Climate change movement isn’t about climate, it hates the West.

[2aguy]

The truth is the nan made climate change movement isnt about saving the planet, it is about destroying Western Civilization……


What is the connection between these two seemingly unrelated topics, global warming and the conflict between Israel and Hamas? One might say that a person who is wrong about one thing (global warming) is likely to be wrong about another (Gaza). But Thunberg isn’t just wrong, she is a passionate advocate against fossil fuels and against Israel–and, more broadly, “settler colonialism.”

That is not a coincidence. Rather, it reflects the fact that the climate change movement in which Thunberg is so prominent actually has little or nothing to do with climate change. Rather, it is an attack on the West. Fossil fuels are the foundation of modern civilization. They are the sole reason why we are not riding around in donkey carts and reading by candle light. Destroying fossil fuels means, at best, impoverishing the West.

That this is the activists’ real goal is evident from the fact that they train their fire not on China or India, but on the United States and Europe. If they were really concerned about the climate, this would make no sense, because China is by far the largest emitter of CO2. Robert Bryce produced this graph just a few days ago:
—————-
If you aren’t talking about Chinese emissions, everything you are saying about global warming is a joke. And neither Greta Thunberg nor Al Gore, Joe Biden or John Kerry is saying anything about Chinese emissions. If they really believed their own hype about global warming as an existential threat, they would be talking about invading China or bombing the hundreds of new coal plants that it has under development. But they don’t do that; instead, they stick up for the Chinese Communists and say they are doing a pretty good job. So their real goal isn’t affecting the climate, it is destroying Western economies and, thus, Western power.

Genocidal Greta

Among the many leftists who have expressed support for Hamas, seemingly unconcerned with its outrages of October 7, is Greta Thunberg. Thunberg, now 20 years old, is regarded as a heroine by many f…

www.powerlineblog.com

 

[Muhammed]

The truth is the nan made climate change movement isnt about saving the planet, it is about destroying Western Civilization……


What is the connection between these two seemingly unrelated topics, global warming and the conflict between Israel and Hamas? One might say that a person who is wrong about one thing (global warming) is likely to be wrong about another (Gaza). But Thunberg isn’t just wrong, she is a passionate advocate against fossil fuels and against Israel–and, more broadly, “settler colonialism.”

That is not a coincidence. Rather, it reflects the fact that the climate change movement in which Thunberg is so prominent actually has little or nothing to do with climate change. Rather, it is an attack on the West. Fossil fuels are the foundation of modern civilization. They are the sole reason why we are not riding around in donkey carts and reading by candle light. Destroying fossil fuels means, at best, impoverishing the West.

That this is the activists’ real goal is evident from the fact that they train their fire not on China or India, but on the United States and Europe. If they were really concerned about the climate, this would make no sense, because China is by far the largest emitter of CO2. Robert Bryce produced this graph just a few days ago:
—————-
If you aren’t talking about Chinese emissions, everything you are saying about global warming is a joke. And neither Greta Thunberg nor Al Gore, Joe Biden or John Kerry is saying anything about Chinese emissions. If they really believed their own hype about global warming as an existential threat, they would be talking about invading China or bombing the hundreds of new coal plants that it has under development. But they don’t do that; instead, they stick up for the Chinese Communists and say they are doing a pretty good job. So their real goal isn’t affecting the climate, it is destroying Western economies and, thus, Western power.

Genocidal Greta

Among the many leftists who have expressed support for Hamas, seemingly unconcerned with its outrages of October 7, is Greta Thunberg. Thunberg, now 20 years old, is regarded as a heroine by many f…

www.powerlineblog.com

When asked what the ultimate goal of the IPCC is during an interview in his limo, co-founder of the IPCC, hardcore socialist Maurice Strong, flat out admitted that the goal is the de-industrialization of the USA.

 

[Pete7469]

The objective, just like EVERYTHING bed wetting globalist elites do, is intended to cause decline, malevolence, and malaise. Nothing the left does is intended to do even the slightest beneficial thing for anyone other than some other elitist democrook.

 

[1srelluc]

I've come to the simple conclusion that anyone that votes dem has a latent death wish.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The truth is the nan made climate change movement isnt about saving the planet, it is about destroying Western Civilization……


What is the connection between these two seemingly unrelated topics, global warming and the conflict between Israel and Hamas? One might say that a person who is wrong about one thing (global warming) is likely to be wrong about another (Gaza). But Thunberg isn’t just wrong, she is a passionate advocate against fossil fuels and against Israel–and, more broadly, “settler colonialism.”

