Was Trump within the boundaries of decency to citicize Thunberg on twitter
Of coarse he was
Nobody needs to listen to opinion with out debate/pushback what ever you want to describe Trumps actions
If she has development problems then that is on her parents
If she chooses to enter the adult world of public opinion then she should expect to be treated as an adult
If her parents choose to let her enter the adult world then they share the larger parts of debate/push back
Number 1 Trump never criticized her. The left says he did, which means they spread lies and the sheep rat it up. She and the left out her out there and nobody else. After that she is fair game period. After that crazed speech she gave I would say she needs de-programmed. The left has done the same many times and often picks poor humans with disabilities..ie Michael Fox or James Garner near death.....that way you are criminal if you dare respond to their silliness
The scheme that they are using Greta for is beyond absurd. How are clear thinking people buying this ridiculous marketing scam?
A complete know nothing, spewing anti science and made up stuff about a non existent apocalypse during a climate optima that is featuring the best climate and weather in over 1,000 years on this greening planet.............in order to scare people, especially young people.
In order to trick people to agree to global socialism under the fraudulent guise of saving the planet.
Yet the United Nations, MSM and dems have elevated her to the high priestess of their climate crisis cult/religion..........which is exactly what this is.
The biggest cult in history via the hijacking of climate science for political agenda............global socialism.
The Climate Accord is based on a completely false premise. If all the nations lived up to their pledges, it would not affect the weather/climate by more than a tiny bit.
However, there would be a big transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor countries. Also, the energy advantages of the rich countries using cheap, efficient, reliable and energy dense fossil fuels would be stripped away.
A re balancing of power and wealth around the world.............global socialism.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
what the "Climate Crisis" is really all about....
12 responses |
Started by GunterK - Dec. 2, 2019, 11:44 a.m.
"It is easy to demonstrate that if every nation lived up to its current voluntary “contribution,” Earth’s surface temperature would be only a few tenths of a degree lower than it would be in 2100 if we just continued emissions-as-usual. The effects of Paris are too small to reliably measure. In his Nobel acceptance speech, Nordhaus noted that Paris would not get close to its stated goals, and that its unenforceability renders it useless."
"Nordhaus knows from whence he speaks. He was awarded the Nobel for his model that calculates the so-called social cost of carbon [dioxide], along with the effects of emission reduction policies. In his actual acceptance speech he sheepishly pointed out his model showed the “break even” level of warming (where overall costs begin to exceed the benefits of slight warming coupled to economic growth) is 4⁰C. "
metmike: In other words, the benefits would continue to be greater than the negatives until global warming exceeded 4 Deg. C. I agree with this authentic science. We should take that into account when listening to one side telling us the silly, anti science statement that above +1.5 Deg. the planet will be destroyed.
With high confidence, I predict that at +1.5 Deg. C, the planet will be greener.
And even more greener at +2.0 Deg C warmer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This was my comment in that thread:
The best thing that humans have every done for the planet was to rescue life from the CO2 deficiency in the atmosphere.
Massive benefits would continue up to levels that are impossible to reach.
We are having a climate optima, not a crisis. Best weather/climate in at least the last 1,000 years. 50 years ago, had you asked a scientist if life on this planet would do best if the global temperature cooled by 1 Deg. C, stayed the same or warmed by another 1 Deg. C, 97% of them would likely have picked warmer. Probably most viewing warmer by 2+ Deg. C being even better.
Now we hear the false narratives about 97% of scientists having the opposite view.
What changed? Science didn’t change……….nobody abolished the law of photosynthesis. Animals still migrate south and hibernate to survive the harsh cold in Winter in the high/mid latitudes. Plants still go dormant and some die because of the cold.
Every scientific field considers CO2 as a beneficial gas. Agronomy, plant science, biology, zoology, authentic climate science….etc
Only in politics is CO2 categorized as pollution. That’s the only field that has changed in the last 50 years with regards to how humans view CO2.
Greta Thunberg ✔ @GretaThunberg ·
I'm sometimes called ”political". But I've never supported any political party, politician or ideology. I communicate the science and the risks of failing to act on it.
And the fact that the politics needed don't exist today, neither to the right, left nor center. ->
metmike: She is getting all of her anti science, completely made up environmental and climate/weather lies from her extreme, radical left, global socialist (Marxists actually) parents and adult handlers.
All intended to scare and brainwash people, especially young people, making them think they won't have a future unless they do exactly what Greta's adult handlers claim must be done (to impose global socialism), which would do nothing to affect the weather/climate in a significant way.
This has to be the most silly, fraudulent thing that has not been laughed off the stage, ignored or condemned quickly but instead, to surge and dominate peoples attention on this scale(global) in my lifetime.
The ridiculousness of it and the obviously blatant false narratives and lies about the condition of the greening planet with its best weather/climate in over 1,000 years being called a climate crisis/emergency have become so very extreme as to now expose the true nature of this hijacking of climate science for the political agenda to those that have not had their minds completely captured.
I don't blame this child for any of it.
Her parents and handlers that are writing Greta's speeches and setting up all the publicity stunts(she took a sailboat across the Atlantic for instance and spoke to the United Nations and US Congress......what 16 year old has the means and resources to do that?) should be charged with child abuse..........if there were any justice.
