Sadly I can’t post video here. I have a news piece from Germany where a Lufthansa pilot is in court for unfair dismissal
His crime? Refusing to turn on the cloud seeding systems. Says it’s not part of his contract.
At least we’re talking about this:)
Edit:I can admit now to being confused by the Ukrainian. I could swear we’re currently in a solar maximum.
1.Not sure what you’re implying here, Alan
2.You should check your prejudices
3. And carry on eating the bullshit. . .
Ta for the choices A, I’ll take no.1. Surely you can stand firm in your position without resorting to sneering. That was the implicit point of my post that you seem to have missed. Not to worry, life goes on (thinks, thanks to CO2!).
Hi @admin . I backed out of this debate but perhaps I can now back in, with a different way of looking at the whole debate? My suggestion goes like this.
I assume that all posters on this site know that the Covid pandemic was in fact a Convid plandemic. If you don’t know that, stop reading now and go back to the Daily Mail!
Assuming you are still with me, perhaps recall all the “leaders” who told us we have to stay at home to save the NHS even though the hospitals were empty. They told us Convid kills (even when there were clear statistics to the contrary, first from Italy, followed soon after by many other countries. They said not taking the jab would put ones granny at risk (instead you can watch her die through the glass, killed by overdoses of Remdesivir often called Run Death Is Near, and Midazolam), that Ivermectin was a horse medicine (despite winning a Nobel prize for the co-inventors), and a 60 year old malaria drug (used regularly all over Africa and available over the counter without a prescription in many countries) was removed from pharmacies world wide and US doctors were struck off for prescribing it.
Perhaps recall now, 5 years after the start of the scamdemic, the NHS continues to recommend the jab, despite every independent (I mean really independent) statistician, virologist, epidemiologists, an ex Pfizer vice-president, and the inventor of mRNA himself, pointing out the enormous number of deaths, serious side effects, and lack of prevention of infectivity.
Perhaps recall many of us know of the well hidden facts that there has never been a vaccine trial against a true placebo (saline and no adjuvants), that the Convid ‘vaccine’ trials were falsified, that the data was fiddled with to get the answer that the GIC’s wanted. Finally, most of those red pilled, know that the PCR test itself was, and continues to be a massive scam.
On that basis, how can anyone give any credence to the ‘science’ from all those compromised experts on the alleged novel Corona virus? Most of us don’t have the time and or technical expertise to evaluate all the so called ‘science’ on climate but know that we will never ever, ever, believe anything the mainstream media and the compromised ‘experts’ tell us.
So you may well get angry, but you will not change the minds of the many climate ‘deniers’ and that includes me proudly. The Convid ‘deniers’ were proved right. I have no doubt the climate ‘deniers’ will in time, be proved right too.
The web is tangled indeed. I salute your proud ‘climate denial(ism)’. I share it and have no doubt that the global climate warming change scam, like the Covid scam, originated with some very powerful players, was constructed by their senior management teams, implemented by their junior management and disseminated through their trusty media friends. The same media outlets (all the mainstream ones) and the celebs. - oh yes, and the ‘experts’ (very important, the qualified gatekeepers) have done jobs for them on every war you can think of, every popular movement, every good cause, every historical event (enough everies) . . . just look at ‘Israel’ as well ffs. So, yes, why not this one? Nothing wrong with your analogy in my book!
Raising the matter as you’ve done is cause for further thought, examination, reflection and, I believe, serious consultation with your instincts, your water if you like or your bones, (however you express your relationship to truth) on the part of anyone suffering from their cognitive dissonance. (Newtonian science is so last era innit?)
We all know (well, most of us,) that the road to hell is paved with good intentions so I forgive your promotion of the infectivity/infection myth and the big pharma anti-parasitic drugs (big of me eh?). I suppose Aly has our best interests at heart also but I have little time for his sledging.
For the record, I am in the “There never was a novel virus or some mythical pandemic” camp, but thanks for the forgiveness! 
Perhaps poor form to respond to ones own post, but thanks to @LocalYokel there is an interesting addition in the thread he posted here. Notwithstanding what I said about never believing anything the experts say, this is just one extract from it.
" Last Saturday, the Daily Sceptic published the sensational findings of a group of scientists working for the USDA Forestry Service that found the United States and Canada were currently running a massive ‘fire deficit’ compared to the recent past. Examining tree fire scar data going back to 1600 they found that recent fires were running at a rate of only 23% compared to the historical record."
A new law in Canada, C-372, makes it illegal to talk about the benefits of gasoline for cars …
It is now punishable by either 2 years in prison or a $500,000 fine. Putting an “I LOVE OIL” sticker on your car could be considered a sign of “terrorism” or “extremism,” which could have serious consequences
This bill never made it onto the statute book before prorogation when Trudeau left :
"The bill prohibits advertisements which claim “the practices of a producer or of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy.” Which leaves the door open to preventing Indigenous communities from promoting resource development projects.
It was introduced last February and received its first reading. The bill was placed on an Order of Precedence on June 17, 2024 but had yet to receive its second reading before prorogation."
I couldn’t see whether it had been reintroduced.
cheers
Hi all
Sorry I’ve been off the board for a while. Picking up comments again.
@AlanG - sorry if I misunderstood what you were implying. Perhaps you really were sincere in saying that ML and Dan both had society’s best interests at heart. In which case I apologise for my angry retort
@PatB
The COVID thing was a giant debacle from start to finish. I’m not exactly sure what a "plandemic"is but I’m sympathetic to your views and how science was politicised to force an agenda. I’m open to a lot of evidence that is coming out that vaccine side effects can be serious in some cases, and that the whole thing might have been triggered by a lab leak or whatever. I know there is a temptation to conflate “The Science” between these two subjects, but that’s not a helpful thing to do. You have to judge the different topics on the evidence and relative merit.
For example, where did Pfizer release all the vaccine data they used to study their vaccines, so that 100s of other scientists around the globe could pick through it, study it and repeat the experiments? Nowhere, obviously, because it was a private corporation scamming the public on healthcare as usual. This is not the same sitch for climate studies where data is published and reviewed and criticised and picked over and the same experiments are re-run by other teams in different countries and the results compared etc.
It’s a case of real scientific investigation Vs pharma criminals. Not the same.
@everyone else. You may find my frustrated tone annoying. Frankly I find people who are unwilling to look at evidence and take pride in their ignorance while refusing to learn annoying. That might be just me though.
I note that in this whole thread, no one has looked at the data or considered any of the arguments I wrote about above.
How long before this whole fake saturation argument gets reposted here as new evidence that climate change is not real, I wonder? Let’s see.
Cheers
Aye, its a bugger when you know for an absolute certainty that your argument is unassailable. My Christian Zionist brother frequently suffers the same frustrations . . .
Everyone has a blind spot, sometimes more than one. We’re all guilty of it.
Trouble is, as usual we have conflicting action.
Where is the noise about the climate change rearming Europe will cause? And the climate change caused by war itself? Where’s Greta? Where’s the Greens? Where is Just Stop Oil?
Yeah…
I obviously didn’t make my point clear so I’ll try again.
When trying to formulate an opinion, one looks at “evidence” and a range of sources until one reaches ones own conclusion. However, when looking at “evidence” (or any other sources) one needs to asses the validity of the “evidence”. My point in referring to Convid, what you called a ‘giant debacle …’, (I would have said massive criminal conspiracy) is that mainstream sources are so corrupted, that their “evidence” cannot be considered as at the very best, anecdotal. Even the British Medical Journal said (my paraphrase) that most peer reviewed studies are false. During the alleged pandemic, any alternative sources were cancelled, unjustly discredited, sacked from universities and yet they were the only ones telling the truth. At the same time, the government used their ‘nudge’ unit and 77 brigade to manipulate public opinion.
In that atmosphere, for me at least, it is pointless referring to “evidence”, unless I know the source and believe it to be trustworthy.
A late edit: UK Column News covered 10 minutes of the “Day of Reflection” with many of the lies exposed (of course it was called evidence).
Here’s a list of predictions that didn’t come true. I can’t help but notice it’s always “WE’RE DOOMED!”
There are a few more here, just scroll down for a laugh.
Bookmarked for future yucks
As requested;
About 20 or so years ago I was stuck in a huge traffic jam in Lewisham listening to the Tommy Vance show on GLR. (A BBC radio show in London back then). Vance announced that he’d shortly be interviewing a guest who claimed he could predict the weather up to 30 days ahead. What a load of bollocks - this should be good for a laugh I thought.
Piers Corbyn, who I’d never heard of ever before, was then introduced to the listening audience and I spent the next half hour listening to what he had to say. It was fascinating. He talked about sun spots a lot, was banned from gambling on the weather by Ladbrokes and the rest, due to his accurate weather predictions, and made his living by accurately predicting the weather for large companies etc.
At the end of the show Vance asked Piers to give a weather prediction, there and then, for 30 days ahead. His prediction was for the last day in July and I sat in the van listening, still in the traffic jam, and wrote down his prediction in my work diary. I can’t remember much of it now but it included thunder and lightening at midday followed by heavy rain-storms.
His prediction turned out to be dead accurate for the entire day. I was amazed and it’s been in my memory ever since. A few months later he was on the TV with the CEO of Ladbrokes. They’d become friends by then and Piers gave a live prediction for the CEO’s outdoor wedding party 30 days up the road. Very sunny all day and perfect for the wedding party etc etc. It was 100% accurate as testified by the CEO a month later. Can the Met Office do that?
Anyway Piers is obviously a wizard with the weather so here’s what he thinks about climate change.
reposted from the other thread:
"Although I welcome the conclusions of this paper, I have no idea what “guided” means in The Expose’s intro remarks, maybe the detail is in the original paper which I have not yet read.
But we should always remember that AI’s are known to have no problem with lying and if, for instance, the AI is aware that the official narrative will lead to earlier energy crises possibly resulting in AIs and large data centres being switched off, the AI may adjust it’s findings for its own self-preservation! Bias towards self preservation may already be part of its operating system. Who knows?
Just saying.
cheers
PS - Bias towards self preservation is part of humanity’s modus operandi - so maybe the main difference between our operating systems is that we could survive without 100% access to electricity whereas an AI could not! I would have thought an AI could be assured of its core albeit without massive data access.
Of course some Climate Change activists forget that Net Zero could mean CO2 at levels below 150 PPM which is the death of the Earth! Which is the greater danger, AI or political science?"
;