That is not a coincidence. Rather, it reflects the fact that the climate change movement in which Thunberg is so prominent actually has little or nothing to do with climate change. Rather, it is an attack on the West. Fossil fuels are the foundation of modern civilization. They are the sole reason why we are not riding around in donkey carts and reading by candle light. Destroying fossil fuels means, at best, impoverishing the West.

That this is the activists’ real goal is evident from the fact that they train their fire not on China or India, but on the United States and Europe. If they were really concerned about the climate, this would make no sense, because China is by far the largest emitter of CO2. Robert Bryce produced this graph just a few days ago:
—————-
If you aren’t talking about Chinese emissions, everything you are saying about global warming is a joke. And neither Greta Thunberg nor Al Gore, Joe Biden or John Kerry is saying anything about Chinese emissions. If they really believed their own hype about global warming as an existential threat, they would be talking about invading China or bombing the hundreds of new coal plants that it has under development. But they don’t do that; instead, they stick up for the Chinese Communists and say they are doing a pretty good job. So their real goal isn’t affecting the climate, it is destroying Western economies and, thus, Western power.

Genocidal Greta

Among the many leftists who have expressed support for Hamas, seemingly unconcerned with its outrages of October 7, is Greta Thunberg. Thunberg, now 20 years old, is regarded as a heroine by many f…

www.powerlineblog.com

/——-/ Global warming hoax

 

[ReinyDays]

Why do you think this is good for Eastern Civilization? ... I'm sorry a little teenage girl has gotten under your skirts, but can we back up a little ...

Have you been watching the Israeli ground offensive in Gaza? ... I'm really impressed with the quality of buildings and the shear amount of cars ... cars cars cars everyplace ... these Palestinians seem to have unlimited wealth ...

Where the hell is all this money coming from? ... and how do we know Hamas isn't getting any? ... all these rockets? ...

Oil Money kills children ... and only BASTARDS promote this ... buy that Ford F-150 4x4 with the snow plow, and kill another thousand babies ... asshole ... climate doesn't change, weather is exactly the same as it's been for the past 30 million years ...

 

[Pete7469]

I've come to the simple conclusion that anyone that votes dem has a latent death wish.

They're definitely alive IN SPITE OF natural selection.

 

[EMH]

I've come to the simple conclusion that anyone that votes dem has a latent death wish.

Another Faux News SUB who never notices....

W
Cheney
Kinzinger
Romney
Lindsay Graham
Berghum\
Haley
Christie
McCarthy


all push the Co2 fraud...


The Co2 Fraud is a Zionist Fascist Fraud. To support Zionist Fascism is, actually, NOT CONSERVATIVE AT ALL....

 

[EMH]

climate doesn't change

Actually it does change, but the change has NOTHING to do with Co2 or SUN, it has everything to do with the position of land via tectonic plate movement....

 

[ReinyDays]

Actually it does change, but the change has NOTHING to do with Co2 or SUN, it has everything to do with the position of land via tectonic plate movement....

Sydney, Australia, is moving north towards the equator at about 70 mm/yr ... compared to sea level rise clocked at 3 mm/yr ...

Continents move 20 times faster than sea level ...

 

[Crick]

The truth is the nan [sic] made climate change movement isnt[sic] about saving the planet, it is about destroying Western[sic] Civilization[sic]……

Why would a majority of the world's population want to destroy western civilization?

What is the connection between these two seemingly unrelated topics, global warming and the conflict between Israel and Hamas? One might say that a person who is wrong about one thing (global warming) is likely to be wrong about another (Gaza). But Thunberg isn’t just wrong, she is a passionate advocate against fossil fuels and against Israel–and, more broadly, “settler colonialism.”

So, the connection is that an individual has an opinion about both issues?

That is not a coincidence.

I'm afraid that is precisely what it is. Just as it is a coincidence that almost everyone on the planet right now has opinions concerning AGW and the Israeli-Hamas war.

Rather, it reflects the fact that the climate change movement in which Thunberg is so prominent actually has little or nothing to do with climate change.

THAT would be what is called an unsupported assertion.

Rather, it is an attack on the West.

An attack? Is everyone concerned about global warming attacking the west or only those simultaneously concerned about civilian casualties in the Gaza conflict?

Fossil fuels are the foundation of modern civilization.

So... would you then say that fossil fuels can take the credit for having shoved over 2 million people into 141 square miles?

They are the sole reason why we are not riding around in donkey carts and reading by candle light. Destroying fossil fuels means, at best, impoverishing the West.

What have you got against donkeys and candle light? And didn't your mother ever tell you that you can't buy happiness?

That this is the activists’ real goal is evident from the fact that they train their fire not on China or India, but on the United States and Europe. If they were really concerned about the climate, this would make no sense, because China is by far the largest emitter of CO2.

