Whether or not he is just another limited hang, or honey pot, or whatever...I still find it earie how in all the conversations about how unbelievable it is the choice is between Trump and Harris noone mentions Kennedy. Kennedy is kind of a big name so you would think there'd be some murmurs but the machine has the song on mute. Only allowing smear worthy fodder like worms in the brains leek out for a week or so then back to mute.
Sorry to say, but you are analyzing stories for believability, not for content of truth - especially about scientific topics. Science, whether about climate, medicine (etc) has no agenda other than truth. Government and Main$tream Media (M$M) "stories" about any topic and "science" are all agenda-driven, sprinkled, sometimes, with truths.
You say that election of Trump will accelerate "the climate crisis" NEVER analyzing "if" there is a "climate crisis" - blindly believing M$M, all owned by same few people and entities: Yes, CNN NBC ABC CBS NYT FOX NPR-news PBS-news BBC CBC and many others, including Wikipedia, Siri, Alexa, google, youtube, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Times, Gaza News, Washington-Post, Reuters, AP, UP, are all controlled/owned/sanctioned by same few elite at top of totem pole, namely hedge funds like Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street or bankers (who profit from huge deficit expenditures of governments). Look it up in a stock brokerage account's records as to who funds like Blackrock owns. It is shocking! Or open up, in FB, the following link, clicking on the picture for full content: https://www.facebook.com/howard.switzer.1/posts/pfbid022Jva5jQmaNY6MQ8n75cHaqejSEBTX2XcWq5yN2jhaZQAJa13UytcTtw6QMAZRtt8l?notif_id=1713733399461143¬if_t=close_friend_activity&ref=notif
The climate frenzy is not real - a false set of narratives: Read (and study) why here: https://44x.xyz/cl.pdf - written by an impartial physicist. The 97% "consensus" M$M drones about - is BS, explained in the linked document. The real consensus is 0.4 % - or - 99.6% of meteorologists and physicists agree that the 97% "statistic" is BS. Again - easily look-up-able. So many professional scientific organizations, big Pharma, have been infiltrated (or threatened) by the power elite in control, including CDC WHO aps.orgapa.org etc .
Wars, fake climate alarmism to incentivize uneducated (to "borrow/invest" $$quadillions), C19, vaxxes, all about creating huge deficit expenditures that can be foreclosed upon by the world bankers. You don't believe it? Look what happened / happening to Nigeria, Greece, Ukraine, Kosovo (much of it not found on google). On money, check the website https://monetary.science
Read and 'study' the 97% consensus about the climate frenzy The ‘97% consensus’ that humans affect the climate came from a 2013 paper that looked at 21 years of relevant papers, ie those saying yes or no to anthropogenic climate change. Other surveys, including surveys of non-climate scientists and non-scientists have framed the question differently and have muddied the waters. There was also a 2009 survey by Peter Doran which found 97.4% of publishing scientists agreed that human activity has influenced global warming. In 2010 Bill Anderegg found a 97% consensus among most active publishing scientists who agreed that human activity caused warming; this was endorsed by organisations from 80 countries.' Easily look upable.
Yes I know what Blackstone/rock owns- the MSM (who don't mention anthropogenic cliamte change) most of Ukraine and both Trump and the Dems.
Naomi Oreskes was the reporter that quoted the 97% - totally untrue -- totally debunked in MY essay (https://44x.xyz/cl.pdf ) and by groups that actually checked out Oreskes' statistic, finding the actual statistic - 0.4% -- Oreskes' statistic off by 25,000%. Yet, M$M doesn't correct the false narrative.
Thats my field, physics. I'm a physicist- belonging to the climate section aps.org (American Physical Society) and other divisions, as well . The government has made it almost impossible to get "funding" for climate research unless the proposal contains verbiage such as, "To research ways of solving the existential, looming, climate crisis." WTH
As is in my essay, in red, page 3, Oreskes took ~10,000+ climate related articles and asked the question (to herself, not to the authors) whether ONLY the abstract (summary just after the title) supported the anthropogenic (global warming, now "climate change") model/theory. She tossed ~95% of the articles away, as the abstract didn't indicate the authors' take, either way. She never examined the contents of the body of the articles and never called the authors, by her own admission (though her "stories" have changed since then). However, M$M, no exceptions, still drones the 97% and gives accolades to ignorant actresses like Greta Thunberg while tarring and feathering the millions of physicists and meteorologists that know that the M$M and government climate hype is total fiction.
Read why in the essay. I'm happy to help you understand the physics, astronomy and meteorology of climate issues.
I agree that humans "influence", slightly, climate. Major, NO. Read the essay and look at the videos, some by Nobel Laureates.
Science does not go from consensus. I know the science. You are going for "believability" of the stories. Just like the covid stories, which are also "peer-reviewed" and false.
Read the essay. And study the references. Or, remain ignorant. Naah. No use trying to educate a sheeple determined to follow rather than critically think or learn. Keep in your bubble of belief.
