An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg

[zero_tolerance]

 

[Nitro_X]

I disagree. I don't see why he should be labelled an extremist for simply calling out the propaganda, lies, mistruths and hypocrisy of the left. But of course, that is just typical of the left, to attack and discredit anyone who questions or opposes their beliefs and ideologies.
The problem we have is that the gullible general public has been so brainwashed by leftist mainstream media that they will blindly believe any garbage that is fed to them.
People need to wake up and open their eyes to the hoax being fed to them that is climate change.
As I said earlier, these "activists" are using climate change as a facade to hide behind. What they really are is a bunch of far left socialist communist nutters with an ulterior motive - as described from around 4:00 onwards in the following video...

Why do you post this stuff?
All it does is shine a bright light on your own personal extreme biases.
Andrew Bolt has a very arrogant and condescending commentary style, he also is quite charismatic and self confident, which draws many people in to his field of view without them questioning his mostly opinionated cherry picked facts which offer no meaningful contribution and are mostly dismissive of alternate points of view in regards to to the way humans use/abuse the environment for pure profit.
His personal attacks on Greta border on childish rants, not professional journalism.

But what else would you expect from an employee of the global Murdoch media empire?

ps
Around 90% of the worlds traded goods are shipped around the world by sea cargo

.

 

[zero_tolerance]

Why do you post this stuff?
All it does is shine a bright light on your own personal extreme biases.
Andrew Bolt has a very arrogant and condescending commentary style, he also is quite charismatic and self confident, which draws many people in to his field of view without them questioning his mostly opinionated cherry picked facts which offer no meaningful contribution and are mostly dismissive of alternate points of view in regards to to the way humans use/abuse the environment for pure profit.
His personal attacks on Greta border on childish rants, not professional journalism.

But what else would you expect from an employee of the global Murdoch media empire?

ps
Around 90% of the worlds traded goods are shipped around the world by sea cargo

.

Spare me, what utter rubbish.
Say whatever you like about Bolt, you have a right to your opinion of course, but the fact remains that he correctly exposes climate change for what it is - a massive scam.
Attacking the man just shows that you are bitter and cannot handle the truth.
As for Greta, what he says about her isn't a personal attack, but facts which are well known in the public domain. Once again, you attack Bolt yet present no counter argument to challenge what he is actually saying.
If you seriously think this whole climate change movement is innocent and well intentioned then you are completely delusional and have obviously been indoctrinated by the left.
Do some research ffs. Did you even bother to watch the video I posted? There is no link between carbon dioxide and climate change, it's a massive lie! The left continues to resort to all sorts of corrupt, manipulative and filthy tactics to keep this scam going.
A certain minority are getting filthy rich from this and they have brainwashed the gullible masses through infiltration of the media and education systems into supporting them!
This is exactly Greta's purpose, to indoctrinate young people with these toxic ideologies! Are you that blind that you cannot see what is going on???

When are people going to wake up!!!!

 

[mpower]

When are people going to wake up!!!!

scientific consensus saying climate change is real

andrew bolt screaming that it's a conspiracy.

when indeed will people wake up?

 

[zero_tolerance]

scientific consensus saying climate change is real

andrew bolt screaming that it's a conspiracy.

when indeed will people wake up?

"Scientific consensus" is the propaganda they want you to believe, but if you dig deeper you will find major flaws with this assertion.
It's not only Andrew Bolt, there are plenty who are opposed to climate change, the reason you rarely hear these opposing views is because the left controlled mainstream media does it's best to ignore or cover it up.
Did you even bother to watch the video I posted a few posts back? If not, here it is again...