"Yes, China is still categorized as a developing nation by WTO, they manufacture a lot of our products and so on. But that's of course no excuse for ruining future and present living conditions. We can't solve the climate crisis unless China drastically changes course,"
--Greta Thunberg
You can also review Ms Thunberg's speech before the UN. And if she was giving China a pass, how do you explain that animosity with which her activism is viewed in China? Do a search.

People on this forum get upset that I so often accuse AGW deniers of ignorance. Then we see posts and whole threads like this.

 

[EMH]

Sydney, Australia, is moving north towards the equator at about 70 mm/yr ... compared to sea level rise clocked at 3 mm/yr ...

Continents move 20 times faster than sea level ...

You have precisely ZERO "sea level rise" which is why your side cannot show us a photo of anything sinking.

To get a sea level rise, you need a net ice melt, and you don't have that, and the Co2 Fraud has never had that.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why would a majority of the world's population want to destroy western civilization?

So, the connection is that an individual has an opinion about both issues?

I'm afraid that is precisely what it is. Just as it is a coincidence that almost everyone on the planet right now has opinions concerning AGW and the Israeli-Hamas war.

THAT would be what is called an unsupported assertion.

An attack? Is everyone concerned about global warming attacking the west or only those simultaneously concerned about civilian casualties in the Gaza conflict?

So... would you then say that fossil fuels can take the credit for having shoved over 2 million people into 141 square miles?

What have you got against donkeys and candle light? And didn't your mother ever tell you that you can't buy happiness?

"Yes, China is still categorized as a developing nation by WTO, they manufacture a lot of our products and so on. But that's of course no excuse for ruining future and present living conditions. We can't solve the climate crisis unless China drastically changes course,"
--Greta Thunberg
You can also review Ms Thunberg's speech before the UN. And if she was giving China a pass, how do you explain that animosity with which her activism is viewed in China? Do a search.

People on this forum get upset that I so often accuse AGW deniers of ignorance. Then we see posts and whole threads like this.

/----/ "Why would a majority of the world's population want to destroy western civilization?"
1. Jealousy
2. Greed
3. Religion
4. Hatred for our high standard of living.
5. We make their leaders look bad to their oppressed population.
6. They can't believe capitalism is actually successful and lifts people out of poverty.
7. Bigotry.

 

[Crick]

/----/ "Why would a majority of the world's population want to destroy western civilization?"
1. Jealousy
2. Greed
3. Religion
4. Hatred for our high standard of living.
5. We make their leaders look bad to their oppressed population.
6. They can't believe capitalism is actually successful and lifts people out of poverty.
7. Bigotry.

Please note that I used the term "majority". I used that term because a strong majority of the world's population accepts AGW theory and is concerned about it.

And factors such as you list have existed for centuries. Why should they suddenly - and with perfect coordination and perfect security - act now?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The objective, just like EVERYTHING bed wetting globalist elites do, is intended to cause decline, malevolence, and malaise. Nothing the left does is intended to do even the slightest beneficial thing for anyone other than some other elitist democrook.

Politics Is a Spitball Fight at a Prep School

Leftists are unconscious agents of the Right Wing they were born in. Because of their Daddy's Money, they feel they are Born to Rule. Zero-Growth agendas ensure the dominance of those who are born with money and don't need to make any more. But to guarantee that they lord over the rest of us, they have to make sure that nobody else can make money and threaten their static supremacy.

Conservation is hoarding. Feminism doubles the power of the heiristocracy by letting heiresses occupy high positions without earning them, just like their brothers always could. You can't name one item on the Leftist agenda that doesn't benefit this toxic caste, which has destroyed every civilization but hires writers to make sure they never get blamed for their cancer on human progress.

 

[Crick]

Politics Is a Spitball Fight at a Prep School

Leftists are unconscious agents of the Right Wing they were born in.

So the Right Wing is in charge?

Because of their Daddy's Money, they feel they are Born to Rule.

So all Leftists are rich?

Zero-Growth agendas ensure the dominance of those who are born with money and don't need to make any more.

Everyone needs more money. Look at your Orange god.

But to guarantee that they lord over the rest of us, they have to make sure that nobody else can make money and threaten their static supremacy.

If they don't need more money, why do they need to lord it over anyone?

Conservation is hoarding.

God says the world is ours to consume, right

Feminism doubles the power of the heiristocracy by letting heiresses occupy high positions without earning them,

You just said that they only thing necessary is to have a rich daddy. Now you didn't explain how Daddy got rich with no growth.

just like their brothers always could.

Ahh, egalitee!

You can't name one item on the Leftist agenda that doesn't benefit this toxic caste, which has destroyed every civilization but hires writers to make sure they never get blamed for their cancer on human progress.

The ASPCA?

