Thirty Years Of Failed Climate Predictions

submitted by Tom_Bombadil from youtu.be

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ID10T 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

Remember when we were all gonna starve to death because acid rain was going to kill all the crops? No? Weird how many doomsday predictions haven't come true. (Slips on black Nikes with the white swoosh)

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

It's all a bad joke. The doomsday predictions are all absurd.

Remember when they claimed COVID had a 3%-5% fatality rate?

People we're testing positive who never got sick.

A country in Africa tested goats blood, a papaya, and motor oil.
The papaya and the goat both had "COVID".

The main tool for control of three people is fear. But it's mostly bullshit.

[–]binaryblob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

COVID killed a lot of people that would have died within 1 or 2 years anyway.

COVID left a lot of people disabled. It's a very expensive disease for a country to have. As a biological weapon, it would have been quite great, because if wounded a lot of people, which drains resources of countries faster than having dead people.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

COVID killed a lot of people that would have died within 1 or 2 years anyway.

Yeah, people can forget that nearly 5% of the U.S. population is over 90 years old. And that a 90 year old is nearly 1,000 times more likely to die from the disease than a 20 year old.

A lot of the lockdown policy came down to the interesting question of: do we sacrifice the opportunities, experiences, and mental health of the young in order to protect the old? Or have the old really been here long enough?

We're far too stupid to have that conversation, though, so instead we just settled on dipshit sound bites like "It's a plandemic" and "If you can wear pants, you can wear a mask."

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

instead we just settled on dipshit sound bites like "It's a plandemic" and "If you can wear pants, you can wear a mask."

Says the pharma shill.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Sure, you're so attached to your set of dipshit sound bites that you don't need anyone to spout the opposite set of dipshit sound bites to qualify as a "pharma shill."

They don't have to say one word in support of a pharma company. All they have to do is recognize your sound bites as aggressively dumb.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Bill Gates's Event 201 included detailed plans of how to control the "disinformation" narrative, etc.

Event 201 was back in October of 2019. Before the "pandemic". They planned it out.

It's 110% a plandemic, and a scamdemic.

Pfizer's stock price is nosediving. People have already recognize the scam.

You lose.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Event 201 was a three and a half hour roleplaying exercise on pandemic preparedness. Of course we have events like that. Because we regularly have pandemics. We've had seven that killed >1M people in just the last 150 years. It would be insane not to do any preparation.

The way your mind works, if anyone prepares for a disaster, that means they caused the disaster.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It was a planned out corona virus table top exercise for the corona virus pandemic.

They planned it out. Including censorship of the media, and vaccines, and vaccine passports, and contact tracing.

None of these things were necessary, because covid is rebranded influenza. It was a hoax. A scam.

They planned out the plandemic. Well in advance.

And used their foreknowledge to make billions and billions as a scamdemic.

Bill Gates made 20:1 profits off of his Mod-eRNA patents, and experimental injection sales.

Mod-eRNA. Modified eRNA. It's a scamdemic.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Yes, I'm fully aware of your story; the only minor problem is that none of it happens to be true.

And ironically, it's your story that generates the actual scams. Those conspiracy sites have sold billions and billions of dollars in scammy products like NFTs, gold IRAs, sovereign citizen ID cards... just sucking the blood out of anyone gullible enough to fall for their stories.

It sucks, man. Here you are with literal brain damage from a stroke and they're playing on your gullibility to see if they can help themselves to as much of your retirement savings as possible.

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

COVID left a lot of people disabled. It's a very expensive disease for a country to have.

Remdesivir, and other experimental therapies left them injured.

The flu went away in the winter of 2020.

"COVID" is rebranded influenza.

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

Acid rain was mostly solved: https://www.britannica.com/story/what-happened-to-acid-rain. Every idiot learned that in high school.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

...maybe every Millennial idiot. Those of us who are Xers and Boomers just learned: oh, fuck, the rain's pH is dropping.