Whether or not he is just another limited hang, or honey pot, or whatever...I still find it earie how in all the conversations about how unbelievable it is the choice is between Trump and Harris noone mentions Kennedy. Kennedy is kind of a big name so you would think there'd be some murmurs but the machine has the song on mute. Only allowing smear worthy fodder like worms in the brains leek out for a week or so then back to mute.
Sorry to say, but you are analyzing stories for believability, not for content of truth - especially about scientific topics. Science, whether about climate, medicine (etc) has no agenda other than truth. Government and Main$tream Media (M$M) "stories" about any topic and "science" are all agenda-driven, sprinkled, sometimes, with truths.
You say that election of Trump will accelerate "the climate crisis" NEVER analyzing "if" there is a "climate crisis" - blindly believing M$M, all owned by same few people and entities: Yes, CNN NBC ABC CBS NYT FOX NPR-news PBS-news BBC CBC and many others, including Wikipedia, Siri, Alexa, google, youtube, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Times, Gaza News, Washington-Post, Reuters, AP, UP, are all controlled/owned/sanctioned by same few elite at top of totem pole, namely hedge funds like Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street or bankers (who profit from huge deficit expenditures of governments). Look it up in a stock brokerage account's records as to who funds like Blackrock owns. It is shocking! Or open up, in FB, the following link, clicking on the picture for full content: https://www.facebook.com/howard.switzer.1/posts/pfbid022Jva5jQmaNY6MQ8n75cHaqejSEBTX2XcWq5yN2jhaZQAJa13UytcTtw6QMAZRtt8l?notif_id=1713733399461143¬if_t=close_friend_activity&ref=notif
The climate frenzy is not real - a false set of narratives: Read (and study) why here: https://44x.xyz/cl.pdf - written by an impartial physicist. The 97% "consensus" M$M drones about - is BS, explained in the linked document. The real consensus is 0.4 % - or - 99.6% of meteorologists and physicists agree that the 97% "statistic" is BS. Again - easily look-up-able. So many professional scientific organizations, big Pharma, have been infiltrated (or threatened) by the power elite in control, including CDC WHO aps.org apa.org etc .
Wars, fake climate alarmism to incentivize uneducated (to "borrow/invest" $$quadillions), C19, vaxxes, all about creating huge deficit expenditures that can be foreclosed upon by the world bankers. You don't believe it? Look what happened / happening to Nigeria, Greece, Ukraine, Kosovo (much of it not found on google). On money, check the website https://monetary.science
Never analysing if there IS a 'climate crisis'?? That's exactly what I have done mate https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
Read and 'study' the 97% consensus about the climate frenzy The ‘97% consensus’ that humans affect the climate came from a 2013 paper that looked at 21 years of relevant papers, ie those saying yes or no to anthropogenic climate change. Other surveys, including surveys of non-climate scientists and non-scientists have framed the question differently and have muddied the waters. There was also a 2009 survey by Peter Doran which found 97.4% of publishing scientists agreed that human activity has influenced global warming. In 2010 Bill Anderegg found a 97% consensus among most active publishing scientists who agreed that human activity caused warming; this was endorsed by organisations from 80 countries.' Easily look upable.
Yes I know what Blackstone/rock owns- the MSM (who don't mention anthropogenic cliamte change) most of Ukraine and both Trump and the Dems.
Naomi Oreskes was the reporter that quoted the 97% - totally untrue -- totally debunked in MY essay (https://44x.xyz/cl.pdf ) and by groups that actually checked out Oreskes' statistic, finding the actual statistic - 0.4% -- Oreskes' statistic off by 25,000%. Yet, M$M doesn't correct the false narrative.
Thats my field, physics. I'm a physicist- belonging to the climate section aps.org (American Physical Society) and other divisions, as well . The government has made it almost impossible to get "funding" for climate research unless the proposal contains verbiage such as, "To research ways of solving the existential, looming, climate crisis." WTH
As is in my essay, in red, page 3, Oreskes took ~10,000+ climate related articles and asked the question (to herself, not to the authors) whether ONLY the abstract (summary just after the title) supported the anthropogenic (global warming, now "climate change") model/theory. She tossed ~95% of the articles away, as the abstract didn't indicate the authors' take, either way. She never examined the contents of the body of the articles and never called the authors, by her own admission (though her "stories" have changed since then). However, M$M, no exceptions, still drones the 97% and gives accolades to ignorant actresses like Greta Thunberg while tarring and feathering the millions of physicists and meteorologists that know that the M$M and government climate hype is total fiction.
Read why in the essay. I'm happy to help you understand the physics, astronomy and meteorology of climate issues.
I agree that humans "influence", slightly, climate. Major, NO. Read the essay and look at the videos, some by Nobel Laureates.
It is not ‘untrue’- it’s from a peer reviewed paper.
Get a life.
Science does not go from consensus. I know the science. You are going for "believability" of the stories. Just like the covid stories, which are also "peer-reviewed" and false.
Read the essay. And study the references. Or, remain ignorant. Naah. No use trying to educate a sheeple determined to follow rather than critically think or learn. Keep in your bubble of belief.