344
Comments (107)
sorted by:
59
Graphenium 59 points ago +59 / -0

Never forget: gerta is the great granddaughter of the man who literally formulated the idea of the “green house gas effect”

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

{Their} lines of deception date back many generations

25
derkevevin 25 points ago +25 / -0

(((Thunberg)))

15
then 15 points ago +16 / -1

yup.

https://files.catbox.moe/1a7r9v.jpg

Those are really her parents in those (((antifa))) shirts.

6
systemthrowaway 6 points ago +7 / -1

Erry tiem

3
axiom 3 points ago +4 / -1

I keep seeing you post this everywhere and it's so shopped and suss looking, you're not really fooling anyone unless there are boomers here

4
then 4 points ago +4 / -0

it's so shopped and suss looking, you're not really fooling anyone

YOU LEFTIST LIAR!!!!

The antifa photos are 100% real, and even snopes said the ANTIFA t-shirt photos are real!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greta-thunberg-soros-isis-antifa/

your precious snopes even admits it

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
axiom 1 point ago +1 / -0

but that article is further discrediting the photo xD

0
then 0 points ago +1 / -1

Don't lie like Jew!

Your precious snopes said the photo of ANTIFA shirt is FACTUAL!!!!

Are you illiterate or a paid leftist Jew shill?

It said :

he underlying image in this meme was the only one of the three photographs that was authentic, unedited, and also showed Thunberg. She posted it to her Twitter account

authentic, unedited, and also showed Thunberg

The parents and her wore (((ANTIFA))) shirts that week

Don't lie like Jew!

1
axiom 1 point ago +1 / -0

i gues if you can read that far and copy paste the quote here you could read further and know that the shirt meant nothing if you wanted to, so I assume you're just playing around. Articles of speech such as 'the' are helpful in sentences, btw...

8
Emacs 8 points ago +9 / -1

Everyone knows that incest increases the chances of a variety of illnesses and disabilities, but do they know which groups have had historically high levels of incest?

4
Blursed2021 4 points ago +4 / -0

She's a Jew?

3
then 3 points ago +3 / -0

yes, she was selected by Jews because she has no "strong ties to jewish past" for marketability... but yes... yes she is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/d8pdhp/is_greta_thunberg_jewish/

1
Blursed2021 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Jews would have claimed her, one of her goofy ass parents would have mentioned it, she would have mentioned it.

She was chosen because she's going to look like a 12 year old for a long time. Nothing I've seen, including the reddit link, displays anything other than a desire for her to be a Jew. It's a statement of belief not fact.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Blursed2021 2 points ago +2 / -0

She's a Swede.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Blursed2021 1 point ago +1 / -0

What you wrote makes no sense.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
derkevevin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Probably.

1
Blursed2021 1 point ago +2 / -1

I imagine if she were Trump wouldn't have ignored her

3
Call_Me_Kaiser 3 points ago +3 / -0

Now isn't that quite the coincidence

1
voyager14 1 point ago +1 / -0

Noooo she’s just a heckin wholesome Swedish schoolgirlerino

37
GloboHomoErectus 37 points ago +37 / -0

The climate agenda is all about ruining western economies with tarrifs and taxes on goods that aren't "green".

Once most of the economies of the world are closer together they can take the final step into a one world government.

They already experimented with this when creating the euro and saw the devastating consequences GDP differences have when you link your economies.

It's all about that slow slide, boil that frog until the whole world is like India.

3
womplord 3 points ago +3 / -0

And the goods that aren't 'green' are the ones made by people who don't pay respect to the mafia of world rulers, who will use propaganda to convince pawns like greta that they are not following the 'science' to get their way.

2
ChadRight92 2 points ago +2 / -0

I've seen some travel videos out of india. Bald and Bankrupt on youtube. Holy fuck, it looks like I am looking at Hell when i watch those videos. Overcrowded, hordes of brown people everywhere, Dirty, messy shithole. Constant noise with everyone yelling and honking their car horns. This is what (((they))) want to turn our countries into

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLJy5njInoc

Just search "India" on this dude's channel. It literally looks worse than Africa.

