1865
Comments (42)
sorted by:
26
MySidesGoUp 26 points ago +26 / -0

Greta is the template for what they want your kids to be:

FAT, AUTISTIC, AND GAY.

She’s 2/3 there just needs to get onto the American meal plan..

3
kaczan3 3 points ago +3 / -0

How DERE you! /gretavoice

21
Unicron3 21 points ago +21 / -0

The puppeteers are getting old. Climate change hasn't brought about the changes fast enough for them to see the fruits of their labor. Covid has given them control much faster but people aren't buying it like they used to. Now that they have pivoted back to climate change, they are pushing forward in a much faster, obvious way due to their fear of death. When you foist these evil machinations on the public quickly, it become much more obvious that it is all bullshit.

6
80960KA 6 points ago +6 / -0

Climate change hasn't brought about the changes fast enough for them to see the fruits of their labor.

Because it's not CO2 forced.

I don't think it has anything to do with their fear of death, I think it has to do with their fear of modern energy tech. They don't want energy problems solved, they want a oligopoly on energy (and everything else). They want to keep energy rare and expensive in spite of technology that could solve the problem for at least the next 1000 years.

14
6
DrCowboyPresident 6 points ago +6 / -0

Short debunking: More water vapor means more clouds, clouds reflect light, this is not reflected in computer models, probably on purpose, but also because we still do not fully understand cloud formation.

11
losiPig 11 points ago +11 / -0

No, we’re not.

They are. They believe stupid propaganda.

11
WarViper1337 11 points ago +11 / -0

I really enjoy Tony Heller's content. He really shows how weather data has been altered or manipulated in ways to fit the climate change agenda. He also blows the Co2 hoax stuff out of the water.

9
IAmJoeBidensColon 9 points ago +9 / -0

Fetal alcohol syndrome CUNT

4
CrenshawMAGAt 4 points ago +4 / -0

-Fetal Alcohol Survivor

3
malooch 3 points ago +3 / -0

first headline when you google her is nature.com literally calling her a "heretic" lol...yeah they're not in a cult or anything

2
CDXX 2 points ago +2 / -0

Folks also need to check out Dr. Roy Spencer. drroyspencer.com

2
megaronald 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fiction: Trump gets on the phone with Special Forces hitman .. 'You know that piece of fucking shit that funds Greta ?? Ya that fucktard..'

2
thallos 2 points ago +2 / -0

Which book of hers should I read?

2
Hades440 2 points ago +2 / -0

You do realize she can actually see carbon dioxide with her naked eyes, right? If anyone knows what's happening to the environment, it's Greta. Show some respect.

1
BroadSunlitUplands 1 point ago +2 / -1

They aren’t even her own rants

1
EvanGRogers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Remember the Pluto episode of Rick and Morty? This is that, but backwards.

1
Skabliggum2 1 point ago +1 / -0

140 scientific books? Looks like 3 actual books. The rest are probably research papers.

1
kaczan3 1 point ago +1 / -0

I nominate Greta for th emost punchable face of the decade.

1
mytummyhurts 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don't blame autistic school dropout Greta. They would use any useful idiot.

1
NukeChina2 1 point ago +2 / -1

Its not a joke anymore. We are doomed. Look at the kids. That is who will run things if/when you get old.

1
kaczan3 1 point ago +1 / -0

140 scientific books? Does he mean scientific papers/articles?

1
labiator 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is what a communist orchestrated reset looks like. It's up to you to put a STOP to it. Are you game?

1
cook_does 1 point ago +1 / -0

We aren’t doomed, we are just living in a constant state of apocalypse as the truth is being revealed to those who want to hear it and hidden from those who don’t. We must reset our divisions from race or anything worse to those who seek truth, and those who refuse it

1
MythArcana 1 point ago +1 / -0

One was funded by Soros, the other was not.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

anecdotal evidence, on 4chan no less, so take this with a huge dose of salt, but I remember somebody who said they worked in the energy sector saying he wouldn't hire people with "climate science" degrees, because all of their energy conversion equations were backwards and it fucked shit up...

0
iredpillu 0 points ago +1 / -1

What social media platform is this from?

0
Jappletime 0 points ago +1 / -1

We Are F@@king Listening To A Sixteen Year Old

1
Dr_Pepe_ 1 point ago +3 / -2

No, only idiots buy into it enough to listen to them babble. The problem is we've got a lot of idiots and they're being programmed to destroy our economy.

3
Whatyougotson 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ya whats this we crap

-9
samross -9 points ago +2 / -11

you know that girl didn't actually come up with the whole climate change thing. She's just talking about what the scientific consensus on that is stating. Like the IPCC reports. If you want to do an apples to apples comparison, it's Judith Curry vs career scientists from over 100 countries, with peer reviewed studies and open source data.

8
Americansupremacist0 8 points ago +9 / -1

The IPCC reports that the earth is heating up and the only way to stop it is drastic cuts to carbon emission. AKA energy. AKA no one gets any. Shove the IPCC report up your stupid fucking ass. “Judith curry vs career scientists” that’s cute but Judith curry is a career scientist you dumb faggot. Here’s what your commie wiki page has to say

“Curry has become known as a contrarian scientist hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.[3] Social scientists who have studied Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the one hand, she accepts that the planet is slightly warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate prediction models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable.[4] Despite the broad consensus among climate scientists that climate change requires urgent action, Curry has testified to the United States Congress that, in her opinion, there is so much uncertainty about natural climate variation that trying to reduce emissions may be pointless.[5]”

“Despite the broad consensus among climate scientists” meaning they ask is the earth getting hotter and could that maybe be possibly a little bit bad for some and they answer “ummm sure”.

