 
     |
| Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 40/170) |
|
Fitz301
|
APR 04, 12:30 PM
|
|
It's called "climate change" now, as I've explained in a earlier post, so that nobody can challenge it.
People could refute "global warming", very easily btw, mostly because it wasn't getting warmer anywhere on the globe and people started to notice.
So they came up with "climate change", because who can argue the climate doesn't change? It does. And has been since the Earth had an climate.
The con artists work in symantics, all con artists do to convince their "mark(s)" that the information their being expected to believe is true, basically "the information I'm about to reveal it true, and here's a bunch of reasons why" then they let loose on a tirade of buzzwords and "facts", some of which are based in truth (because most lies are based on some bit of truth), and others that are complete fabrications, because who can prove otherwise, they prepared graphs. Because they're "scientists, and everyone knows scientists would NEVER lie" (except about anything and everything, if there's enough grant money involved).
And those who are open to the lie, and want to believe (because it may line up with something they "suspected", or something they heard at one time by someone in a position of "authority"), will believe. Even if it goes against their own observations, which become skewed to fit the lie they heard, and they start to rationalize and justify it in their own mind, that's when it becomes true to them. (this also happens to explain the "transgendered", but that's another topic altogether).
The same happened with the "scamdemic", those in positions of "authority" changed the names of the common cold and influenza to "covid19".
And those who were open to "the lie", fell for it.
Why do you think they were able to get nearly the entire world to wear masks so easily? Because the majority of people, believed the lie, those who were "on the fence" took their cues from the rest of the sheep, and because of most people's need for "acceptance from their peers", they followed suit and did the same.
And then they completed the con by convincing their marks (the ignorant of the world), that everything they said was true and for the marks own good (all cons generally involve playing on the marks well being, even if it's against their better judgement), to follow their orders if they wanted to "live", because any deviation from their orders would result in a horrible death (which they reported in horrific detail, and of course were NOT TRUE), to really sell the con.
People began to rationalize it, justify it, and because they were fed a steady stream of propaganda on the "glass teat" (aka, television), of people allegedly dropping dead in the streets, ER's being reported as "overflowing with the sick and dying" (which was a lie), everybody was dying from "covid19" (the buzzword), even people who died from other reasons were listed as "covid19" deaths.
Got shot in the head and died? Covid19.
Had a heart attack and died? Covid19.
Got into an accident and were killed? Definitely covid19.
These are the "examples" used to scare the mark and used to say "see we told you, death numbers are through the roof, and if you don't want to die too, you better do as we say" (convincing the marks it was for their own good).
And then came the reason for the con, to get people to take poison, aka the "vaxxine", for an ailment that, turns out, WAS the seasonal cold and flu rebranded and wasn't nearly as "deadly" as they claimed.
Why do you suppose there were nearly ZERO deaths from influenza during the height of the "covid" con?
Where did the common cold and flu go? Are they saying that "covid19" CURED the cold and flu?
Which leads us back to "climate change (aka, globull warming)", these terms are no longer scary to most because they've heard them a better part of their lives.
Their control over people was waning, time to "up the ante", time move on to the next phase of the con job.
The reason behind the "scamdemic" was to get people to take their poison, by choice, by the marks own hand, freely, to make them think they did it to save others, to be "heroes". And also freeing the perpetrators of any and all responsibility for mass murder and genocide/
And why?
To depopulate the planet all in the name of "climate change", to "save" mother Earth. The ultimate "sacrifice" in the name of "science", and the marks would know they saved the world.
And those who remain, that didn't fall for the CON, will be controlled by the powers that be for all time.
Or so they think...[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 04-05-2023).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 04, 12:39 PM
|
|
"This graphic explains why 2 degrees of global warming will be way worse than 1.5"
David Roberts for Vox; October 7, 2018.
https://www.vox.com/energy-...grees-climate-change
The meaning of "two degrees"... it does not mean that each day, everywhere, is just mildly warmer than before.
On top of that, these references to "two degrees" are two degrees (warmer) Celsius, which is 3.6 degrees (warmer) Fahrenheit.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-04-2023).]
|
|
|
|
Fitz301
|
APR 04, 01:30 PM
|
|
And there's "...the graphs" to "prove the con".
What does it prove?
All it proves is that somebody can draw graphs.