 

[zero_tolerance]

A few more...
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD231j5QApVKiCVxn6hAR_UxRrlhD2dDx

 

[Nitro_X]

Spare me, what utter rubbish.
Say whatever you like about Bolt, you have a right to your opinion of course, but the fact remains that he correctly exposes climate change for what it is - a massive scam.
Attacking the man just shows that you are bitter and cannot handle the truth.
As for Greta, what he says about her isn't a personal attack, but facts which are well known in the public domain. Once again, you attack Bolt yet present no counter argument to challenge what he is actually saying.
If you seriously think this whole climate change movement is innocent and well intentioned then you are completely delusional and have obviously been indoctrinated by the left.
Do some research ffs. Did you even bother to watch the video I posted? There is no link between carbon dioxide and climate change, it's a massive lie! The left continues to resort to all sorts of corrupt, manipulative and filthy tactics to keep this scam going.
A certain minority are getting filthy rich from this and they have brainwashed the gullible masses through infiltration of the media and education systems into supporting them!
This is exactly Greta's purpose, to indoctrinate young people with these toxic ideologies! Are you that blind that you cannot see what is going on???

When are people going to wake up!!!!

Andrew Bolt and his media commentary does nothing to disprove anthropogenic influenced climate change.
He is a tabloid journalist.

Yep and here's my review of your lazy attempt to convince people of your position on global climate change.
Of the 19 sources used for this propaganda video, I can only see 3 who are worthy of inclusion.
The video is so poorly constructed and edited its not funny. It's a corporate propaganda video.


Paul Reiter - Medical Entomologist (studies insects) Pasteur Institute
Not credible

Nir Shaviv - Astro Physicist - University of Jerusalem
Astrophysics is a significantly different discipline to climate science
In a 2011 paper he stated solar variability explains 'about half' the 20th century warming with the other half due to anthropogenic forcing (ie: human activity)

*Nigel Calder (1931-2014)
A prolific science writer who is basically another astrophysicist, his climate science theories focus on 'cosmic rays' and cloud cover, but there is so much more involved with planet Earth's ecosystems.
He seems to ignore the environmental destruction caused by human activity.
He also seems only to focus on CO2, which is just one of a number of greenhouse gases.
Having said that, his work should be included alongside all the other science, however, his work by no means disproves anthropogenic climate change. His theories also do not align fully with his Astrophysicist counterpart, Nir Shaviv (above)

*Ian Clark
University of Ottawa
He is basically a hydrogeologist, not a climate science expert, however, reading some of his work, his contributions to the subject should be included, but again, his work does not disprove anthropogenic influenced climate change.

Tim Ball
University of Winnipeg
Professor Ball specialises in geography, which discipline I don't know (physical geography or human georgraphy?)
He is not a climate scientist as he has claimed, and seems like a bit of a loose canon.
He was caught out lying about his credetials on several occassions.
It's probable he is a lapdog to the fossil fuel industry and lacks credibility amoung his peers.

Piers Corbyn
Climate Forecaster with a degree in ....you guessed it....astrophysics.
He also doesn't have much credibility amoung his scientific peers in regards to anthropogenic climate change.

Philip Stott - Biogeographer
University of London
He has written a couple of books and academic articles but hasn't published any peer reviewed articles in scientific journals.
Dubious credibility

*Richard Lindzen - Atmospheric Physicist
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
His work should be included in the discussion, however, his knowledge contradicts Prof. Tim Ball who says CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.
"Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, and offered more support in a 2009 paper. (source: Wikipedia)

Therefore, I posit that Prof. Ball's contribution is contradictory to Lindzen's and is irrelevant in this debate.

Patrick Moore
Ecologist - PhD in Forest Biology
This man is all over the place, difficult to understand where he truly sits in the mix, it's probable he is a corporate lapdog.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

Roy Spencer
Marshall Space Flight Center
Atmospheric Science and Meteorology

He has the credentials, but lacks significant peer credibility in the field.
Interestingly, he states that human activity IS having an influence on climate, and we are emitting significant GHG's in addition to the natural emmissions...it's just that his current view is that it won't be 'catastrophic'....

