Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

– to the publicly expressed acceptance of the existence of the consensual intergenerational sexuality.
.
.
.
So, these are my thoughts. What do you think about them?

With that one statement, you alienated me. Some things aren't even fringe, but perverted. There is no such thing as consensual intergenerational sexuality. Below a certain age, people are unable to truly consent. Don't believe me? Ask yourself how many pre-pubescent children voluntarily go looking for sex with adults -- ever. It's not as if there are hordes of them clamouring for it and society is doing them a great injustice by preventing them fulfilling their wants.

They can't consent, first because they don't experience sexual desire, only perhaps some natural curiosity. Left to their own devices it wouldn't even occur to them to actually seek out sex with an adult. And second, they don't have the cognitive awareness to be able to evaluate the consequences for their own psychological well-being.

There are of course those past the age of consent who might like to kid themselves that the objects of their desire actually want to be molested. To my mind (and that, I believe of everyone who isn't a paedophile), this is a twisted justification for something that is downright evil. Paedophilia can and often does ruin the lives of children, and no amount of self-justification by predators can ever excuse it.

In the UK, we have some history with a group named The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) which, while ostensibly campaigning for legalising "intergenerational sexuality" as you put it, was actually nothing more than a front for a cabal of child molesters. There are doubtless similar groups in the USA and elsewhere.
 
That's the idea, malf... each of us is responsible for what we believe and what we do with those beliefs. ;)

Here's another 107 scientific papers from last year alone for people to chew on, showing that modern warming is not unusual or unprecedented.
https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/

Reports are coming in from all over showing cooling despite rising CO2. Cold records continue to topple.
 
With that one statement, you alienated me. Some things aren't even fringe, but perverted. There is no such thing as consensual intergenerational sexuality. Below a certain age, people are unable to truly consent. Don't believe me? Ask yourself how many pre-pubescent children voluntarily go looking for sex with adults -- ever. It's not as if there are hordes of them clamouring for it and society is doing them a great injustice by preventing them fulfilling their wants.

They can't consent, first because they don't experience sexual desire, only perhaps some natural curiosity. Left to their own devices it wouldn't even occur to them to actually seek out sex with an adult. And second, they don't have the cognitive awareness to be able to evaluate the consequences for their own psychological well-being.

There are of course those past the age of consent who might like to kid themselves that the objects of their desire actually want to be molested. To my mind (and that, I believe of everyone who isn't a paedophile), this is a twisted justification for something that is downright evil. Paedophilia can and often does ruin the lives of children, and no amount of self-justification by predators can ever excuse it.

In the UK, we have some history with a group named The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) which, while ostensibly campaigning for legalising "intergenerational sexuality" as you put it, was actually nothing more than a front for a cabal of child molesters. There are doubtless similar groups in the USA and elsewhere.

These words were the remains of another version of this text, directed at another audience, there the discussion of this topic is deemed acceptable. When I was editing the text to re-post it on this forum, I carefully deleted all mentions of this topic - or, well, I thought I did. These few words have just accidentally escaped my attention. Leaving them there was unintentional.

Now I have deleted them.

Since this forum is not the place where this topic is open to debate, I would be grateful if you delete this post of yours (I have erased the words to which it referred already, anyway), and I will do the same with this one of mine.
 
Last edited:
A skeptiko reader has asked me to post this link. It is interesting reading:


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.
 
Last edited:
Central banks are now openly threatening the economy with "green swan" climate events that will cause a new GFC unless carbon tax is implemented.

Watch from 5:35.


climate-cash.jpg

How do bankers convince the long suffering public to save their necks with yet another colossal bailout? By calling it a climate crisis of course. If the next banking crisis was caused by global warming, then it is not the fault of the world’s bankers.
 
I’m exposing the tactic not the numbers.

Tactic? really? that is a bit dishonest Malf, we can all read.
So all of the 107 papers listed for 2019 at no tricks zone are not what they are claimed to be because a few from 2017 are misinterpreted?
Is that what you are claiming? I guess that is your tactic :) Go and read for yourself, remembering that the claim is that modern warming is not unusual or unprecedented.

https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/
 
Central banks are now openly threatening the economy with "green swan" climate events that will cause a new GFC unless carbon tax is implemented.