They even state she agrees the earth is getting hotter but it’s not an inevitable catastrophic event waiting to happen. But keep guzzling that kool aid dipshit.

-7
samross -7 points ago +2 / -9

first of all, you absolute retard, I don't get why we need to be talking this way to each other, you inbred moron, cunt, faggot etc. Does that sound like the type of language you're comfortable with? Was there a lot of this kind of talk in your household or what? Anyway, the IPCC says we need to change to energy that doesn't burn carbon, and actually emphasizes geothermal and Curry says, we might as well not do anything and just let it happen, cause there's "too much uncertainty"? The rate of warming is not a projection, we have the temperature records being set every year.

6
Americansupremacist0 6 points ago +7 / -1

Records set since when genius? Jesus Christ are you that dense? You are aware that the record keeping used there goes back a fraction of the time earth has been around? So basically we’re setting records for the past 200 years, even though earth is roughly billions of years old. What about the previous billion years science boy? What about the ice age? So before the ice age it was warm. Then the ice age comes and a “record” amount of the earth froze. Then the ice age ended because earth….. somehow…. Warmed up? Without humans? That’s why I talk to you like you’re a fucking retard, you are spewing retarded shit. Explain how the ice age came and went without humans then talk about global warming.

-4
samross -4 points ago +1 / -5

Happy to. In the past 2.6 million years the planet has undergone more than 50 ice ages, with warmer interglacial periods in between. These ages are determined by Earth's position in the solar system. So the trajectory of the planet goes through these cycles. We are now nearing the end of an interglacial period, so if there were no humans, the Earth would be cooling now, not warming up.

5
Klown_Schwab 5 points ago +5 / -0

Scientific consensus doesn't mean shit. Science isn't a democracy. Especially now that big money is involved and cherry picks which studies they fund.

Last year the "scientific consensus" was the mRNA science juice was 100% safe and effective and every man woman and child on the planet needs to take it ASAP.

~200 years ago it was scientific consensus that washing your hands has no effect on the spread of disease. One man who advocated doctors wash their hands in between seeing different patients was laughed out of medicine and died in obscurity and penniless.

Also climatology is different from fields like physics, chemistry or cell biology. With the latter - experiments can be done in a controlled lab environment, observed from start to finish, all the variables accounted for and controlled, and repeated.

Climate doesn't fit in a lab. It's an extremely complex system and it's difficult if not impossible to account for all the variables. It's not really "repeatable" it relies on historical data, computer models and lots of inference.

When one climate scientist disagrees with another it's not a simple matter of setting up an experiment and getting results that disprove the other's conclusions.

Rather it's an argument over the interpretation of the historical data and the variables and inferences used in the computer models.

-4
samross -4 points ago +1 / -5

well it's science that allows us to argue online, and poop inside the house. What do you mean science ain't shit? Go live naked in the woods then, and if you stub or cut your toe, don't put any disinfectant on it, let that shit become gangrene.

You're saying science can't be trusted because it's not ALWAYS right? Is that it?

Thermometers, dude. That's all you need at this point. You can just get one yourself and over time that will show you if we're getting warmer or not. Yes, the computer models they're using may be confusing but at the basic level, it's just a matter of the temperature climbing, and if you don't trust anyone, just record the temperature yourself.

1
Klown_Schwab 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, the computer models they're using may be confusing but at the basic level, it's just a matter of the temperature climbing, and if you don't trust anyone, just record the temperature yourself.

This is such a midwit take holy shit go back to reddit what are you even doing on this site lmao

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
blackswans 3 points ago +3 / -0

You do know that their only "evidence" is failed statistical models, right? You do know they were caught red handed manipulating the data, right (climate gate)? You do know that temps have been higher, and lower over the last thousand years right? You do know that temps, on average have been decreasing the last twenty years, right? You do know that the southern hemisphere is having the coldest winter on record right now, right? Religion makes people believe all kinds of crazy bullshit, and your kooky climate cultists are the biggest suckers on the planet. https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Happer-Lindzen-SEC-6-17-22.pdf

-1
samross -1 points ago +1 / -2

the evidence is the recorded temperatures that keep climbing despite the fact that geologically we're supposed to be nearing a cooling period.

You do know that temps, on average have been decreasing the last twenty years, right?

Where are you getting this from?? The past seven years have been the hottest in recorded history, all across the world. Yes, it was cold for 2 weeks in Australia. Do you think that offsets the 1.2 degrees we've climbed on average over the last 100 years? I'm not a cultist. If I didn't have kids I probably wouldn't give this a second thought.

1
Rope_Tree_Journalist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Climate change can be debunked, and the IPCC refuted in a few sentences.

Climate change theory is based on computer models of earth.

Computer models are not accurate, because data sets fed into them to create the model are garbage.

Some historical climate data from places around the globe is missing entirely and must be fabricated (this is done by guessing), some data is incomplete or unreliable (just how much can you trust historical climate records from Mali, or Afghanistan, or Guatemala?) Some data is accurate and reliable, such as data sets that come from the US weather bureau.

As they say in the computer programming business "garbage in, garbage out."

After all this patchy guesswork and incomplete data sets are fed into the climate model, the computer model forecasts extreme global heating.

Computer models are not reliable.

If computer models were reliable, then the simulation would work in reverse (the opposite of forecasting is called hindcasting) and the computer simulations hindcasts would match up with the accurate, reliable historical climate data (records from the first world, such as the US Weather Bureau) that was fed into the simulation.

No computer model has yet been created that can pass this simple, scientific test.

So finally, we arrive at the conclusion, that computer simulations are not evidence of anything at all.