Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Dishonest Climate Fear-mongering headline for EASILY MANIPULATE LWNJs of the week goes to USA TODAY
Dishonest Climate Fear-mongering headline for EASILY MANIPULATE LWNJs of the week goes to USA TODAY
By Beekeeper
17 Jul 2023 5:22 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
19 posts • Page 1 of 1
17 Jul 2023 5:22 am
Dishonest Climate Fear-mongering headline of the week goes to USA TODAY for posting
Similar catastrophic claims were suggested throughout the click-bait media-verse from the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc, etc Rarely does the media provide a scientific historical context, preferring to weaponize weather
But if you read the article Climate Variability and Socioeconomic Consequences of Vermont’s Natural Hazards: A Historical Perspective published by the Vermont Historical Society in 2002, you would realize the natural truth of Vermont’s flooding.
The article states: “One of the most pervasive hazards that impinges upon and marks the Vermont landscape is flooding… Rarely does a year elapse without a flooding event of a significant magnitude being reported in atleast one of Vermont’s fourteen counties or perhaps statewide, making this the number-one hazard across the state.
Complex topographic barriers such as the Green Mountains and Taconics produces enhanced precipitation totals… Vermont’s steep V-shaped valleys help to constrain the flow, creating remarkable depths of flow at tremendous speeds. As far back as 1853, Zadock Thompson noted these topographic characteristics along the Winooski, Lamoille, and Missisquoi rivers, such that by default, roads could only be constructed along the open valley floors, making them susceptible to flooding damage.
The Great Flood of 1927 resulted from record rainfall totals produced by tropical storm remnants on November 3, following October precipitation totals that were already 50 percent above normal. As this decaying storm tracked directly along the spine of the Green Mountains, streams rose so rapidly that there was little time for warning.
The Winooski River rose 40–45 feet above its normal level, causing an estimated $30 million in economic losses. The Montgomery flood of July 15, 1997 , In the towns of Montgomery, Montgomery Center, Lowell, and Wolcott at least 6 inches of rain fell in less than six hours.Montpelier is particularly prone to flooding given its location in the Winooski River valley just upstream from the confluence with the Dog River.
Below are pictures: Montpelier Vermont from July 11, 2023 and 1927. In contrast to claims that global warming is causing more floods, the USGS discharge records show not even a hint of an upward trend. And the raging Winooski River in 1927
Similar catastrophic claims were suggested throughout the click-bait media-verse from the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc, etc Rarely does the media provide a scientific historical context, preferring to weaponize weather
But if you read the article Climate Variability and Socioeconomic Consequences of Vermont’s Natural Hazards: A Historical Perspective published by the Vermont Historical Society in 2002, you would realize the natural truth of Vermont’s flooding.
The article states: “One of the most pervasive hazards that impinges upon and marks the Vermont landscape is flooding… Rarely does a year elapse without a flooding event of a significant magnitude being reported in atleast one of Vermont’s fourteen counties or perhaps statewide, making this the number-one hazard across the state.
Complex topographic barriers such as the Green Mountains and Taconics produces enhanced precipitation totals… Vermont’s steep V-shaped valleys help to constrain the flow, creating remarkable depths of flow at tremendous speeds. As far back as 1853, Zadock Thompson noted these topographic characteristics along the Winooski, Lamoille, and Missisquoi rivers, such that by default, roads could only be constructed along the open valley floors, making them susceptible to flooding damage.
The Great Flood of 1927 resulted from record rainfall totals produced by tropical storm remnants on November 3, following October precipitation totals that were already 50 percent above normal. As this decaying storm tracked directly along the spine of the Green Mountains, streams rose so rapidly that there was little time for warning.
The Winooski River rose 40–45 feet above its normal level, causing an estimated $30 million in economic losses. The Montgomery flood of July 15, 1997 , In the towns of Montgomery, Montgomery Center, Lowell, and Wolcott at least 6 inches of rain fell in less than six hours.Montpelier is particularly prone to flooding given its location in the Winooski River valley just upstream from the confluence with the Dog River.
Below are pictures: Montpelier Vermont from July 11, 2023 and 1927. In contrast to claims that global warming is causing more floods, the USGS discharge records show not even a hint of an upward trend. And the raging Winooski River in 1927
17 Jul 2023 5:29 am
You expect something different?
Ruling ancestries each generation by power of suggesting life is more than evolving as displaced adds into complete corruption of last 5 generation gaps left living here now as history moralizes, legalizes, ethics among persons embezzling everyone else's time adapting in space here.
Money is symbolism over substance economics. People have to believe now isn't eternity to fall prey to fearing tomorrow won't arrive each rotation of the planet creating eternal event horizons like dawn, noon, dusk, midnight, new moon, first quarter, full moon, 3rd quarter, back to new moon.