Watch from 5:35.
I think we need to recognise that there is manipulative self-interest with anyone who has something to lose (or gain). If by GFC is meant global financial crisis(?) then clearly that indicates where the central banks interests lie. So their 'concern' is not about the well-being of the planet, but about losing control of an economy they benefit from. They use that threat to implement a false 'solution' ie carbon taxing. It doesn't follow that carbon taxing is the answer, but it does say to me that we have two issues here. The Climate is unstable and our human influence is/must be a part of that. And that the Global Financiers are looking to keep their strangle-hold. They are the hi-jackers, but just because the Elites now say there is a climate change crisis, doesn't mean there isn't a climate change crisis.

It is petty and divisive to ridicule Greta Thunberg who is equally entitled to her views and actions, as are James Corbett and guest, and contention between 'the masses' is playing into the corpo-banker-elitist's game. I think Corbett and James Evan-Palato (sp?) are on point that there is a globalist conspiracy to control and 'milk' us and Earth. But are wrong to say (at 5:52) "a climate problem which doesn't exist". Clearly there is a 'climate problem' and it is manipulative to slip that denial in as a given. Nothing is ever as simple and black&white as we humans try and make.
 
Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

The tide has been turning towards the truth, thankfully.

Another upcoming related study. Nikolov is quite outspoken about what he refers to as the "silly greenhouse climate hypothesis".

“THE FIRST” ROBUST SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR CLOUD-ALBEDO CONTROL OF EARTH’S CLIMATE [NOT CO2]

Physical scientist Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. and his team claim to have found the first ROBUST evidence that decadal variations of Earth’s climate are driven by changes in cloud albedo, rather than CO2.

Nikolov is preparing a paper on his findings now, but has recently given a few tantalizing teasers on Twitter, one of which suggests that albedo variations are likely forced by the Sun’s magnetic activity.

Basically, the results show a high level of accuracy of modeled Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) in terms of both inter-annual variability and decadal trends using 2 independent global temperature datasets (UAH and HadCRUT4), providing what Nikolov claims to be “a robust support to our hypothesis: Climate is indeed driven by changes in cloud albedo!

Nikolov elaborates further, writing: “the essence of our findings is that cloud-albedo changes are the IMMEDIATE cause for surface temperature changes. What controls cloud variations is a different question … [the] Sun’s magnetic activity and solar wind likely play a crucial role.”

And in a succinct rebuttal to the CO2 theory, Nikolov adds: “The evidence provided by modern NASA planetary data is UNEQUIVOCAL that CO2 as a noncondensing trace gas in our atmosphere has NO effect on Earth’s climate! The atmospheric thermal effect is 100% due to pressure, not radiative properties of trace gases".

Some more comments by Nikolov...

"The data reveal that Earth's climate and seismic activity are coupled probably via magnetic/electric connections that are modulated by Sun's activity and particle winds (see the attached slide). There is so much more to study outside the silly "greenhouse" climate hypothesis!"

"The climate theory claims that recent warming was caused by trapping of IR radiant heat by increasing atmos. "greenhouse gases". However satellite observations show no sign of heat trapping, since outgoing LW radiation increases in phase with rising lower-troposphere Global Temp."

"This is our hypothesis about what caused the the Earth to warm since the Little Ice Age some 160 years ago, which is quantitatively supported by satellite observations since 1980. Climate models cannot correctly simulate observed changes in cloud albedo; hence their failure. "

https://electroverse.net/evidence-for-cloud-albedo-control-of-earths-climate/

This ties very nicely with Henrik Svensmark work. The tide does indeed seem to be turning.
 
Are you a mod?
Do you mean as opposed to a rocker? Or a trad(itional)?
And what has "Are you a mod?" got to do with what I said?
Or the subject of this thread?

Ignoring me, as you usually do, says quite a lot about you.
 
I saw a story recently of a woman who, when she was a 14 year old girl learned she was alive due to a failed abortion... found it - (here).

Greta goes viral, becomes world famous, is the world's leading "emotional sh!t stirrer used by premier global agencies and conferences to push an agenda which, no matter which direction it goes, will massively impact the lives of us all... and yet this woman's story doesn't match. Even though "they" don't know the exact moment life starts just as much as "they" don't know how much humans impact climate. I just think this is an example of how ridiculous we are.

Don't make the mistake of drawing conclusions as to what I might think is right or wrong about abortion or if (or not) any government or legal authority should interject themselves into the matter. I am only pointing out how ridiculous we are - that's it.
 
Back
Top