SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Food for thought
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1683650140

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 05/09/23 at 09:35:40

Title: Food for thought
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/09/23 at 09:35:40

Can you stand a four minute video? Do you want to see what real scientists are doing?
Pay attention to the graph. Note The Rate of Change. Prior To the industrial revolution.
Note that it was warmer,, and then, when you are finished watching, admit to yourself that you have been duped. Government and media have been lying to us for decades.

This one is free,, I had copied it,, oops..
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/05/nlpc-chairman-peter-flaherty-arrested-during-berkshire-shareholder-proposal-presentation-after-connecting-ceo-warren-buffett-to-bill-gates-and-jeffrey-epstein-video/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nlpc-chairman-peter-flaherty-arrested-during-berkshire-shareholder-proposal-presentation-after-connecting-ceo-warren-buffett-to-bill-gates-and-jeffrey-epstein-video

I guess it was something he said..

Oookaay,, here is the video. I don't watch many videos on the Kindle,, it did fine,,

https://theferalirishman.blogspot.com/2023/05/this-needs-to-be-watched-digested-then.html

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/11/23 at 10:03:38

If you're honest, you know you have been lied to. Stoppit, just STOPPIT,, wake up and quit demanding a future that will see people unable to have air conditioning, because the way it's going, you will open the door to No more air conditioning for anyone other than The Rich.
Good frikken Grief,, going after natural gas?? Morons..

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by Eegore on 05/12/23 at 06:31:34

Pay attention to the graph. Note The Rate of Change. Prior To the industrial revolution

Why exactly is it important to look at evidence that far back? Why can't we just look at new information today and just leave out all comparative past information?

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by Serowbot on 05/12/23 at 07:26:09

News flash... "scientist says it's going to be hard to prove"...
Well,... let's just not go it then. :-?

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/12/23 at 09:05:31

You don't care if you are correct. You are surrounded by people who are equally wrong and it feels juuust fine.

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by Eegore on 05/12/23 at 09:08:40

You don't care if you are correct. You are surrounded by people who are equally wrong and it feels juuust fine.

So why would historical information be something you would reference on this subject? Why not just look up new information available now and only look at that?

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/12/23 at 09:10:57

Are you serious?

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/12/23 at 09:11:51

Or just upset that the bullshit that has been being pushed for decades is Finally falling apart[ch128514][ch128514][ch128514][ch128514]

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by Eegore on 05/12/23 at 09:38:16

Or just upset that the bullshit that has been being pushed for decades is Finally falling apart

I am serious.

I've agreed with you on environmental climate alarmism for years. I agree with you about climate change alarmists. I agree with you.

I just am asking why you think past comparative data is practical for showing your stance on this topic instead of just looking up new information, today. I am certain anyone can find plenty of information showing we are doomed any minute now if we don't make drastic changes.. right?

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/12/23 at 10:10:34

No, they can Claim they have evidence of The End, as has been done for decades.
It's time they realize it's bullshit.

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by Eegore on 05/12/23 at 14:02:43

No, they can Claim they have evidence of The End, as has been done for decades.
It's time they realize it's bullshit.

So would it make sense to use past numbers along with current ones to see if predictions have come true. We can't know how much environmental change has happened by claiming how bad it is now, it has to be compared to what the environment looked like in the past.

And the Claim should somewhat match the actual numbers we see in real life right? Like if an environmentalist data set Claimed 1,640 humans per day died last year in the US due to climate change, that Claim should be recognized as bullsh!t because obviously not that many extra people per day died.

How many incorrect assessments would you need to know that the general numbers regarding climate change are most likely bullsh!t? Can't people in areas with increasingly warmer climate observe the change and know through observation that climate change is real? They can see it.

For instance the touted hockey stick data, why isn't that just advisory data with some incorrect numbers? After all 96% of that chart is correct, it's just that tiny bit at the end that is an outlier. So why not consider it just off a little bit?

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/12/23 at 15:27:44

What do you want? The guy never produced the raw data. What are you trying to prove? The replacement of the weather stations, ditching the ones out in parks, away from the heat islands, replaced with The most idiotic locations, on roof tops,near AC exhaust, near airports, places where they Knew the readings would be higher,, and They SAID
Don't worry, we will adjust the data to compensate.. And as far as I know, I am Exactly The Only one who caught that. I know where I was sitting when that was broadcast.
The medieval warm period is not addressed in the Reee, Global Warming is going to destroy us!!! Bullshit.

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by Eegore on 05/12/23 at 16:17:57

What do you want? The guy never produced the raw data.

So claims without actual data to support it aren't really of much value? It's kind of stupid to say most of this guys data is probably correct, just don't look at the part at the end right? It's just a small number difference if we look at the whole chart after all.

But if a guy says insurance companies claim vaccine deaths are a higher factor, but won't provide raw data, that's ok? Isn't it stupid to say insurance companies indicate over 1600 additional deaths per-day, not provide raw data, then expect guys like us to chalk the astronomical numbers up to a small variance that should be overlooked? Thousands of extra funerals a day?

I'm trying to figure out why it's ok to make false claims about one topic and consider it advisory information with a few wrong numbers, but on this topic the numbers should be real, accurate, and comparative to historical data.

But with vaccine deaths, the numbers can be "assumed" (vaccinated kids) - no raw data used, and historical information of deaths are NOT to be calculated because comparison to create a percentage increase is not valuable for vaccine deaths.

Why is it ok to ignore death rates pre-2020 but not environmental data pre-2020? Sounds to me like environmental alarmist strategy is very similar to anti-vaccine strategy - they just dump new numbers on us any time we point out we aren't seeing what they claimed. Like Millions of dead kids, or the latest, over 600000 Additional deaths in one year.

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/12/23 at 22:03:19

https://clintel.org/about-us/

Enjoy..

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/12/23 at 22:16:00

Don't be one of those horrible confirmation bias people! Look at this!

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/1540-experts-agree-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by Eegore on 05/12/23 at 23:24:01

Great information. More examples of historical data compared to modern data. But... Why is it ok to ignore death rates pre-2020 but not environmental data pre-2020?

Why is it ok for someone to say insurance companies claim vaccine deaths are a higher factor, but won't provide raw data? Is it remotely believable to say insurance companies indicate over 1600 additional deaths per-day, not provide raw data, then expect guys like us to chalk the astronomical numbers up to a small variance that should be overlooked?

Are we expected to be that stupid?

Just like the climate alarmists keep finding new numbers that can't possibly be true. It's the same strategy. Toss out numbers, get called out on the lies, just toss out more numbers.

Repeat as needed.

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/14/23 at 12:49:56

I don't SEE how insurance companies would benefit from telling us lies about death rates post jab, but waddo I know?

Title: Re: Food for thought
Post by Eegore on 05/14/23 at 16:08:24

"I don't SEE how insurance companies would benefit from telling us lies about death rates post jab, but waddo I know?"

They didn't.

They guy that said he took the information from insurance companies and cherry-picked what you should look at, lied to you. The documents don't say what you were told they do.

No insurance company is saying thousands of more people are dying from vaccinations. All the one's I have seen don't even obtain vaccination records.

For that matter, there is a conflicting mathematical problem here.
The claim is vaccinated humans are NOT considered vaccinated for 2 weeks, or for instance, overall, humans dead from vaccines are not categorized as such. So almost nobody that died when vaccinated is documented as such right?

But also there are more documented humans dead from the vaccine according to insurance companies. There's a problem with eliminating or drastically reducing the documentation of an event, and also claiming there is an increase in those events being documented.

If insurance companies were discovering high rates of vaccinated clients getting payouts, why wouldn't those charts be used to show those events happening?