Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
El stovey said:
Don’t you think it’s more likely they just fell for fake news like you guys do all the time?
Fake news? No, it’s been scientifically proven that the COVID pandemic has been extremely beneficial for the environment. The lockdowns show what can be done when we all pull together.Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
purplepenguin said:
Proof?
Be more specific
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
purplepenguin said:
Proof?
Be more specifichttps://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...
I mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
Edited by Diderot on Tuesday 27th April 21:09
Diderot said:
But KP that still doesn't explain 1. why one year after that story was apparently widespread as your Google search demonstrates, it turns up on national TV, and 2. as the chap on Facebook points out, the picture has been 'shopped', and 3. according to your Google search it had the range had been visible 30 years previously.
I mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
Stuffed if I know how it happened - not much to go on is there. It looks like somone thought a clear shot of the mountains demonstrates nothing to people who don't live there so it needed a 'before' shot. It would be pretty shocking if it emerged such a journalistic no-no was carried out by someone at ITV but I haven't come across an iteration of it on the web yet - just the single shot versionI mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
Diderot said:
dickymint said:
mko9 said:
You're not very good at this interwebs thing. The rolleyes emoji indicates sarcasm. Also, I quoted Durbster's ridiculous supposition that it could either be a nefarious far reaching conspiracy, or an innocent mistake by some junior intern.
I think he's agreeing with kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
But KP that still doesn't explain 1. why one year after that story was apparently widespread as your Google search demonstrates, it turns up on national TV, and 2. as the chap on Facebook points out, the picture has been 'shopped', and 3. according to your Google search it had the range had been visible 30 years previously.
I mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
Stuffed if I know how it happened - not much to go on is there. It looks like somone thought a clear shot of the mountains demonstrates nothing to people who don't live there so it needed a 'before' shot. It would be pretty shocking if it emerged such a journalistic no-no was carried out by someone at ITV but I haven't come across an iteration of it on the web yet - just the single shot versionI mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
40 secs in - misty mountains, shutter clicks, presto clear mountains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28
kerplunk said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
But KP that still doesn't explain 1. why one year after that story was apparently widespread as your Google search demonstrates, it turns up on national TV, and 2. as the chap on Facebook points out, the picture has been 'shopped', and 3. according to your Google search it had the range had been visible 30 years previously.
I mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
Stuffed if I know how it happened - not much to go on is there. It looks like somone thought a clear shot of the mountains demonstrates nothing to people who don't live there so it needed a 'before' shot. It would be pretty shocking if it emerged such a journalistic no-no was carried out by someone at ITV but I haven't come across an iteration of it on the web yet - just the single shot versionI mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
40 secs in - misty mountains, shutter clicks, presto clear mountains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28
It's suggesting the shot is different on different dates, but the same people are standing in the foreground in both shots.
mybrainhurts said:
kerplunk said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
But KP that still doesn't explain 1. why one year after that story was apparently widespread as your Google search demonstrates, it turns up on national TV, and 2. as the chap on Facebook points out, the picture has been 'shopped', and 3. according to your Google search it had the range had been visible 30 years previously.
I mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
Stuffed if I know how it happened - not much to go on is there. It looks like somone thought a clear shot of the mountains demonstrates nothing to people who don't live there so it needed a 'before' shot. It would be pretty shocking if it emerged such a journalistic no-no was carried out by someone at ITV but I haven't come across an iteration of it on the web yet - just the single shot versionI mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
40 secs in - misty mountains, shutter clicks, presto clear mountains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28
It's suggesting the shot is different on different dates, but the same people are standing in the foreground in both shots.
Thought some of you might enjoy watching this short video from Spock in 1977.
Leonard Nimoy “In Search of the Next Ice Age”...
https://www.reddit.com/r/climatedisalarm/comments/...
Leonard Nimoy “In Search of the Next Ice Age”...
https://www.reddit.com/r/climatedisalarm/comments/...
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
kerplunk said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
But KP that still doesn't explain 1. why one year after that story was apparently widespread as your Google search demonstrates, it turns up on national TV, and 2. as the chap on Facebook points out, the picture has been 'shopped', and 3. according to your Google search it had the range had been visible 30 years previously.
I mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
Stuffed if I know how it happened - not much to go on is there. It looks like somone thought a clear shot of the mountains demonstrates nothing to people who don't live there so it needed a 'before' shot. It would be pretty shocking if it emerged such a journalistic no-no was carried out by someone at ITV but I haven't come across an iteration of it on the web yet - just the single shot versionI mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
40 secs in - misty mountains, shutter clicks, presto clear mountains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28
It's suggesting the shot is different on different dates, but the same people are standing in the foreground in both shots.
So they're displaying two versions of the same shot, one with mountains blurred out or one with mountains 'shopped in.
Why are you less bothered with that?
mybrainhurts said:
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
kerplunk said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
But KP that still doesn't explain 1. why one year after that story was apparently widespread as your Google search demonstrates, it turns up on national TV, and 2. as the chap on Facebook points out, the picture has been 'shopped', and 3. according to your Google search it had the range had been visible 30 years previously.
I mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
Stuffed if I know how it happened - not much to go on is there. It looks like somone thought a clear shot of the mountains demonstrates nothing to people who don't live there so it needed a 'before' shot. It would be pretty shocking if it emerged such a journalistic no-no was carried out by someone at ITV but I haven't come across an iteration of it on the web yet - just the single shot versionI mean here on the South Coast we had no chem trails at all for most of last year (thankfully) and the Govt. has yet to activate the microchip in my Pfizer vaccine I had a while back. (Bonus, natch).