Patrick Michaels - Agricultural Climatologist
University of Virginia
He's a corporate lapdog and former director of CATO Institute....
which was founded and is funded by Koch Industries.
Koch Ind. have interests in Asphalt, chemicals, commodities trading, energy, fibers, fertilizers, finance, minerals, natural gas, plastics, petroleum, pulp and paper, ranching.
Therefore completely lacks any credibility in the debate.
https://climateinvestigations.org/patrick-michaels-climate-denial/


James Shikwati
Economist

He's an economist, laughable inclusion as a credible source...nothing more to add on that.

Nigel Lawson
The Global Warming Policy Foundation

He's a politician, Lord and journalist, is a member of the The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is a non-transparent corporate lobby group.
Laughable inclusion as a source.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Centre
Highly awarded geophysicist but hasn't published or researched anything specifically on climate science.

Fred Singer - Atmospheric Pysicist
University of Virginia
He has the credentials but has also been wrong on several sciencentific issues...
Born in 1924....old world thinker in regards to the environment and economics.
He has a murky past with his government and corporate 'consultancies'.
Not credible regarding the current climate change debate.

Carl Wunsch - Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Professor of oceanography Carl Wunsch explains why he asked to be removed from the film 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.
https://www.abc.net.au/lateline/my-words-were-twisted-in-global-warming/2502152


Eigil Friis-Christensen
Danish National Space Centre

Friis-Christensen's 1991 paper, "Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate", published in Science,[9] presented his findings on global warming and sun activity correlation.[3] The New York Times reviewed the Science article on 5 November 1991, stating, "While the correlation established by Dr. Friis-Christensen and Dr. Lassen falls short of definite proof, a number of scientists nevertheless called it remarkable in its close fit between the solar and temperature trends."[10] Subsequent work with updated data has found that the correlation has not stood up.[11]

In 2009, a number of leading experts, including one Nobel laureate, concluded that the graphs of Friis-Christensen and Svensmark showing apparent correlations between global warming, sunspots and cosmic rays were deeply flawed. Friis-Christensen agreed that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone.

Paul Driessen
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

He's a corporate lapdog
Although he has a degree in geology, he's also an attorney at law
No credibility.
https://www.desmogblog.com/paul-driessen
https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute


In conclusion, you appear to be just an Andrew Bolt clone.
Claiming that your Andrew Bolt video is credible evidence for your position shows why you agree with the corporate propaganda of The Great Global Warming Swindle video.

 

[Nitro_X]

While capitalist economics remains the core foundation of human society, and competition for controlling the planets resources for financial reward remains a part of this ideology, we will continue to fight each other, rather than cooperate for the benefit of ALL humanity.

.

 

[zero_tolerance]

Andrew Bolt and his media commentary does nothing to disprove anthropogenic influenced climate change.
He is a tabloid journalist.

Yep and here's my review of your lazy attempt to convince people of your position on global climate change.
Of the 19 sources used for this propaganda video, I can only see 3 who are worthy of inclusion.
The video is so poorly constructed and edited its not funny. It's a corporate propaganda video.


Paul Reiter - Medical Entomologist (studies insects) Pasteur Institute
Not credible

Nir Shaviv - Astro Physicist - University of Jerusalem
Astrophysics is a significantly different discipline to climate science
In a 2011 paper he stated solar variability explains 'about half' the 20th century warming with the other half due to anthropogenic forcing (ie: human activity)

*Nigel Calder (1931-2014)
A prolific science writer who is basically another astrophysicist, his climate science theories focus on 'cosmic rays' and cloud cover, but there is so much more involved with planet Earth's ecosystems.
He seems to ignore the environmental destruction caused by human activity.
He also seems only to focus on CO2, which is just one of a number of greenhouse gases.
Having said that, his work should be included alongside all the other science, however, his work by no means disproves anthropogenic climate change. His theories also do not align fully with his Astrophysicist counterpart, Nir Shaviv (above)

*Ian Clark
University of Ottawa
He is basically a hydrogeologist, not a climate science expert, however, reading some of his work, his contributions to the subject should be included, but again, his work does not disprove anthropogenic influenced climate change.

