy conclusions were not to be taught. Now California legislators want to require that students be indoctrinated in such conclusions and turned into advocates and activists.”
Dr. James Enstrom, an epidemiologist and researcher at UCLA, called the bill “dangerous” and “an effort to brainwash the kids.”
And Adam Houser, a staffer at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, argued that “this bill will only teach students a biased, one-sided view on the climate change issue: that the world is ending in 10 to 30 years because of human-made CO2.”
Houser also questioned whether the science behind Democrats’ radical plans to halt climate change is sound. “There’s a whole lot more to the story, and research from scientists like Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. William Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, and Dr. David Legates, who question how much of climate change is really driven by CO2 from human activity, should have just as much of a say in the curriculum as climate alarmist studies,” he told The College Fix.
Assemblywoman Rivas so far has not responded publicly to the criticisms of her bill.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/proposed-ca-legislation-would-mandate-climate-sara-dogan/
What chart?
Your links were all dead, if its the chart you posted down in the bottom of your post than it clearly shows the US is warming just as the rest of the world is warming.
(and by the way, I'm glad you got a child to fix the link, clearly you weren't able)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/natio...se_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
Your chart is a 12 month annual starting in december, check what happens when you do five year smoothing, so you can see the long term trend without the spikes of occasional years.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/natio...se_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
Yup, your chart shows just as much warming as your atmospheric chart when its actually up to date and not the old one you were pushing.
Lets do a recap:
1) larue claims there is no warming
2) tries to bait and switch by posting an old chart of atmospheric temperatures instead of surface temps. the updated chart shows the same warming as the surface
3) tries to post an old chart that fudges the atmospheric numbers and IPCC projections, updated charts show clear warming
4) tries to bait and switch one country's temps claiming that occasional spikes in chart mean there is no warming. applying 5 year smoothing shows the clear trend of the same warming shown everywhere else.
Face it mr science, every source you've picked has shown the same warming you're pretending isn't happening.
How about a test, pick a scientific agency that you trust (other than a single source person) and we'll check their numbers next.
'Cuz you know what?
They'll show the same warming that you're still denying.
Because its happening.
Is There A Connection Between Journalists And Junk Science?
Infectious diseases and climate change: Is there a connection?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/...r-infectious-disease-climate-change-1.5446356
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...es?tab=chart&time=1990..2016&country=OWID_WRL
Infectious diseases and climate change: Is there a connection?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/...r-infectious-disease-climate-change-1.5446356
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...es?tab=chart&time=1990..2016&country=OWID_WRL
Look again
U.S. Temperatures down 2.25 C from 2016
U.S. Temperatures down 2.6 C from 2012
as I stated
You say these are irrelevant if you do a 5 year smoothing
Again you show your ignorance has no bounds
the first reference was down 2.2C from 2016, a three year period. It is a mathematical impossibility to do a five year smoothing on a three year time period
A grade six math student could tell you that...... go ask one,
watching you trying to make scientific arguments is like watching a turtle who has been flipped onto its back.
the second period referenced is a seven year period. It is possible to do a 5 year smoothing on a 7 year time period, however you turn seven data points into three data points
No statistician would ever do what you just did
If you had half a brain you could ague that seven years is not a long period and any definitive conclusion drawn may be premature. That would have been a rational approach
But one still could not argue with the simple statement the US appears to have cooled off, contrary to the predictions and contrary to an increase in CO2
Sure lets
I never said that, I said it looks like the US has cooled off over the last seven years. NOAA data backs this up
Now, once again I have to tel you not to misrepresent what I say
What is wrong with you?
on several occasions I have stated there has been warming, in fact I was quite clear when I indicated John christys chart shows 0.56 C of warming
Now explain exactly what part of "John christys chart shows 0.56 C of warming" led you to the bullshit conclusion: "1) larue claims there is no warming"
DO NOT MISREPRESENT WHAT I SAY !!
