Naomi Seibt-German Climate truth telling Teen

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She is directly affiliated with the AFD.... I've also never seen any proof of Greta being some corporate shill... Also the science around climate change is pretty clear.

Look up a book’the manufacturing of greta thunberg’ , look up corporate sponsors for 350.org and fridaysforfuture .

Why would an Afd affiliate have any interest in countering climate alarmism ?

Boggles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why would an Afd affiliate have any interest in countering climate alarmism ?

The AFD see votes in being climate change deniers.

For some reason the dribbling simpletons who vote for the likes of them cannot process actual basic science, this ignorance and lack of fundamental understanding of a pretty key issue leads them to take the polar opposite view.

It's that simple really.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

The AFD see votes in being climate change deniers.

For some reason the dribbling simpletons who vote for the likes of them cannot process actual basic science, this ignorance and lack of fundamental understanding of a pretty key issue leads them to take the polar opposite view.

It's that simple really.

Yep, a good example is the irexit guy. By some fluke he met her, check the responses. His key audience absolutely hates him over it.

https://twitter.com/hermannkelly/status/1235193359871946752?s=19

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep, a good example is the irexit guy. By some fluke he met her, check the responses. His key audience absolutely hates him over it.

https://twitter.com/hermannkelly/status/1235193359871946752?s=19

Jesus the comments.

Pretty much illustrates my point though.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Look up a book’the manufacturing of greta thunberg’ , look up corporate sponsors for 350.org and fridaysforfuture .

Why would an Afd affiliate have any interest in countering climate alarmism ?

In other words, do your research for you.

The modern far right peddles climate change denial. It's quite common.

Lonesomerhodes

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In other words, do your research for you.

The modern far right peddles climate change denial. It's quite common.

Climate change denial.

Like a term from 1984.

No one with any independent mind would use such a stupid politically correct term as it's profoundly foolish because no one denies the climate is changing it's always changing but people dispute the cause and effect.

It's an incredibly illogical phrase.

You been reading your Marxist/Mao brainwashing politically correct manual lately?.

alastair

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Climate change denial.

Like a term from 1984.

No one with any independent mind would use such a stupid politically correct term as it's profoundly foolish because no one denies the climate is changing it's always changing but people dispute the cause and effect.

It's an incredibly illogical phrase.

You been reading your Marxist/Mao brainwashing politically correct manual lately?.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Lonesomerhodes

alastair wrote: »

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.



https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Don't think Nasa ever told the truth on anything in their lifes.

Champions of fake and green screens. Hardly a credible source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJWoKt516Hw

No one denies climate change has done since the year dot but people dispute the cause and effect.
Personally think our contribution is so tiny it doesn't even warrant mentioning.
Cows with methane cause more damage than us will we ban cows or something?


Thus the term Climate change denial should win some award for most retarded phrase ever. Like the Darwin award's for dumb phrases.

alastair

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Don't think Nasa ever told the truth on anything in their lifes.

Champions of fake and green screens. Hardly a credible source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJWoKt516Hw

You win the facepalm of the day. You were talking about Darwin awards?

Boggles

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Cows with methane cause more damage than us will we ban cows or something?
.

Yes because the entire population of cows are wild and have nothing do with human consumption.

:rolleyes:

Eric Cartman

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Don't think Nasa ever told the truth on anything in their lifes.

Champions of fake and green screens. Hardly a credible source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJWoKt516Hw

No one denies climate change has done since the year dot but people dispute the cause and effect.
Personally think our contribution is so tiny it doesn't even warrant mentioning.
Cows with methane cause more damage than us will we ban cows or something?


Thus the term Climate change denial should win some award for most retarded phrase ever. Like the Darwin award's for dumb phrases.

What ? are you actually serious here ?

He's gonna start discussing the dark side of the moon next..

Lonesomerhodes

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What ? are you actually serious here ?

Dogs on the street know they use greenscreen more than Hollywood.

Couldn't care less if you believe their horseshyt.

What strikes me is some of you have literally never questioned anything ever if your lifes. Ever.


I fear I'd be popping a bubble saying Santy Claus doesn't exist!. :cool:

Lonesomerhodes

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Dogs on the street know they use greenscreen more than Hollywood.

Couldn't care less if you believe their horseshyt.