In 50 years, when climate science will have been restored to following authentic climate science and this political hoax is seen as the biggest black eye in scientific history, Greta will be 66.
History will not be describing her the same way that the MSM and entities like Time magazine are today.
Even if the United Nations is able to impose global socialism before then, there is absolute certainty that all the extreme predictions of the planet dying and apocalypses will NOT happen.
Almost everything that Greta says is happening is NOT happening.
The benefits to this warming will not be outweighed by the negatives until the global warming exceeds 4 deg. C and that is NOT going to happen in the next 50 years.
Her place in history will be one that shows that she was completely wrong.
If not, then somebody please tell me what she is right about.
Are we supposed to take that seriously???
Will somebody please just use common sense?!?!?!
Take a random sampling of 100 college graduates, and see if you can find a single one of them who really knows about climate change...you will probably find none
so what would a 16- year old kid know about climate science??? Absolutely nothing....which she has already proven, when reporters asked her questions after her speech, and she couldn't answer a single one. She always reads from a script that has been given to her by her handlers.
"Greta, you know nothing about climate science, and you have the nerve to insult grown-ups around the world!... How dare you?!?!?"
Even more astonishing is the reaction to Greta, around the world. They are turning her into the savior of mankind.....isn't there a bit of insanity involved? Has mankind become so ignorant that they can't use common sense anymore?
Even if you know nothing about this being a "climate optimum", rather than a "climate emergency", shouldn't people stop and think for a moment. ask themselves "why are we listening to a 16-year old"?
Let's check the internet (fortunately, we do live in the information age)...let's see... some people say we are all going to die soon... others say "this is nonsense... ti's getting warmer, but there is no crisis'"
Who could be right??? Let's see... the alarmists use computer programs which have been proven to be wrong since 1989... and the other side points out facts!!!
Computer simulations (garbage in, garbage out).... versus facts
The North pole is still frozen over (instead of being turned into water in the year 2000... the Polar bears are thriving, instead of being extinct... the planet is getting greener according to NASA, instead of turning into a desert... our grain yields per acre have been going up for the last 60 years, in spite of global warming... etc etc
Check mate!
yet.... Greta is now being hailed on the front cover of Time Magazine... insanity
Are we supposed to take that seriously???
Yes, in a way Wayne. Not from a practical application of any real world principles that many of us rely on to guide us but instead, cliff illustrates to us how somebody who has had their brains captured by the climate cult/religion thinks.
The world has been defined to them by their cult leaders/climate high priests as the good people trying to save the world and the bad people trying to stop them.
Greta has recently been annointed as the chief high priestess of the cult and her brainwashed followers believe all the nonsense she says.........no matter how silly.
People like me have been labelled as bad........... deniers(of the climate religion), paid off by evil big oil to try to stop the good people(like Greta) that are trying to save the planet.
Trump of course, is the most evil person on the planet and everything that he does is bad, just like everything that Greta does and says is good.
No need for critical thinking or using common sense, especially with climate science so complicated and impossible for you and me to understand(ok, just you and others since I'm an atmospheric scientist)
The gatekeepers, with the assistance of their 97% of the climate experts(based on the way that they obtained that number would include metmike) know all the secrets of the climate and exactly how to control it and the weather.............and they know the perfect temperature/CO2 level for life on this planet................where it was at before humans started burning fossil fuels.
So we must believe everything that they and Greta tell us and do everything that she says right now or the planet will be destroyed.
Even though they have been saying(warning us) of the same things that never happen for over 3 decades. We ignored it and that resulted in the best weather and climate for life in over 1,000 years(last time it was this warm)...........best CO2 levels for life since humans existed and a greening up planet to prove it. .....what used to be known as a climate optimum before climate science was hijacked for the political agenda.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
So what cliff does is ignore all that complicated authentic science and empirical data stuff.
His belief system(actually, those that have the power to control how he thinks) defines the world in a way that makes it much simpler/easier to figure out.
1. Trump = Bad
2. Greta = Good
So Wayne, what you and me don't take seriously, millions of others, like cliff are thinking is as serious as a heart attack............or in this case, serious as a (fake) climate emergency.
When Greta could not answer questions, the social media I read was very critical of her parents and the people around her for pushing a child into the spot light
Her parents were critized for allowing their child to be manipulated by a cult that saw an opportunity for world head lines
The adult cult was critized for using a child for world head lines, that supported their agenda
I suppose some other social media was in favour of using Greta to draw attention to their agenda
I also suppose it depends on which social platform you happen to read, what kind of response you will read
At least their was some push back and not everybody agreed with the Time Magazine cover
We can't change Time Magazine, but we can disagree, which in the sum of things, probably means that some critical thinking in our society, is good for everybody
It's the thinking part that I value above all else in a situation such as this, no matter if I agree or not,
cliffe,
I often enjoy your cartoons but the ones in this thread are designed to send a message of divisiveness, hate and confrontation, even physical confrontation between our president and the abused child.
If you want to defend Greta and her handlers vs attacks by me and others(which have been relentless), please refrain from cartoons that depict violence against her or by her..............facts would be nice.
Thanks
metmike
Thanks much cliff, this one from your link is hilarious!
https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1205156430879379460