2
Again with the bait and switch garbage. Wa WA Wa WA....... mommy the bad man put up a chart again
You do not like my chart, so you whine and cry like a little girl
Prove the chart is wrong or shut up, either way grow up
you have zero evidence to support that false claim.
John Christy was thoroughly investigated by the FBI before he testified before the senate. He came out of that squeaky clean
You are a pathological lair, you have zero integrity and zero shame
Bait and switch again???
Wa WA WA WA grow up
You cant not apply a five year smoothing on a three year period einstein
do you need somebody to flip you back over, Mr. turtle?
Cherry picking.
Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.
Your chart shows long term warming, roughly 2ºF but you picked two data points to try to cherry pick and argue the opposite.
Dishonest and very poorly done, its so obviously cherry picking.
mr science, you're cherry picking.
Here's the proof, from your chart.
2008 - 11.3ºC
2012 - 13ºC
OMFG! your chart shows 1.7ºC warming over 4 years!
OMFG!
That's cherry picking larue.
But mr science, your chart says that the US has warmed up 1.7ºC over only 4 years!
You're obviously lying!
The part where I looked at his source and it shows about 0.86ºC warming.
Don't blame me if you spout nonsense.
You're a dishonest science denier who cherry picks numbers, baits and switches references and relies on single sourced, oil funded 'scientists'.
That represents you very well.
Hey mr science, I'm gonna use your supplied chart of US temperatures, even though we are talking global temperatures, and use your advance cherry picking techniques again to show how incredibly moronic your arguments stand.
Here we go, temps from your chart listed in your post:
2011 - 53.18ºF
2012 - 55.28ºF
A one year increase of 2.2ºF!
2014 - 52.54ºF
2015 - 54.4ºF
A one year increase of 1.86ºF!
Right, but those are short term periods, so lets check the long term periods as well.
1993 - 51.26ºF
2012 - 55.28ºF
Over 19 years that shows 4.02ºF warming!
Your chart and your techniques show massive warming!
Cherry picking really works well to make your arguments look incredibly moronic, really stupid, ignorant, dishonest and foolish.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/natio...se_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
This is what you're trying to do.
Last edited:
The Green New Deal
free image hosting service
https://electrek-co.cdn.ampproject....hicle-charging-prices-500-percent-january-31/
It is 792 miles from Paris to Madrid. The trip would cost about $350 and require the battery be recharged at least five times. That is 50 hours of recharge time, meaning the trip would require at least five days.
Another option would be to take an airplane for $67, and arrive in less than three hours.
free image hosting service
free image hosting service
https://electrek-co.cdn.ampproject....hicle-charging-prices-500-percent-january-31/
It is 792 miles from Paris to Madrid. The trip would cost about $350 and require the battery be recharged at least five times. That is 50 hours of recharge time, meaning the trip would require at least five days.
Another option would be to take an airplane for $67, and arrive in less than three hours.
free image hosting service
Hey CM, check it out.
Greta Thunberg nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
Thunberg was also nominated by 3 members of Norwegian Parliament last year
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/greta-thunberg-nobel-nomination-1.5449664
Cherry picking you say??
You spew post after post after post about how i was using an old chart. You were nasty and abusive about it as well
So I post a chart which is as up-to-date as is possible, from your prefered chart vendor
it show quite clearly the US has cooled off in the last three years and over the last seven years
I asked you to explain how this could be if CO2 keeps increasing ?
Your response
1. you initially tried to smooth the problem away by running 5 year averages on a 3 year time period. (Grade 5 failure). That was assuming. Sad but funny
2. Then you tried to pretend.... actually you DENIED the chart did not even exist because the link was broken. Again amusing but pathetic and childish
3 Now you want to Cherry pick any other period but the most recent and most relevant???? This one is just plain pathetic & disturbing
Does the following quote mean anything to you ?
How about this one ?
