Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
The purpose of the Green New Deal and climate alarmism in general, is to control and restrict the freedom of people. It has nothing to do with Polar Bears or the climate.
Heathrow third runway ruled illegal over climate change | Environment | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...hird-runway-ruled-illegal-over-climate-change
It has been that way since day one of this scam.
names that end with the letter e
26 Jan 1989 – Call for anti-greenhouse action – Trove
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/120906718/12982929
Heathrow third runway ruled illegal over climate change | Environment | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...hird-runway-ruled-illegal-over-climate-change
It has been that way since day one of this scam.
names that end with the letter e
26 Jan 1989 – Call for anti-greenhouse action – Trove
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/120906718/12982929
Just fine thank you
I like the signature picture
People on ignore: Frankfooter
January 2020 was the warmest January on record.
How do you think February will rank?
As much of the USA and Canada and Europe experienced an abundance of the white stuff, CNN picked this as a good time to make an “end of snow” prediction.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/29/weather/climate-change-threatening-winter-sports-pow/index.html
Climate alarmism just can’t help themselves. Their models predict a hothouse world in their lifetimes, so they see every glitch or variation in conditions as evidence the great temperature acceleration has begun, and endlessly embarrass themselves with their wild “end of snow” predictions.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/29/weather/climate-change-threatening-winter-sports-pow/index.html
Climate alarmism just can’t help themselves. Their models predict a hothouse world in their lifetimes, so they see every glitch or variation in conditions as evidence the great temperature acceleration has begun, and endlessly embarrass themselves with their wild “end of snow” predictions.
And what in that article do you think is wrong?
Who has made better projections than the IPCC, as shown by the chart below?
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/02/zombie-climate-science/
Brilliant analysis here by Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard. Pretty sad times we live in when we can't trust our government agencies to be honest and transparent.
Brilliant analysis here by Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard. Pretty sad times we live in when we can't trust our government agencies to be honest and transparent.
Pretty sad when you think NASA is dishonest about temperature records and instead think 'percentage of US weather stations hitting 100ºF' is more relevant than actual temperature records.
A UK paper has outed a number of angry climate change deniers who made threats to Greta Thunberg.
The abuse and threats made to Greta Thunberg by people from Bristol
By grown men, many who appear to have children of their own
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
If you're going to threaten violence on children you really should be brave enough to put your name and face behind it.
The abuse and threats made to Greta Thunberg by people from Bristol
By grown men, many who appear to have children of their own
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
If you're going to threaten violence on children you really should be brave enough to put your name and face behind it.
It seems to me that they used their personal social media accounts to post isn't that putting your name and face behind it?
No reasonable adult believes that Thunberg is the person behind anything she posts online or speaks about in public. I'm pretty sure whatever was said by posters was really directed to her handlers, who are undoubtedly adults.
Besides, the definition of "advocating violence" is a little loose. As an example, one of the "violent" acts directed towards her that was detailed in the article was a tweet that she be "burnt at the stake". Does anyone seriously think that the poster was trying to make this a reality, or rather that he was trying to insult her by calling her a witch? Reasonable people will go with the latter. The rest of the "threats" toward her are pretty much along the same lines. Crack reporting by the Bristol Post. The insults and comments were pretty mild by TERB standards.
Besides, the definition of "advocating violence" is a little loose. As an example, one of the "violent" acts directed towards her that was detailed in the article was a tweet that she be "burnt at the stake". Does anyone seriously think that the poster was trying to make this a reality, or rather that he was trying to insult her by calling her a witch? Reasonable people will go with the latter. The rest of the "threats" toward her are pretty much along the same lines. Crack reporting by the Bristol Post. The insults and comments were pretty mild by TERB standards.
'If'
Likely they didn't, or there wouldn't be a need for that article.
Polls say that climate change is actually the number one concern for voters in the US.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...s-really-do-care-about-climate-change/606907/
And how much coverage do US networks give it?
Less than 1%.
https://grist.org/climate/major-new...n-four-hours-to-climate-change-in-2019-total/
If you feel that way I would hope you would have no issue putting your name and face behind those comments.
Obviously if you think they aren't offensive, threatening or dangerous, you should stand behind them publicly.
Just as if you really thought neo Nazis aren't dangerous and would never say, drive into a crowd of protesters, you should have no fear putting your name and face behind those views.
Frank, this might be hard for you to process, but there's a difference between offensive and threatening or dangerous. If you seriously believe that particular tweet was a real attempt to have Thunberg burned at the stake, then you should immediately stop reading anything further on the internet. The internet isn't a safe place for those who can't tell the difference between bluster and real criminal scheming. However, you might try applying for a job as a journalist.
If you think calling for a teenager to be burnt at the stake isn't offensive or dangerous I'll buy you a t-shirt with those words you can wear to work.
Otherwise you should avoid reality altogether and be content to be a basement troll.
Please Frank, start reading the posts that you respond to. Too many of your posts are completely disconnected from the points being made by others.
If you are actually reading and understanding them, and yet responding to them in the way you do, you're just trolling. Nobody likes a troll.
Do you think its offensive or dangerous to call for teenagers to be burnt at the state, or is just really fun times for you?
