GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM - David Icke | London Real

[caballero]

I have read a little about Mr. Guillaume Pitron's ideas and they are quite interesting. Usually, far from questioning our decisions, we tend to rush towards change.

He speaks about geostrategic and military interest in getting rid of the dependence on fossil fuels for the army. In this way, the USA could, for example, leave the Middle East oil center, and achieve self-sufficiency for its armies.

On the other hand is the supposed goodness of electricity as an energy source. As if we plugged a cable and, magically we obtained this energy. Where will it occur? MMMh? And who cares!

Curiously, today there are two disruptive elements in these hypotheses, taking into account that rare metals are needed for electrical appliances:

- The world center for the production of rare metals is China. Which would lead the dependence of the Middle East to the East Asia.
- The production and extraction of rare metals is extremely harmful to the environment.

[AW]

A report published in the German newspaper Taz states that Thunberg is generating more greenhouse gases than if it had flown, because the ship will be brought back to Europe by other sailors who must fly to the US. to pick it up. Herrmann will return, which will cause another flight.

I did not know they were going to hire airplanes just for themselves! They should be very rich.
I thought they were going to use regular airlines that would always fly anyway. 

[caballero]

> that would always fly anyway
So what is the problem of airplanes?

[AW]

> that would always fly anyway
So what is the problem of airplanes?

The argument is that airplains produce a lot of CO2, that's the reason for the newspaper article.
Do you understand now or do I have to recapitulate?

[caballero]

I have understood perfectly. I think the one who has not understood my irony has been you. If the planes come and go, what else does it matter to participate in it. It's not like that?

[hutch--]

 

The planes may come and go but if less people use them, then less planes come and go. 

[AW]

There is an important cause for which the scientific community and many other entities believe is urgent to mobilize the World.
This is what matters. You can waste time saying that the cause is not good enough because some of the people that defend it fly occasionally or may not have an electric car or if they have, electric cars used fossil fuels to be built. This sound simply a kids discussion, find a fuc*k**g good argument, please. 

[caballero]

Here you have a f*cking good argument. [whatever f*cking good argument]... Never mind, you don't agree anyway   

[TimoVJL]

The planes may come and go but if less people use them, then less planes come and go. 

Boeing 737 MAX don't fly, and if someone try to fly, it just put nose down

[HSE]

There is an important cause for which the scientific community... believe is urgent to mobilize the World.

No. Scientific community don't think in anyway is urgent to mobilize the world.

Indeed, there is no way that scientific community agree something (never believe), except facts force that. And theoretical assumptions don't do that.

[Siekmanski]

NASA: Climate changes due to shifts in solar orbit, not human activity.

Original article removed by the paranoia Climate Change Inquisition:
https://www.oann.com/nasa-climate-changes-due-to-shifts-in-solar-orbit-not-human-activity/

But they forgot we have Google cache:   
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KoH5enRnHKQJ:https://www.oann.com/nasa-climate-changes-due-to-shifts-in-solar-orbit-not-human-activity/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nl

The Climate Inquisition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRAUvO1mNwk

[jj2007]

NASA: Climate changes due to shifts in solar orbit, not human activity.

A nonsense click-and-bait article digging out an old NASA paper about Milankovitch cycles. The original paper (by Steve Graham, March 24, 2000) is here. Milankovitch cycles exist, and they are well covered in the 50,000 peer-reviewed articles about climate change. But they have nothing to do with the rapid increase of the CO2 concentration in the last 60 years. Their time scale is 100,000 years.

[hutch--]

 

The world has been around much longer than 1880. As far as the rapid temperature/carbon/whatever rise, look at the younger dryas, makes this set of graphs look like childs play.

[AW]

The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html

In court, Big Oil rejected climate denial
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4082


 

[hutch--]

The risk with any of these claims is that they represent an interest of some type. Climate hysteria is generally a mainstream media driven frenzy and as each outrageous claim falls flat on its arse, they just produce another one. This is journalism, not science and it has been the case since it started in the early 1990s.

Climate change has been with us for about 4.5 million years and its nothing new, the effect you get with a mainstream media driven frenzy is to confuse historical climate change with human effected climate conditions and the need to subscribe to the carbon trading scheme which in turn gives control of world industry to the climate scammers.

Remember there is no instance of climate change that is sited as the current problem that has not already occurred in the past from recent past to long distant past. We have had this exadurated bullsh*t for a while now but reference to the past makes a nonsense of the claims. Improve your education, start watching the PBS EONS series on Youtube.