@JohnCleese I will never not be in awe of the fact that a bunch of men who get off on pretending to be women convinced governments, organizations, and universities in multiple countries that granting them access to female only spaces was the great civil rights movement of our time.
This appalling sentiment typifies the raging heartlessness that lies within the core of these activists.
‘Hate is justified, if you disagree’.
It’s a tactical mindset that has driven them for years & allowed them to remain the victims they so yearn to be.
Ugly ugly ugly…
@bobizgrate@UhJeffGoldblum1@lane_d12@GBPolitcs Personally I blame you.
Your ancestors were slave owners, so you’re a guilty as they come.
You should repent by giving the rioters all your possessions, and live on the streets begging for forgiveness for your shameful sins.
"How can anyone want to bring a child into this world?"
"This is literally the worst time to have children!"
Have the people who say stuff like this even had a cursory glance at human history?
Nog een vraag die je nooit in de klimaatkerk hoort -en dus ook niet in de media.
—> Sinds ongeveer 1980 meten wetenschappers in Wenen dat er gemiddeld zo’n 23 W/m² méér zonnestraling het aardoppervlak bereikt dan vroeger.
Niet omdat de zon plots feller schijnt.
Maar omdat de lucht -gelukkig- veel properder is geworden en dus minder zonlicht tegenhoudt…
Dat noemen ze ‘global brightening’-prachtige naam trouwens.
Maar los vd naam: als er vandaag meer energie van de zon het aardoppervlak bereikt, is het logisch om te onderzoeken welke rol dat speelt in de opwarming.
En ja, die vraag kan je perfect combineren met een CO2-fetish. 🤓
Deze ontdekking onderlijnt nogmaals dat het klimaatsysteem veel complexer is dan “meer CO2 = alle opwarming”. En dan hebben we het hier nog maar over 1 bijkomend fenomeen- en invalshoek.
Echte wetenschappers onderzoeken alle relevante factoren en blijven die onderzoeken.
Zeker als iets zo ongelooflijk complex is als ‘het klimaat’.
—> Maar een ideoloog ziet maar één oorzaak. Dogmatisch. Denken-beperkend. “Het moet en zal CO2 zijn, wat anderen ook zeggen!”
Opvallend toch dat CO2 van alle mogelijke oorzaken ook juist de enige is waarop je belastingen kunt heffen… tenminste als je ervan uitgaat dat de mens de bepalende oorzaak is.
Schonere lucht belasten wordt iets moeilijker -maar niet onmogelijk natuurlijk. 🤡🙈
Zoals Abraham Maslow ooit zei:
“If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
How do I know that the climate *crisis* is a scam?
Here are five reasons:
1️⃣ None of the politicians, celebrities, or “scientists” yammering about it have altered their lifestyles by an inch. If they opted to forgo using O&G products, then I’d take them seriously. Actions speak louder than words.
2️⃣ Climate conferences aren’t being held virtually on Zoom using their large meeting extensions. It’s doable, they just choose not to. They like to fly overseas to lecture us about reducing our “carbon footprint” all the while they do nothing to lower their own.
3️⃣ Wealthier alarmists are still living on or buying oceanfront property. If ocean levels were really rising at a catastrophic rate (as opposed to the gradual increase that is actually occurring), then they would move inland and banks would not approve loans.
4️⃣ Alarmists rarely, if ever criticize China and India, and they always come up with all sorts of wonderful excuses as to why those nations get a free pass to continue emitting so-called “carbon pollution.”
5️⃣ The only solutions they offer involve increased governmental power. Higher taxes. EV mandates. Restrictions or bans on the energy sectors they don’t like.
And, as an added bonus, no real-world data proves, much less suggests that we are facing an “existential crisis.” Even the IPCC doesn’t use such rhetoric because it isn’t based on science.