What strikes me is some of you have literally never questioned anything ever if your lifes. Ever.


I fear I'd be popping a bubble saying Santy Claus doesn't exist!. :cool:

You do realise we can actively hit reflectors that have been on moon since the apollo missions, right? Would love to hear your explanation for them.

Boggles

The moon is flat.

Not possible.

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What ? are you actually serious here ?

are you surprised that they believe that nonsense?

alastair

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Dogs on the street know they use greenscreen more than Hollywood.

Couldn't care less if you believe their horseshyt.

What strikes me is some of you have literally never questioned anything ever if your lifes. Ever.


I fear I'd be popping a bubble saying Santy Claus doesn't exist!. :cool:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_concealment

ancapailldorcha

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Dogs on the street know they use greenscreen more than Hollywood.

.....

What strikes me is some of you have literally never questioned anything ever if your lifes. Ever.

The irony.

Muahahaha

Watched one of her videos and its like an exercise in framing the fossil fuel industry narrative. She says she is not a climate change denier but a "climate change realist" and then goes on to admit that while climate change is real its effects are vastly exaggerated and that human activity is only responsible for a very small percentage of climate change.

This is the exact same tack the fossil fuel industry are taking, they know the strategy of denying climate change is now a dead duck because the science is overwhelmingly against them. So their next PR trick is to accept it is happening but then to try to muddy the waters by claiming that the effect are exaggerated and that humans activity isnt really causing this at all.

Its straight out of the PR book of the tobacco companies. Deny, deny, deny for decades, then when you are forced to admit it try to minimise it by muddying the waters and conflating with all sorts of other possibilities.

Lonesomerhodes

Muahahaha wrote: »

Watched one of her videos and its like an exercise in framing the fossil fuel industry narrative. She says she is not a climate change denier but a "climate change realist" and then goes on to admit that while climate change is real its effects are vastly exaggerated and that human activity is only responsible for a very small percentage of climate change.

This is the exact same tack the fossil fuel industry are taking, they know the strategy of denying climate change is now a dead duck because the science is overwhelmingly against them. So their next PR trick is to accept it is happening but then to try to muddy the waters by claiming that the effect are exaggerated and that humans activity isnt really causing this at all.

Its straight out of the PR book of the tobacco companies. Deny, deny, deny for decades, then when you are forced to admit it try to minimise it by muddying the waters and conflating with all sorts of other possibilities.

Well enjoy paying carbon taxes that don't do anything except line the pockets of millionaires buddy!.

alastair

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Well enjoy paying carbon taxes that don't do anything except line the pockets of millionaires buddy!.

Carbon taxes, like most other taxes, just go straight into the Exchequer pot. For funding the following: http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2019/Documents/Part%20II%20-%20Expenditure%20Allocations%202019-21%20(2).pdf

Lonesomerhodes

alastair wrote: »

Carbon taxes, like most other taxes, just go straight into the Exchequer pot. For funding the following: http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2019/Documents/Part%20II%20-%20Expenditure%20Allocations%202019-21%20(2).pdf

No wonder you want them.

Cover your dole Mr Keady!.

alastair

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

No wonder you want them.

Cover your dole Mr Keady!.

Stick with your green screen conspiracies. At least they’re entertaining.

Auguste Comte

Jasus this thread is pure comedy gold.

ancapailldorcha

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Jasus this thread is pure comedy gold.

I disagree. It's culture war diarrhoea from people who pretended to care about Greta Thunberg's welfare and couldn't hack the fact that someone like her spoke up about an issue she cared about. Of course now that the far right have their own analogue, those fake concerns have been exposed for what they are.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. It's culture war diarrhoea from people who pretended to care about Greta Thunberg's welfare and couldn't hack the fact that someone like her spoke up about an issue she cared about. Of course now that the far right have their own analogue, those fake concerns have been exposed for what they are.

The thing that really annoyed me about the Greta thing was those opposed to her would refer to as "fragile" or just a load of abuse about her being mentally unwell etc... It was basically just a load of online bullying of a teen who spoke up about a serious issue.

Eric Cartman

"Naomi Seibt is a far right nazi shill for afd and far right climate deniers" says the same people who champion an autistic girl being used as a puppet by her parents and corporate interests and think disagreeing with greta is bullying/abusing her.