2
GloboHomoErectus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah I've seen his content and some of the stuff is mindboggling, people walking around in literal sewage as if it was completely normal, living in houses with no doors etc.

I think the only reason he is still alive is because he has this "aura" of idgaf.

1
BatMitzvahAtEpsteins 1 point ago +1 / -0

if you think tariffs are bad, then you are spreading economic propaganda of the (((money printers))). The people that say carbon taxes are good also say that tariffs are bad.

They already experimented with this when creating the euro and saw the devastating consequences GDP differences have when you link your economies.

There are no tariffs between the US states, as intended. The USA is intended to fund its government by levying tariffs on all the goods produced by governments that don't have the constitution as the law of the land.

Not having tariffs means (((wallstreet))) exports your means of production to countries run by communists and pedophile royal families instead of keeping the means of production in the greatest country on the planet. Not having tariffs means your (((government))) funds itself by taxing its people.

1
GloboHomoErectus 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree with your take on tariffs in general, I was specifically mentioning the goal of carbon tariffs.

0
guccibear 0 points ago +1 / -1

Should i be buying property in 3rd world countries? since they will be the ones benefiting from this?

23
Enochianist 23 points ago +23 / -0

BUT ELECTRIC POWER! WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT COMES FROM FOSSIL FUEL!?

19
Steeline2 19 points ago +19 / -0

Noooo we cant use nuclear, think about the waste and chernobyl

4
TakenusernameA 4 points ago +4 / -0

Breeder Reactor go Brrrrrrrrrrtt.

2
Steeline2 2 points ago +2 / -0

PGU-14/B go brrrrrrttttt

2
Call_Me_Kaiser 2 points ago +2 / -0

Every times we provide solutions to their problems they slap it away and tell us that it "isn't viable" or it's not "environmentally friendly"

11
DR534 11 points ago +12 / -1

What's hilarious is how they made people believe oil came from dead dinosaurs just to make it appear scarce. Same group pushing petroleum-based pharmaceuticals on us.

8
happybillmoney 8 points ago +8 / -0

Damnit. It's all about branding. Trust the Science ™.

So petroleum forms naturally from either or both organic (fossil fuel) and inorganic compounds.

https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/sorry-folks-oil-does-not-come-dinosaurs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

But as Fletcher points out in his video we mostly drill for oil deeper then most of these "fossil fuel" deposits would be expected to exit.

So on Earth when we find oil or gas like methane it's a fossil fuel 100%. But when we detect say methane on Mars or elsewhere NO WAY IT WAS FORMED BY LIFE.

It seems this branding of fossil fuel has taken hold as the norm for all the science when it comes to petroleum.

The question that I can't figure out is how much of oil on Earth is a fossil fuel and how much of it is made from inorganic compounds? I'm having a hard time even searching these things since every site and source just says oil = fossil fuel.

7
TarquinusCollatinus 7 points ago +7 / -0

At least right now, I think most oil is currently "fossil", since where oil is being found is where you'd expect it, in suitable rock layers dating from the Carboniferous to the Cretaceous.

There's been some abiogenic oil found but not on any scale comparable to what's been found using the biogenic approach.

On the other hand, a biological source for hydrocarbons isn't necessary - Saturn's moon Titan has literal oceans, lakes and rivers of the main components of natural gas.

1
BatMitzvahAtEpsteins 1 point ago +1 / -0

look up cm chondrites, oil comes from space

3
axiom 3 points ago +3 / -0

All Fletcher was saying was that the term "fossil fuel" is a misnomer because fossils are found <16000ft below ground whereas oil is >30000 ft down. (he's laughing that the fossils are above where the fuel is at and expounds later in the video about why this is a misnomer).