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

That was true at the time. So, not sure how you could be against that.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Remember when we were all gonna starve to death because acid rain was going to kill all the crops?

Humanity responded to the acid rain crisis with much better reasoning than the global warming catastrophe. I guess the industries behind acid-sulphate air pollution weren't as rich as those behind fossil fuels.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Lol yeah I'm sure China has really helped solve the acid rain crisis. Amazing they can still grow crops in China.

The point is there is a huge industry of chicken littles proclaiming the sky is falling and other inconvenient truths.

You're easily influenced by these panic inducing proclamations, "WE MUST ACT NOW!!!" Meanwhile the solutions offered are often worse than the problem.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Lol yeah I'm sure China has really helped solve the acid rain crisis

The Helsinki Protocol on the Reduction of Sulfur Emissions was 1985. China wasn't doing a hell of a lot of air pollution back then.

The point is there is a huge industry of chicken littles proclaiming the sky is falling and other inconvenient truths.

Other way around. There's a huge industry of fossil fuel PR groups trying to stop people and countries from moving to other energy sources, trying to make the facts out to be unsure or wrong. The fossil fuel industry is revenue was $5.3 trillion in 2023. So they can spend a lot of money on science denial, as the tobacco industry did, and encourage people to put themselves at risk rather than have their profits interfered with.

There's no such money on the other side. No one owns the solar reserves nor the wind reserves. That alone should give you an hint about who's lying, even without noticing that a lot of the climate misinformation is coming from the same sources and the same scientists that did the tobacco-cancer denial earlier. Or that 99% of scholarly papers back up the scientific consensus.

You're easily influenced by these panic inducing proclamations, "WE MUST ACT NOW!!!" Meanwhile the solutions offered are often worse than the problem.

Are they though?

When you get an economist on to it, they seem to have findings like you got in the Stern Review which was included: "the costs of stabilising the climate are significant but manageable; delay would be dangerous and much more costly"

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Talk to me when you are freezing and starving because the power went out and your heater and stove is electric. You can't drive because you can't charge your car.

Yes if you want to talk about eliminating fossil fuel usage you aren't going to be taken seriously until you have a strategy on how we will increase our electricity output in time for those deadlines that right now are being arbitrarily and capriciously set.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Talk to me when you are freezing and starving because the power went out and your heater and stove is electric. You can't drive because you can't charge your car.

That should be some time. At the moment my solar panels are generating a lot more than I use.

Yes if you want to talk about eliminating fossil fuel usage you aren't going to be taken seriously until you have a strategy on how we will increase our electricity output in time for those deadlines that right now are being arbitrarily and capriciously set.

That's not an argument for climate science being wrong. But certainly changing the energy infrastructure takes some investment.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Fuck the poor am I right? What kind of scumbag goes around telling people to adopt policies that will create huge amounts of suffering and death, while smugly assuming you will be fine. Most likely you won't though.

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

Fuck the poor am I right?

Indeed no. In fact the poor are suffering more from climate change than the rich. So rich countries have an obligation to reduce emissions from that perspective too.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It should be blaringly obvious at this point that current strategies to reduce emissions will cause far greater harm than good. Especially to the poor. The only people who can be taken seriously are those who propose increasing grid output, adding nuclear power plants, before banning fossil fuel consumption.

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

It should be blaringly obvious at this point that current strategies to reduce emissions will cause far greater harm than good. Especially to the poor.

You might think that if you didn't know anything about it.

https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/2502872.pdf

https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2017/wp152_2017.pdf

https://www.mercycorps.org/blog/climate-change-poverty

The only people who can be taken seriously are those who propose increasing grid output, adding nuclear power plants, before banning fossil fuel consumption.

I would advocate putting the correct price on fossil fuel combustion, and then letting the market sort out how to transition, rather than banning them outright by regulation. Companies are smarter than governments, because they have the time to look in detail at their particular situation.

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

Don't waste your time arguing with him. He's a bot. He even gets offended and threatens to report you if you call him a bot, lol.