Rotation of the planet 4 corners each day. 4 lunar phases reflecting the sunlight at separate angles each week. 4 seasons each revolution around the star staying 3rd from the sun all the time. Gee notice 12 universal constants here?
Let us add 4 more, generation gaps previous to arriving great great grandchildren replacing their 4 previous generation gaps leaving 5 generation gaps averaged to numbers inhabiting space now. Specific compounding results all linked to never exceeding the moment here.
Kinetic eternity changing total sum forms shaped ancestrally here. Evolving happens, evolution is a theory it isn't limited to now. Same as a God theology.
Ruling ancestries each generation by power of suggesting life is more than evolving as displaced adds into complete corruption of last 5 generation gaps left living here now as history moralizes, legalizes, ethics among persons embezzling everyone else's time adapting in space here.
Money is symbolism over substance economics. People have to believe now isn't eternity to fall prey to fearing tomorrow won't arrive each rotation of the planet creating eternal event horizons like dawn, noon, dusk, midnight, new moon, first quarter, full moon, 3rd quarter, back to new moon.
Rotation of the planet 4 corners each day. 4 lunar phases reflecting the sunlight at separate angles each week. 4 seasons each revolution around the star staying 3rd from the sun all the time. Gee notice 12 universal constants here?
Let us add 4 more, generation gaps previous to arriving great great grandchildren replacing their 4 previous generation gaps leaving 5 generation gaps averaged to numbers inhabiting space now. Specific compounding results all linked to never exceeding the moment here.
Kinetic eternity changing total sum forms shaped ancestrally here. Evolving happens, evolution is a theory it isn't limited to now. Same as a God theology.
17 Jul 2023 7:01 am
Have you ever noticed how the LWNJs all RUN when you present FACTS that destroys their entire "climate change" **** narrative??
It's hilariously funny when they think that by IGNORING TRUTH AND FACTS they can still carry on with their LYING!!
It's hilariously funny when they think that by IGNORING TRUTH AND FACTS they can still carry on with their LYING!!
17 Jul 2023 8:11 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnSyDr0F9_MBeekeeper » 17 Jul 2023, 7:01 am » wrote: ↑ Have you ever noticed how the LWNJs all RUN when you present FACTS that destroys their entire "climate change" **** narrative??
It's hilariously funny when they think that by IGNORING TRUTH AND FACTS they can still carry on with their LYING!!
17 Jul 2023 9:32 am
You ever notice the same people demand everyone honor their beliefs to the letter of the law. Really doesn't change between climate, evolution, creation, economics, politics, religions, academics, arts, mob rules by consensus, not mutually understanding time share adapting in space while specifically alive, now.Beekeeper » 17 Jul 2023, 7:01 am » wrote: ↑ Have you ever noticed how the LWNJs all RUN when you present FACTS that destroys their entire "climate change" **** narrative??
It's hilariously funny when they think that by IGNORING TRUTH AND FACTS they can still carry on with their LYING!!
Not yesterday or tomorrow, actively never same details twice here. You run away as fast as climate evangelicals when relative time logistics is under investigation beyond reasonable doubt.
17 Jul 2023 9:49 am
Amazing how the Univ. of MAINE used MANIPULATION to come up with that ****, huh??
Their " Climate Reanalyzer" is doing NOTHING but creating a LYING NARRATIVE to further push the scaremongering agenda CLIMATE HOAX!!
17 Jul 2023 9:55 am
Letter: Sifting through a lot of hot air
This is a response to Michael Bertsch who wrote:
“July 4th was the hottest day in the history of humanity so far. … and when science proves you wrong you still deny the heat record’s connection to oil — this position is thick as a brick. We laugh at you. We’re all laughing at you.”
This shows Michael’s “thick” knowledge of the situation. That July 4th claim is false. It came from a website called climatereanalyzer.org using model data, not actual temperatures, and got picked up by know-nothing social media fools going viral, followed by the media that didn’t bother to check. Only two problems: it wasn’t an official temperature. In a July 5 Associated Press story, NOAA distanced itself:
“NOAA, whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said in a statement Thursday that it cannot validate the unofficial numbers. It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called “not suitable” as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records.”
And there is the fact that the model only goes back to 1979, not “the history of humanity.”
Ooops!
The “excess heat” that spurred social media panic came from the waters off Antarctica, where apparently a computer model glitch made it look like shrimp were boiling in the ocean. Meanwhile, according to actual data, you know, from real measurements, the temperature of the Earth as of this writing is 57.47°F. That’s not “hot.”
I laugh at you Michael, in fact, we’re all laughing at you.