You began this rant of nonsense telling us that the Left were the unknowing agents of the Right. So you're saying that this zero growth idea is the agenda of the right. How are THEY benefitted by it?

God are you sltupid.

 

[ding]

So the Right Wing is in charge?

So all Leftists are rich?

Everyone needs more money. Look at your Orange god.

If they don't need more money, why do they need to lord it over anyone?

God says the world is ours to consume, right

You just said that they only thing necessary is to have a rich daddy. Now you didn't explain how Daddy got rich with no growth.

Ahh, egalitee!

The ASPCA?

You began this rant of nonsense telling us that the Left were the unknowing agents of the Right. So you're saying that this zero growth idea is the agenda of the right. How are THEY benefitted by it?

God are you sltupid.

If the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect because of weather, why do you believe an increase of 280 ppm of CO2 would be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect?

 

[DGS49]

To me, the most obvious indication that the global Left cares little about the climate is that they ignore the most simple and painless solutions, in favor of drastic "solutions" that will actually harm people, while giving more power to the Left.

The simple solution(s): Move to natural gas, wherever possible. Natural gas electricity generation has allowed the US to lead the world in reduction of greenhouse gases, and it is relatively painless, unless you live in West Virginia.

Where feasible, replace ICE vehicles and equipment with either electric or natural gas powered machinery.

Do all the "renewable" stuff you want, provided it doesn't require massive taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Promote Nuke.

Problem solved.

 

[Crick]

To me, the most obvious indication that the global Left cares little about the climate is that they ignore the most simple and painless solutions, in favor of drastic "solutions" that will actually harm people, while giving more power to the Left.

The simple solution(s): Move to natural gas, wherever possible. Natural gas electricity generation has allowed the US to lead the world in reduction of greenhouse gases, and it is relatively painless, unless you live in West Virginia.

Where feasible, replace ICE vehicles and equipment with either electric or natural gas powered machinery.

Do all the "renewable" stuff you want, provided it doesn't require massive taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Promote Nuke.

Problem solved.

According to the IEA, natural gas produces 42% as much CO2 per kWh as does coal. That would slow the rate at which warming is taking place, but would never stop it. Keep in mind that CO2 in the atmosphere has a lifespan of over two centuries.

Your contention that the "Left" is attempting to harm people and gain power is nothing but paranoid political bigotry.

I do promote nuclear power. So does the IPCC. See IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"The life cycle GHG emissions per kWh from nuclear power plants are two orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil-fuelled electricity generation and comparable to most renewables (EC, 1995; Krewitt et al., 1999; Brännström-Norberg et al., 1996; Spadaro et al., 2000). Hence it is an effective GHG mitigation option, especially by way of investments in the lifetime extension of existing plants.​

​

Whether or not nuclear power would be accepted in the market place depends on new capacities becoming economically competitive and on its ability to restore public confidence in its safe use."​

And from The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030. — IPCC

In the scenarios we assessed, limiting warming to around 1.5°C (2.7°F) requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by 43% by 2030; at the same time, methane would also need to be reduced by about a third. Even if we do this, it is almost inevitable that we will temporarily exceed this temperature threshold but could return to below it by the end of the century.​

We might have helped ourselves by switching from coal and petroleum to natural gas twenty years ago, but it is now simply too late for half-measures.

 

[ding]

According to the IEA, natural gas produces 42% as much CO2 per kWh as does coal. That would slow the rate at which warming is taking place, but would never stop it. Keep in mind that CO2 in the atmosphere has a lifespan of over two centuries.

Your contention that the "Left" is attempting to harm people and gain power is nothing but paranoid political bigotry.

I do promote nuclear power. So does the IPCC. See IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"The life cycle GHG emissions per kWh from nuclear power plants are two orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil-fuelled electricity generation and comparable to most renewables (EC, 1995; Krewitt et al., 1999; Brännström-Norberg et al., 1996; Spadaro et al., 2000). Hence it is an effective GHG mitigation option, especially by way of investments in the lifetime extension of existing plants.​

​

Whether or not nuclear power would be accepted in the market place depends on new capacities becoming economically competitive and on its ability to restore public confidence in its safe use."​

And from The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030. — IPCC

In the scenarios we assessed, limiting warming to around 1.5°C (2.7°F) requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by 43% by 2030; at the same time, methane would also need to be reduced by about a third. Even if we do this, it is almost inevitable that we will temporarily exceed this temperature threshold but could return to below it by the end of the century.​

We might have helped ourselves by switching from coal and petroleum to natural gas twenty years ago, but it is now simply too late for half-measures.

No answer for this, huh?

If the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect because of weather, why do you believe an increase of 280 ppm of CO2 would be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect?