NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

So, what you're saying is, yes they're evil and yes they're conspiring. But instead of just cooking the numbers, they're endangering themselves too by spending their hard-stolen money creating a real crisis that's unnecessary to achieve their aims (and which the data says doesn't exist). So, they've already got us hostage and we have to do what they say, no matter how evil it is and how much we get to sacrifice.

Right?

useful-idiot_orig.jpg

look into it if you want.
Otherwise why should I bother.
 
THREAD: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

https://twitter.com/Surfinbones/status/1602441471638003718
AjAw3Po.png
 
If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1621686480912384001
KoddDyZ.png
 

I saw that tweet and it confirmed my layman experience and expectations.

We live on a planet where paleontologists have told us that Eurasians crossed a Bering Sea land bridge from modern day Russia to Alaska and populated North America some many thousand years ago.

We live on a planet where historical records tell us that there were thriving and lush vineyards in England and Northern Europe produced wine as fine as modern French and Italian vineyards do today.

In the 18th century, the northern hemisphere experienced a mini ice age.

The sun cycles and brings highs and lows of heat periodically over hundreds of years.

All of this is well documented and well understood.

Do humans have the capacity to influence the climate? I'm quite sure. Do we have the capacity to catastrophically impact it, in the face of these other factors? No. That's utter nonsense.

Again, I'll refer doubters to Michael Shellenberger. Go listen to him. Read his book, Apocalypse Never.

All of this is just another hype.
 
I think he should join in on the Hollywood Strike where all the actors (read: LIARS) are threatening to go on strike and deprive us of our Woke Libtard Mental Diarrhea stream they call movies if we do not all take our Vaxtermination Shots.
 
If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2018:

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1634644472553168896
QDO2S76.png
 
Last edited:
Semi off topic...

I watched a movie on Hulu last night called 2067. Absolute trash and pure propaganda. The plants suffocated because "they couldnt breathe the artifical oxygen", and I spent the rest of the movie wondering to myself how the fuck this dipshit that wrote this movie even had his script read after the first line? Like dude, #1 plants dont breathe in oxygen, they breathe in CO2 you dumb fuck! Then #2 WTF is ARTIFICIAL OXYGEN? Then I just kept going. #3 is like "basic science? stick two DC electrodes in water and release hydrogen and oxygen?". Not exactly "artificial". This is exactly WHY children have become so stupid.

Yes, this ties back to "NBC's Chuck Todd: We're not going to give TV time to Climate Deniers". The real solution here is to stop giving NBC, Chuck Todd, or HULU (also owned by NBC) one more second of our attention, so go ahead and censor us all you want, no one pays any attention to you. Youve made yourselves irrelevant.
 
Back
Top