Tim Ball
University of Winnipeg
Professor Ball specialises in geography, which discipline I don't know (physical geography or human georgraphy?)
He is not a climate scientist as he has claimed, and seems like a bit of a loose canon.
He was caught out lying about his credetials on several occassions.
It's probable he is a lapdog to the fossil fuel industry and lacks credibility amoung his peers.

Piers Corbyn
Climate Forecaster with a degree in ....you guessed it....astrophysics.
He also doesn't have much credibility amoung his scientific peers in regards to anthropogenic climate change.

Philip Stott - Biogeographer
University of London
He has written a couple of books and academic articles but hasn't published any peer reviewed articles in scientific journals.
Dubious credibility

*Richard Lindzen - Atmospheric Physicist
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
His work should be included in the discussion, however, his knowledge contradicts Prof. Tim Ball who says CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.
"Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, and offered more support in a 2009 paper. (source: Wikipedia)

Therefore, I posit that Prof. Ball's contribution is contradictory to Lindzen's and is irrelevant in this debate.

Patrick Moore
Ecologist - PhD in Forest Biology
This man is all over the place, difficult to understand where he truly sits in the mix, it's probable he is a corporate lapdog.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

Roy Spencer
Marshall Space Flight Center
Atmospheric Science and Meteorology

He has the credentials, but lacks significant peer credibility in the field.
Interestingly, he states that human activity IS having an influence on climate, and we are emitting significant GHG's in addition to the natural emmissions...it's just that his current view is that it won't be 'catastrophic'....

Patrick Michaels - Agricultural Climatologist
University of Virginia
He's a corporate lapdog and former director of CATO Institute....
which was founded and is funded by Koch Industries.
Koch Ind. have interests in Asphalt, chemicals, commodities trading, energy, fibers, fertilizers, finance, minerals, natural gas, plastics, petroleum, pulp and paper, ranching.
Therefore completely lacks any credibility in the debate.
https://climateinvestigations.org/patrick-michaels-climate-denial/


James Shikwati
Economist

He's an economist, laughable inclusion as a credible source...nothing more to add on that.

Nigel Lawson
The Global Warming Policy Foundation

He's a politician, Lord and journalist, is a member of the The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is a non-transparent corporate lobby group.
Laughable inclusion as a source.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Centre
Highly awarded geophysicist but hasn't published or researched anything specifically on climate science.

Fred Singer - Atmospheric Pysicist
University of Virginia
He has the credentials but has also been wrong on several sciencentific issues...
Born in 1924....old world thinker in regards to the environment and economics.
He has a murky past with his government and corporate 'consultancies'.
Not credible regarding the current climate change debate.

Carl Wunsch - Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Professor of oceanography Carl Wunsch explains why he asked to be removed from the film 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.
https://www.abc.net.au/lateline/my-words-were-twisted-in-global-warming/2502152


Eigil Friis-Christensen
Danish National Space Centre

Friis-Christensen's 1991 paper, "Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate", published in Science,[9] presented his findings on global warming and sun activity correlation.[3] The New York Times reviewed the Science article on 5 November 1991, stating, "While the correlation established by Dr. Friis-Christensen and Dr. Lassen falls short of definite proof, a number of scientists nevertheless called it remarkable in its close fit between the solar and temperature trends."[10] Subsequent work with updated data has found that the correlation has not stood up.[11]

In 2009, a number of leading experts, including one Nobel laureate, concluded that the graphs of Friis-Christensen and Svensmark showing apparent correlations between global warming, sunspots and cosmic rays were deeply flawed. Friis-Christensen agreed that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone.

Paul Driessen
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

He's a corporate lapdog
Although he has a degree in geology, he's also an attorney at law
No credibility.
https://www.desmogblog.com/paul-driessen
https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute


In conclusion, you appear to be just an Andrew Bolt clone.
Claiming that your Andrew Bolt video is credible evidence for your position shows why you agree with the corporate propaganda of The Great Global Warming Swindle video.