Worth remembering (surprising as it may be) that viewing figures for the Lorraine show are > 1 million on a daily basis.
40 secs in - misty mountains, shutter clicks, presto clear mountains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28
It's suggesting the shot is different on different dates, but the same people are standing in the foreground in both shots.
So they're displaying two versions of the same shot, one with mountains blurred out or one with mountains 'shopped in.
Why are you less bothered with that?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...
The notion that they did it thinking nobody would notice but 'got careless' and caught out makes it sound like they've done something unethical worth hiding. But I don't think they have (as above - provided it's an accurate representation)
In an attempt to 'ground' this thread back to basics if I can, how many still believe the amount of human contributed warming (if any) is such that it constitutes a "crisis" ?
Is the rate of warming over and above the natural cycle(s) (if true), such that you are incredibly concerned for your continued existence?
Is the rate of warming over and above the natural cycle(s) (if true), such that you are incredibly concerned for your continued existence?
GroundZero said:
In an attempt to 'ground' this thread back to basics if I can, how many still believe the amount of human contributed warming (if any) is such that it constitutes a "crisis" ?
Is the rate of warming over and above the natural cycle(s) (if true), such that you are incredibly concerned for your continued existence?
Basically yes - if the rate of warming of the last 50 years is due to CO2 (and therefore likely to continue if unchecked) it's a crisis.Is the rate of warming over and above the natural cycle(s) (if true), such that you are incredibly concerned for your continued existence?
GroundZero said:
In an attempt to 'ground' this thread back to basics if I can, how many still believe the amount of human contributed warming (if any) is such that it constitutes a "crisis" ?
Is the rate of warming over and above the natural cycle(s) (if true), such that you are incredibly concerned for your continued existence?
The planet will look after itself regardless of what us mere mortals get up to. I don't put it past the politicians to completely fIs the rate of warming over and above the natural cycle(s) (if true), such that you are incredibly concerned for your continued existence?
k up our lives in the attempt to fix it though.robinessex said:
The planet will look after itself regardless of what us mere mortals get up to. I don't put it past the politicians to completely fk up our lives in the attempt to fix it though.
There are billionaire fiddlers looking at just that! So what if they do shade us from sunlight, can they switch the sunlight back on later?k up our lives in the attempt to fix it though.jshell said:
robinessex said:
The planet will look after itself regardless of what us mere mortals get up to. I don't put it past the politicians to completely fk up our lives in the attempt to fix it though.
There are billionaire fiddlers looking at just that! So what if they do shade us from sunlight, can they switch the sunlight back on later?k up our lives in the attempt to fix it though.He has Ctrl Alt Del keys, and he knows how to use them....
Everything forward, trust in the lord and keep taking the vacseeeeen....
robinessex said:
GroundZero said:
In an attempt to 'ground' this thread back to basics if I can, how many still believe the amount of human contributed warming (if any) is such that it constitutes a "crisis" ?
Is the rate of warming over and above the natural cycle(s) (if true), such that you are incredibly concerned for your continued existence?
The planet will look after itself regardless of what us mere mortals get up to. I don't put it past the politicians to completely fIs the rate of warming over and above the natural cycle(s) (if true), such that you are incredibly concerned for your continued existence?
k up our lives in the attempt to fix it though.GroundZero said:
In an attempt to 'ground' this thread back to basics if I can, how many still believe the amount of human contributed warming (if any) is such that it constitutes a "crisis" ?
Is the rate of warming over and above the natural cycle(s) (if true), such that you are incredibly concerned for your continued existence?
No, as this is the biggest deception ever perpetrated. Is the rate of warming over and above the natural cycle(s) (if true), such that you are incredibly concerned for your continued existence?
What does concern me is the vast amount of tax being pissed up the wall by governments to solve a problem that doesn't exist, which worries me about worse potential feckwittery that might be unloaded on us.
mybrainhurts said:
No, as this is the biggest deception ever perpetrated.
What does concern me is the vast amount of tax being pissed up the wall by governments to solve a problem that doesn't exist, which worries me about worse potential feckwittery that might be unloaded on us.
I'm also on the "not a crisis" side of the fence. What I think is happening on the political side of things is that "climate crisis" is a "politically correct" term to use for what is actually a "global population crisis".What does concern me is the vast amount of tax being pissed up the wall by governments to solve a problem that doesn't exist, which worries me about worse potential feckwittery that might be unloaded on us.
The "climate" debates are these days including less of CO2 as the central aspect, and much more of "environment" in terms of other pollutants and human effects such as plastic in the oceans, tree felling for crops land space, increasing mismanagement of water resources etc.
I think that due to climate models that are programmed to show a "heating crisis" bear no connection to measurements that consistently show a much less of an effect, has meant the political debate has gone round in the same circle for years and as so it has morphed in to something that aligns more to the basic problems of far too many people on the planet (mostly in terms of sustainability of endless growth).
So "climate crisis" = no
"Population crisis" = yes
Accept it or not but we are a part of the planets 'natural cycle'.
It seems as though climate change worriers think we arrived here on an intergalactic transporter from another planet to now consume everything.the climate may return to a different state(i won't say normal as we don't really know what is normal) once all the fossil fuel has been used and we then struggle to exist in the way we have become accustomed to.
There will probably see an increasing decline in the worlds population then as it gets harder to live comfortably.
It seems as though climate change worriers think we arrived here on an intergalactic transporter from another planet to now consume everything.the climate may return to a different state(i won't say normal as we don't really know what is normal) once all the fossil fuel has been used and we then struggle to exist in the way we have become accustomed to.
There will probably see an increasing decline in the worlds population then as it gets harder to live comfortably.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff