all 35 comments

[–]HurkaDurka 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This is the problem with politics taking priority over everything, including reality. We can't take anything at face value anymore. Like wiz sakd, this doesn't mean that man made climate changes can't happen or aren't happening. But, to me, this means that I can't believe anything that the "scientists" are saying in the subject.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the climate change agenda is all a distraction technique for something more sinister and deadly. Considering all of the blatant lies we have been told about global warming, this isn't completely unlikely.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You are on the right path.

This is just one front of the globalist attack on humanity.

Look into UN Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 in less than 5 minutes

[–]HurkaDurka 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

That video should be called "Get seething mad in less than 5 minutes." It was hard to watch that and not cuss at my phone... Good link though, thank you. We all need to know our enemy.

I just don't understand how the average person can be so willing to submit to authoritarianism. "Greater good" is such a disgusting concept, and is basically Hitleresque.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Honest people assume that others have honest intentions. Until proven otherwise.
I don't blame them. This info isn't publicly discussed in major media outlets. A well oiled propaganda machine.

[–]HurkaDurka 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Holy shit, well said. This response actually makes me not dislike the people that support authoritarians so much.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm glad to hear that.

Those ruled by authoritarians, are the first victims.

This includes the American public, who are victimized by American oligarchs.

This includes the citizens of the world, who are also ruled by the American oligarchs.

Edit: I would suggest that "the deep state" that attacks Trump is evidence of an American oligarchy. They have completely derailed 2 out of 3 of Trump's main campaign promises.

1) Bringing back manufacturing jobs (manufacturing jobs strengths the working class and organized labor, so it is opposed by the banksters and corporate shareholders) {side note: Trump is in the construction industry, which cannot be exported. It is in his interests to support a health middle class, as this drives up property values, spending, etc.}.

2) Improved relations with Russia. (Military industrial complex needs a Boogeyman to frighten the public)

3) Building a wall (this does not undermine corporate power or elite power, so they don't care)

These are examples of American oligarchy and their domestic activities. Trump opposes them, and he has my support in opposition to them.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Also, Here's another related submission from JasonCarswell.

"The Crisis of Science" The Corbett Report (2019-02-22).

It's message is crucial to understanding the climate science fraud, and many others.

Up-vote it if you agree, and think others should see it.

[–]HurkaDurka 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Great video. Upvoted.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


[–]Vigte 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

See that was our mistake, rebranding something everyone already knew and hated: Pollution - as something bigger than it really was "anthropogenic global warming".

They shot themselves in the foot, by trying to get more money by making the problem SEEM different from what it really is.

Why couldn't they just have left it as "pollution"?

[–]useless_aether 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i think blaming humans and humanity is what they really want, becase the end game is depopulation.

going w pollution would implicate industry and industrialists. thats a big no-no, to be avoided at all cost. after all, the rothschilds have the word industry on their coat of arms. it would point the finger at the real destroyers of our biosphere.

but the ' anthropogenic' narrative can be used to instill a sense of personal guilt. this psychological mechanism is the same one the catholic church exploited through the ages. now we are supposed to feel guilty every time we exhale or consume something. existing is sin and we have to pay indulgences. its the reinvention of the dark ages, but this time the inquisition is taking the form of a technetronic panopticon. brzezinsky wrote a book about it. it all started w the club of rome.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Cause it's not about improvement. It's about global control is energy, which is one piece of the agenda. It's about domination over all populations.

Agenda 21.

I'm sick of this shit!

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it.

Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise.

As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.


[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

This corruption doesn't mean that climate change isn't happening. It does mean that you need to pay more attention to the evidence, and where the evidence is coming from, because you can't assume that researchers with good reputations aren't trading that reputation for money.

[–]useless_aether 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

this is true, still, one cannot help but ask, if the truth and facts support the agenda of the elites, then why is all this systemic corruption necessary :-)

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

To ensure that, regardless of the truth, what the public believes remains the same.

I acknowledge that people are trying to make me believe that climate change is a real thing. And to that, I say "yes, it is; you need to do your part" because I've been taking readings of my own that corroborate this.

[–]useless_aether 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

care to share? dont bother if its too much trouble

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I spent a few months recording temperature throughout the day, with a couple of weeks where I forgot. I did that on two separate years; the first time I did it for longer. So, rubbish stats (they were intended for comparing with the Met Office's +1 hour forecast) but at some point I averaged each year and found a temperature increase.

This isn't good evidence for climate change (UNDERSTATEMENT), but the fact that the structure of the data roughly matched the Met Office data suggests that at least that isn't faked.

I don't have the time nor equipment to conduct a rigorous study at the moment. If I felt like it when I had the time, I could purchase the equipment for not very much money, and run an experiment over a few years, but that'd take a while.

[–]useless_aether 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

i admire your dedication! where i am its alway a bit colder than the official numbers, but thats just the microclimate.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I admire your dedication!

I got the data from my primary school's weather meter system, which I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw it. (It was affixed to a wall, which wasn't that great). I doubt I still have the data; I was in primary school at the time. But, the temperature data should've been fairly accurate, even though the wind data was completely trashed by children bashing the spinny cups thing to make it spin.

The primary motivating factor was boredom, not dedication.

Edit: I've got access to raw data from a weather balloon I helped launch (read: hindered the launch of); I could probably dig that up at some point and see if it matched. (Though that data was sent to the Met Office, so that wouldn't be too useful in determining the Met Office's accuracy.)

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

UA this character is a MSM forum slider. Here comes a novel.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I criticise the mainstream media (finally figured out what that acronym means! ☺) and I don't know what "forum slider" means. Why're you attacking me, if my arguments and statements are flawed? Unless they aren't, but you just don't like them.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It is absurd that you expect anyone to believe that you miraculously found SaidIt without knowing what MSM, or forum sliding is? It is incredible in the literal sense.

SaidIt is basically a group of Reddit/Voat exiles, who left because of the group-think shilling bullshit, and are all familiar with these tactics.

You just happened to find the ".net" address? On top of that, you parrot the MSM consensus on 95% of meaningful topics.

Let's hear some example of MSM ideas you don't support. Please include links to your posts as supporting evidence.

Edit: That's what I thought. All talk.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Just because I don't visit the site every day, means that I concede the argument? Since when?

I found Saidit via Fosstodon, FYI. If you look at my post history, you'll see that that's not a lie I came up with on the spot. You'd also know that if you asked, instead of immediately accusing.

I "parrot the MSM consensus" on 95% of meaningful topics that I post on, because there's not much where my interests (stuff I've researched) coincide with what's being posted. Just because the mainstream media's saying something, doesn't make it false, so there's no surprise there.

Let's hear some example of MSM ideas you don't support.

Happy to, if you tell me the attitudes of "the MSM" about stuff. I don't often follow the mainstream media, by the way, so I don't know what "their" attitudes are. From what I can tell from my limited observations, there's very little common ground between organisations; don't know the state of the press in America.

Please include links to your posts

I don't have the time to do that. Given that you said 95%, not 100%, though, it seems that you think that 1 in 20 of my posts are against the MSM, by whatever definition of "mainsteam media" you're using. That means that you've already acknowledged that I disagree with the MSM, and so I don't need to prove it to you.

If you like, though, you can perform the time-consuming job of trawling through my comment history analysing each view I've provided, and comparing it against what you perceive to be "the MSM consensus" in order to determine whether or not I agree with this seemingly-arbitrary metric. I will not.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)


That's what I thought. No substance. No evidence.

All talk.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Hard to dig through my comment history – I started in anger when you posted this comment, and carried on for a full hour because I just kept on going out of stubbornness. However, I found a comment that:

  • Very obviously criticised
  • Multiple media organisations; and
  • Was written to you.

I'm not searching further for another, better example because it is time-consuming.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well stated.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Hi there forum slider.

Read the article. This is not my opinion.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I never said that it was. Why do you immediately go on the antagonistic-defensive whenever I say something that isn't an attack?

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

you need to pay more attention to the evidence

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I could say the same to you. It's not constructive, because it's meaningless.

Also, you haven't answered my question. You've avoided it and changed the topic. Is that what forum slider means?

To re-ask: Why do you immediately go on the antagonistic-defensive whenever I say something that isn't an attack?