Full details and references here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/newspaper-l ... eferences/
Anthony Watts
This is a response to Michael Bertsch who wrote:
“July 4th was the hottest day in the history of humanity so far. … and when science proves you wrong you still deny the heat record’s connection to oil — this position is thick as a brick. We laugh at you. We’re all laughing at you.”
This shows Michael’s “thick” knowledge of the situation. That July 4th claim is false. It came from a website called climatereanalyzer.org using model data, not actual temperatures, and got picked up by know-nothing social media fools going viral, followed by the media that didn’t bother to check. Only two problems: it wasn’t an official temperature. In a July 5 Associated Press story, NOAA distanced itself:
“NOAA, whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said in a statement Thursday that it cannot validate the unofficial numbers. It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called “not suitable” as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records.”
And there is the fact that the model only goes back to 1979, not “the history of humanity.”
Ooops!
The “excess heat” that spurred social media panic came from the waters off Antarctica, where apparently a computer model glitch made it look like shrimp were boiling in the ocean. Meanwhile, according to actual data, you know, from real measurements, the temperature of the Earth as of this writing is 57.47°F. That’s not “hot.”
I laugh at you Michael, in fact, we’re all laughing at you.
Full details and references here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/newspaper-l ... eferences/
Anthony Watts
17 Jul 2023 9:55 am
Climategate 2.0: “The science” is dependent on manipulation of facts and data
In 2011, nearly two years after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal, a new batch of 5,000 emails were leaked. These emails were among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis i.e., anthropogenic global warming.
Three themes emerged from the new batch of emails, wrote James Taylor: prominent scientists are taking measures to conceal data; these scientists view global warming as a political “cause”; and, they admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock the Global Warming Debate from 2011....
A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially sceptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
In 2011, nearly two years after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal, a new batch of 5,000 emails were leaked. These emails were among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis i.e., anthropogenic global warming.
Three themes emerged from the new batch of emails, wrote James Taylor: prominent scientists are taking measures to conceal data; these scientists view global warming as a political “cause”; and, they admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock the Global Warming Debate from 2011....
A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially sceptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
17 Jul 2023 9:56 am
The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”
The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicise the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” sceptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.
These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicise the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.
More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.
“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.
More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.
James M. Taylor is a senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
https://expose-news.com/2023/07/16/clim ... endent-on/
The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicise the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” sceptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.
These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicise the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.
More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.
“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.
More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.
James M. Taylor is a senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
https://expose-news.com/2023/07/16/clim ... endent-on/
17 Jul 2023 10:06 am
The climate hoax cult has been lying for 30+ years now.....Beekeeper » 17 Jul 2023, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑ Amazing how the Univ. of MAINE used MANIPULATION to come up with that ****, huh??
Their " Climate Reanalyzer" is doing NOTHING but creating a LYING NARRATIVE to further push the scaremongering agenda CLIMATE HOAX!!
brainwashing people with false and manipulated data through continual and generational repetition while spreading their manufactured fears .
17 Jul 2023 10:28 am
NOAA 's flawed climate prediction models couldn't even predict this....Beekeeper » 17 Jul 2023, 9:55 am » wrote: ↑ Letter: Sifting through a lot of hot air
This is a response to Michael Bertsch who wrote:
“July 4th was the hottest day in the history of humanity so far. … and when science proves you wrong you still deny the heat record’s connection to oil — this position is thick as a brick. We laugh at you. We’re all laughing at you.”
This shows Michael’s “thick” knowledge of the situation. That July 4th claim is false. It came from a website called climatereanalyzer.org using model data, not actual temperatures, and got picked up by know-nothing social media fools going viral, followed by the media that didn’t bother to check. Only two problems: it wasn’t an official temperature. In a July 5 Associated Press story, NOAA distanced itself:
“NOAA, whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said in a statement Thursday that it cannot validate the unofficial numbers. It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called “not suitable” as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records.”
And there is the fact that the model only goes back to 1979, not “the history of humanity.”
Ooops!
The “excess heat” that spurred social media panic came from the waters off Antarctica, where apparently a computer model glitch made it look like shrimp were boiling in the ocean. Meanwhile, according to actual data, you know, from real measurements, the temperature of the Earth as of this writing is 57.47°F. That’s not “hot.”
I laugh at you Michael, in fact, we’re all laughing at you.
Full details and references here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/newspaper-l ... eferences/
Anthony Watts
let alone ....
climate change predictions...
But the cultists still believe ....
NOAA is slammed for utterly failing to predict California's devastating atmospheric river which has battered Golden State and left at least 19 dead and $1b in damage
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is facing criticism
- NOAA's winter weather predictions showed Southern California experiencing a drier than normal season while Northern California would be 'normal'
- Some areas of the state have seen 200 to 600 percent more rain than usual
- More than 24 trillion gallons of water have fallen on California since December
- 19 people have been killed during the recent storms in the Golden State
17 Jul 2023 10:33 am
Beekeeper » 17 Jul 2023, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑ Amazing how the Univ. of MAINE used MANIPULATION to come up with that ****, huh??