And here's a drawing of Garfield, does that prove Garfield is any more or less "real"?
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
APR 04, 01:53 PM
|
|
Are you always bamboozeled by bullzhit ? Are you trying to bamboozel me ?
Why was not the graph you posted in that article ?
Graph ?
| quote | Originally posted by Fitz301:
The con artists work in symantics, all con artists do to convince their "mark(s)" that the information their being expected to believe is true, basically "the information I'm about to reveal it true, and here's a bunch of reasons why" then they let loose on a tirade of buzzwords and "facts", some of which are based in truth (because most lies are based on some bit of truth), and others that are complete fabrications, because who can prove otherwise They prepare graphs. Because they're "scientists, and everyone knows scientists would NEVER lie" (except about anything and everything, if there's enough grant money involved). |
|
Of course you the Greenies claim they have facts. They make wild claim predictions of future outcomes (with the necessary scare factor). Yet, there is no data, year by year, decade by decade, century by century, of the amount of past devastation to the Earth. In none of the categories that your article included.
They have a projected models,  , of future devastation. Not mentioning not one of the projected models they claimed has come true.
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The meaning of "two degrees"... it does not mean that each day, everywhere, is just mildly warmer than before. |
|
What does it mean ?
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
On top of that, these references to "two degrees" are two degrees (warmer) Celsius, which is 3.6 degrees (warmer) Fahrenheit. |
|
That Celsius claim you make is more smoke and mirrors. It is made by the IPCC, who use the metric system. Converted from our claims. Remember, we invented Global Warming.
By the way, where does the IPPC's budget money come from ? Break it down.[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-04-2023).]
|
|
|
|
Fitz301
|
APR 04, 02:25 PM
|
|
No kidding.
He always posts "facts, figures & graphs" about the CON, let's see graphs about how much money these so-called "scientists" are receiving and where this money is actually going?
More importantly, where is this money coming from, and by whom.[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 04-04-2023).]
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
APR 04, 03:32 PM
|
|
Well, I guess we are just going to have to give up all personal transportation and kill all the animals because....you know, methane and CO2. They fart and burp and it's offensive so I'm told. 
Coconuts just wont do it. I want a Percheron. Anybody got a watermelon or 2 handy ???
[youtube]http://twitter.com/TAftermath2020/status/1643276322746306561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/youtube]
(Yes, thats sarcasm)
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
APR 04, 03:33 PM
|
|
Well, I guess we are just going to have to give up all personal transportation and kill all the animals because....you know, methane and CO2. They fart and burp and it's offensive so I'm told.
Coconuts just wont do it. I want a Percheron. Anybody got a watermelon or 2 handy ???
(Yes, thats sarcasm)[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 04-04-2023).]
|
|
|
cliffw
|
APR 04, 10:10 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
That's "rich".
Maybe I scrolled through it. Maybe I have some thoughts or questions about it. Maybe it's in the back of my mind to "drill down" on one or more points that were raised in this article.
Maybe it just doesn't seem important for me (as judged by me) to do or say anything more about it right now. |
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Maybe ? Probably not.
There is a lot in the article which should convince you your thoughts have been wrong.
|
|
It may not be evident to you, but, you can not convince us of your Gawds scam, without ...
We have always tried to convince you of your "proof" being flawed. Yet, you can not even make a weak challenge to our logic to your beliefs.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
APR 05, 02:21 AM
|
|
| quote |
Here's a guy who seems not at all optimistic about the prospects for Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors.
|
|
Here's a guy who is a poseur that has ZERO formal education or credentials in nuclear power.
Just the kind of "expurt" that Leftists love.
Really makes Todd's point for him....how timely.
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Completely agree. Whenever you see responses to nuclear power on say, Twitter or anywhere else... and it's NOT a bot, the responses are totally asinine. They are so confident about that which they are so absurdly wrong about... saying that they don't want a Hiroshima or Nagisaki... like... really? Do you not recognize the difference between a nuclear power plant and an atomic bomb? And then they brag about being so well educated and intelligent because they have a bachelors degree in a totally worthless program from some **** school no one has ever heard of. |
|
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-05-2023).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 05, 08:53 AM
|
|
Royal Meteorological Society on YouTube
 [This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-05-2023).]
|
|
|
|