patrick.net

'Brainwashed Propaganda Parrot Guilt Tripping Schizoid Child' named Person Of The Year by Time.

Let's keep this objective now. 20 million scientists without a scintilla of opposition all BELIEVE in the impending doom of GLOBAL WARMING!

Good sticker for the car.



from ebay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Greta-Thunberg-How-Dare-you-funny-meme-Decal-drift-jdm-car-sticker-window-/401916659556

I'm not surprised it sold out lol. I want one.

edit - more rofls


https://www.ebay.com/itm/Greta-Thunberg-car-sticker-window-decal-exterior-vinyl-How-dare-you/123932586136?hash=item1cdaf53098:g:FrIAAOSw08xdnFBL

Here's a story for you to consider...even though the 99% of scientists stat is completely made up.

I teach high school physics and chemistry. If you ask any one of the biology teachers a simple question in physics, they will likely get it wrong. Same goes for the chem teachers. If you ask the physics teachers the most basic concept in biology, they will also get it wrong. Nearly every scientist in the world has no background to even legitimately form an opinion. Moreover, those same scientists have likely not read a single published journal article on the topic. And they most certainly have never tried to fit any data to perform their own analysis.

Now that being said...I will concede that most journal articles on the topic of global warming tilt one direction. Here's why I don't care.

1. Their funding is more likely to be increased by creating the idea of a dire impending situation. The CDC also does this all the time with a new illness each year.
2. The field itself is suffering from a massive case of groupthink where you are not allowed to reach any other conclusions without being outcasted. Very dangerous territory for science. Any scientific field that has historically acted this way to differing opinion has been proven to be incredibly wrong.
3. The data itself is too noisy to make any valid statistical arguments. The error bars are always greater than the trend...
4. Forecasting in this field at this stage in the game is no different in terms of accuracy than a tarot card reader. The Earth is too complex to model accurately. A box of 10 water molecules has not been successfully modeled. I'm sorry, but the Earth has 10^50 more molecules. That's not to say we shouldn't try to improve. But this field is in it's complete infancy and has had a very very poor track record of forecasting anything in it's time.

You can't put faith in a science that hasn't even been developed yet.

Here's what I believe:
1. The temperature is increasing
2. CO2 does affect things...but not nearly at the level the media is claiming
3. CO2 does green the Earth...and this was confirmed by a very good study done at UC Berkeley and published later by NASA
4. Slow temperature increases over time have been a benefit for humanity...not a detriment
5. We are no where near any type of tipping point for any ecosystem. Anyone who knows anything about growing zones and the life that inhabits them would know this.
6. Sea level rise occurs at a very slow time scale....much longer than the time it takes to build cities like NYC.

https://babylonbee.com/news/greta-makes-appearance-at-hong-kong-protest-to-lecture-freedom-fighters-on-their-carbon-footprints

Infectious diseases are a much bigger and much more immediate threat to humans than climate change

And, "You are stealing my golden years from me."

Someone put this on their vehicle:

What the devil is in south central Africa?

HeadSet says

What the devil is in south central Africa?

Dung burners.

CO emissions (extremely deadly, it is carbon monoxide or flue gas), or CO2 emissions?
CO is very indirectly related to global warming
zzyzzx says