Lol, thanks for the laugh.

You make it out as though I used that one video as the be all and end all to prove my point, when I merely put it across as one example of many.

You put a great deal of time in attempting to discredit the video by questioning the credentials of the subjects in it, (pointless really) yet funnily enough nothing is ever mentioned about the credentials of these 97% of scientists who support climate change and more importantly, who is funding them.
We are continually fed the propaganda that there is a "scientific consensus" on climate change, but if you bother to dig a little deeper you begin to see serious flaws with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIJCGQzCiU

And no, I don't base my whole position on a handful of videos which is what you are implying. These are merely examples which only just scratch the surface.
Take the time to read the comment section of the videos too. They are very interesting and show that the public is starting to wake up to this climate change fraud.


You blindly write off anybody who opposes climate change as a "corporate lap dog" yet you seem completely oblivious to what the real agenda behind the whole climate change movement is and who stands to profit from it.
Continually attacking Andrew Bolt is futile, he is merely the messenger.

The reality is that climate change is a massive fraud being orchestrated by the UN and the globalist elite, with the aim of de-populating the world, transferring wealth from the middle class and ultimately imposing a socialist, totalitarian rule of the world.
It's all part of Agenda 21-
https://massawakening.org/how-does-agenda-21-is-being-implemented-worldwide/

Through the infiltration of media, schools and universities, people have been brainwashed through fearmongering and alarmist tactics into conforming with this fraud. Greta Thunberg is a puppet who has been programmed to spread fear and propaganda and indoctrinate the minds of young people. We have been fed the lie that this is all about the environment, when in actual fact, the people running this scam couldn't give two f***s about the environment. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND THE POWER!!!
It is the rich globalist elites that are running this scam...

Climate Action groups funded by billionaire George Soros -
https://www.breitbart.com/environme...major-funder-of-global-climate-strike-groups/

Then you have Al Gore, one of the world's biggest proponents of climate change and ironically makes millions of dollars trading carbon credits.
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/how-al-gore-built-the-global-warming-fraud
https://www.tni.org/es/node/3898
Al Gore made a propaganda film in 2006 called "The inconvenient truth" and has made all sorts of alarmist and apocalyptic predictions which have never materialised.
He has bleated on about ice melting and sea levels rising, but then ironically went and bought a huge seaside mansion which uses more electricity in a month that an average American household does in 21 years. If this isn't sheer hypocrisy then I don't know what is.
https://www.investors.com/politics/...risy-is-as-big-as-his-energy-sucking-mansion/

Barack Obama is another big climate change proponent, yet buys a multi million dollar mansion by the sea..
https://us.hola.com/celebrities/gal...michelle-obama-marthas-vineyard-home-photos/1
Who in their right mind would do this if they were convinced that sea levels were rising? Hypocrisy at its finest.



Here is an interesting article highlighting all the climate related predictions of the past and how they never eventuated or were proven wrong.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions


Let me conclude by clarifying my stance on this issue. I don't deny climate change. The world's climate is cyclical and changes naturally, just as it has done for billions of years and will continue to do so for billions more. There has never been any 100% conclusive evidence that man made carbon dioxide emissions are the root of all evil and if they do have any negative effect if is probably so small that it is completely insignificant.
What I am vehemently opposed to is the way that climate change is being used as a vehicle by a left wing globalist agenda to brainwash and spread fear through the population to essentially destroy our way of life as we know it, so a small minority can reap the benefits and get richer.

 

[zero_tolerance]

While capitalist economics remains the core foundation of human society, and competition for controlling the planets resources for financial reward remains a part of this ideology, we will continue to fight each other, rather than cooperate for the benefit of ALL humanity.

.

One side is fighting to control the planet's resources for financial reward, the other side is fighting for a socialist totalitarian control of the planet. I know which I would prefer.