You want to withhold (exclude) the most recent data 2019
Thanks for illustrating Cherry picking so clearly
What is wrong with you?
Are you thrown off because there is not a scientist available for your character assassination routine?
Are you befuddled because the 97% or the propaganda machine on google have not provided you with a cut and paste rebuttal ?
No, the problem here for you is just plain do not have the first loose clue about science, let alone something as complex as Climate change
Now answer the simple straightforward questions
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/nation...dbaseyear=2000
U.S. Temperatures 2019 down 2.25 C from 2016
U.S. Temperatures 2019 down 2.6 C from 2012
CO2 has gone up since 2012, yet the US temperature has declined by 2.6C, how can that be if CO2 is the control knob for the the climate? It is a simple question
CO2 has gone up since 2016, yet the US temperature has declined by 2.25C, how can that be if CO2 is the control knob for the the climate? It is a simple question
Holy shit larue, do you not understand that you are the one doing the cherry picking here and that I'm calling your dishonest and/or ignorant ass on the issue?
Can you really not be bright enough to pick this out.
I mean, take a look at your post:
Your claim only works when you cherry pick those particular years.
You took a chart that shows long term increases and tried to pick a peak warm year and peak cold year to try to claim that a chart showing warming is actually showing cooling.
And you really think that's still a legitimate claim even after I showed you exactly how you're cherry picking your dates.
Really, the fact that you are still pushing this claim must mean you really are not smart at all and suffer deeply from dunning-kruger effect.
How else can you explain why someone would look at this chart and try to claim that US temperatures are decreasing.
(this chart uses same data from a different source so I can post an image directly, instead of a link)
This is what you're trying to argue:
Extinction Rebellion Terrorist caught on video calling for terrorism against civilization
A co-founder of Extinction Rebellion has been filmed at an event calling for activists to “take down” civilisation as part of the group’s disruptive fight for climate change.
LBC can reveal today, as part of Nick Ferrari’s campaign for police to have greater powers to clamp down on the group, that Simon Bramwell spoke publicly at a meeting hosted by Deep Green Resistance UK, calling for them to adopt more extreme tactics.
Nick Ferrari’s Enough is Enough campaign is calling for changes to be made to the Public Order Act to give the police power to ban any protest that will cause serious public disorder. At present this power is limited to just protest marches.
Mr Bramwell spoke at a meeting by a group named By Any Means Necessary?, which was advertised on Facebook.
The talk was advertised online with a slogan asking whether nonviolent action was the most “effective tactic for bringing about climate change.”
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/present...founder-filmed-calling-sabotage-civilisation/
A co-founder of Extinction Rebellion has been filmed at an event calling for activists to “take down” civilisation as part of the group’s disruptive fight for climate change.
LBC can reveal today, as part of Nick Ferrari’s campaign for police to have greater powers to clamp down on the group, that Simon Bramwell spoke publicly at a meeting hosted by Deep Green Resistance UK, calling for them to adopt more extreme tactics.
Nick Ferrari’s Enough is Enough campaign is calling for changes to be made to the Public Order Act to give the police power to ban any protest that will cause serious public disorder. At present this power is limited to just protest marches.
Mr Bramwell spoke at a meeting by a group named By Any Means Necessary?, which was advertised on Facebook.
The talk was advertised online with a slogan asking whether nonviolent action was the most “effective tactic for bringing about climate change.”
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/present...founder-filmed-calling-sabotage-civilisation/
I bet half of these activists are just using the climate change debate as an excuse to push what they really want socialism/ communism
I also bet 97% of them do not understand 3% of the science.
What is fully and completely understood about climate is far less than what is not well understood. Climate is extremely complex
You really don't understand that your claim is based on cherry picking?
Is that really too much for you to understand?
You still claim this chart shows declines.
But in order to make that point you have to cherry pick 2012 and 2016 as your start dates so your chart looks like this:
And you really can't see what you're doing the way everyone else on this board can?
Amazing.
