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-arreste...

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-digest...

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?

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

Are you serious?

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?

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?

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.

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

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/1540-experts-agree-ther...