Their " Climate Reanalyzer" is doing NOTHING but creating a LYING NARRATIVE to further push the scaremongering agenda CLIMATE HOAX!!
That's likely why they did it. It's not the first time so called scientists have sold out to save their jobs or worse.
17 Jul 2023 12:25 pm
It's ALL about getting the government funding. Notice how they do this crap more when Democrats are in charge of the money!! Now, they are setting things up for 2024 and PRAYING that Democrats take back the House since ALL spending must originate there.roadkill » 17 Jul 2023, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑ That's likely why they did it. It's not the first time so called scientists have sold out to save their jobs or worse.
Take away the cash cow and their "science" is all of a sudden GONE!!
17 Jul 2023 12:28 pm
Hey WAIT a minute!!Majik » 17 Jul 2023, 10:28 am » wrote: ↑ NOAA 's flawed climate prediction models couldn't even predict this....
let alone ....
climate change predictions...
But the cultists still believe ....
NOAA is slammed for utterly failing to predict California's devastating atmospheric river which has battered Golden State and left at least 19 dead and $1b in damagehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... torms.html
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is facing criticism
- NOAA's winter weather predictions showed Southern California experiencing a drier than normal season while Northern California would be 'normal'
- Some areas of the state have seen 200 to 600 percent more rain than usual
- More than 24 trillion gallons of water have fallen on California since December
- 19 people have been killed during the recent storms in the Golden State
Wasn't it just LAST YEAR that these SAME IDIOTS were whining about "California's massive drought" that wasn't EVER going to go away since it was NEVER going to rain again??? Because existential climate change.
Yeah, they are sure WAY ahead of this "settled science" they keep harping about.
17 Jul 2023 12:30 pm
Add to this, out of the HUNDREDS of "climate predictions" they have made, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS EVER MATERIALIZED AS THEY PREDICTED IT WOULD!!Majik » 17 Jul 2023, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑ The climate hoax cult has been lying for 30+ years now.....
brainwashing people with false and manipulated data through continual and generational repetition while spreading their manufactured fears .
Now that's some really GREAT "settled science" isn't it???
17 Jul 2023 12:45 pm
The reason that I have never bought into human caused AGW is the changing narrative. Also, in 1997.. I read a journal article that in short said that from a purely statistical viewpoint.. the current models used by AGW types were nearly impossible. Hence, why I brush aside this topic. Weather happens.. get used to it.
17 Jul 2023 3:21 pm
I can show you no LESS than 100 "predictions" they have made and not ONE SINGLE ONE has materialized as they claimed.impartialobserver » 17 Jul 2023, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑ The reason that I have never bought into human caused AGW is the changing narrative. Also, in 1997.. I read a journal article that in short said that from a purely statistical viewpoint.. the current models used by AGW types were nearly impossible. Hence, why I brush aside this topic. Weather happens.. get used to it.
And they wonder WHY I don't believe this crap?? ANYONE that does believe it is a total *******!!
17 Jul 2023 3:28 pm
Beekeeper » 17 Jul 2023, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑ I can show you no LESS than 100 "predictions" they have made and not ONE SINGLE ONE has materialized as they claimed.
And they wonder WHY I don't believe this crap?? ANYONE that does believe it is a total *******!!
I am ok with predictions not coming true. Most do not... regardless of topic. However, when you claim x causes y and then a few years later.. you say, "oh.. it is now that z that causes y".. that is what gets my skepticism meter buzzing.
18 Jul 2023 6:40 am
I remember being taught at school that Holland would have the same climate as southern France by now... not by teachers, they had invited some greenpeace fanatics to give a lecture.. I couldn't see the problem, I like sunshine and palm trees, but I was willing to accept it at the time.. I'm still waiting for it, it was **** cold last winter and not a palm tree in sight...Beekeeper » 17 Jul 2023, 12:30 pm » wrote: ↑
Add to this, out of the HUNDREDS of "climate predictions" they have made, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS EVER MATERIALIZED AS THEY PREDICTED IT WOULD!!
Now that's some really GREAT "settled science" isn't it???
19 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
In total there are 3405 users online :: 8 registered, 16 bots, and 3381 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, RebelGator, Jantje_Smit, MR-7, *Beekeeper, LowIQTrash, Deezer Shoove
Bots: Yahoo! Slurp, facebookexternalhit, Not, app.hypefactors.com, CriteoBot, proximic, semantic-visions.com, ADmantX, Mediapartners-Google, DuckDuckGo, linkfluence.com, bingbot, BLEXBot, Googlebot, curl/7, YandexBot