Think of 'fossil fuels' as meaning "non-renewable energy sources" meaning that it takes the earth a long time to create these resources, so they are finite. That's what the alternate term fossil fuel refers to. The only part that's probably really of note about this video is him pointing out that the scarcity of the oil is or was, an illusion at the beginning of the 20th century.

Fletcher says that there''s a lot of oil in the earth, and he's right. But he does not say that the oil is inorganic. As someone else pointed out, and is obvious from a quick google search, oil is in fact carbon-based (making it organic material). This is testable in a lab and is basic knowledge in any scientific community.

Your question that you can't figure out is unanswerable because it's frankly nonsense. I think a goal of this new community should be to cut down on misinformation...

1
TarquinusCollatinus 1 point ago +1 / -0

An average of 30,000 feet for oil drilling is just plain wrong, though. Only a handful of very recent wells reach that far in terms of true vertical depth, the average today is around 6,000 feet (and those super-deep wells are often searching for natural gas and not oil, which can easily be formed from abiogenic sources).

The deepest fossils found to date are at around 7,000 feet. However, they're all over the place in terms of depth depending on plate tectonics, erosion and other natural factors

However, he is right in stating that there is no inherent scarcity of oil. If you consider the sheer amount of potential reserves there are decades left under conventional sources and possibly centuries' worth of unconventional reserves.

Remember that peak oil was first predicted to occur in the 1920s.

1
happybillmoney 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah I understand the point Fletcher was making and get it's a misnomer.

I don't often think about oil or petroleum. So when I started looking into I found it interesting that we generally call petroleum "fossil fuel" when in reality it seems that not all petroleum comes from organic material. E.g., methane on Mars and Titan. In my opinion calling petroleum "fossil fuel" is fair despite the branding implications. To edit a photo we say Photoshop™. But calling it fossil fuel if it does not derive form organic material does not make sense in my opinion.

My question that I could not find a answer to is simply how much of the oil on Earth comes from a organic material origin vs inorganic material origin. Regardless of political implications it's a interesting question for many reasons.

Suppose you knew the average natural amount of petroleum/oil/natural gas a Earth sized planet would have (with no life on it). Then if you found a object that has more say methane on it then expected for it's size maybe you could say this is a sign of life.

I want to make it clear I don't know if any of that is possible or any math behind this to do this. I'm just making up a example here.

2
Albatros 2 points ago +2 / -0

from inorganic compounds

What mate? Inorganic compounds are mostly without carbon, which is the base of petroleum-like compounds. You can produce oil in a variety of ways, but the oil reserves come from mostly fossil fuels.

2
Graphenium 2 points ago +2 / -0

Inorganic as in “from a non-biological reaction” (which is required to explain hydrocarbons on Titan or in nebulae), not the common, but sloppily defined definition of “containing carbon”

1
happybillmoney 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not a chemistry major I'm sure I'm using the wrong terms. Please educate me.

1
BatMitzvahAtEpsteins 1 point ago +1 / -0

i'd wager most oil comes from space in the form of CM chondrites

1
axiom 1 point ago +1 / -0

Shouldn't a goal of this new community be to cut down on unscientific claims like this one? A few other people have also pointed out that this is inaccurate, yet it has 8 votes.

18
skeletorcares 18 points ago +18 / -0

People are so adamant that India and China are 3rd world countries that need coal to power their revolution. No. China is literally building the solar panels and India is going to be the same country until the end of time.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
15
sn33d 15 points ago +15 / -0

CONSOOM CHINESE PRODUCTS AND CONCENTRATE ON THE LEAST OF YOUR PROBLEMS

4
akira2501 4 points ago +4 / -0

I still feel like this is all belated revenge for the opium wars.

1
ClownTamer 1 point ago +2 / -1

They are pumping fentanyl in across the Mexican border. In general China is hell bent on revenge for the countries they believe wronged them during their ‘100 years of humiliation’.

13
NueHoujuu 13 points ago +13 / -0

it's always those classic fears of climate change. I'm told in 60-80's, there was a fear of "climate change" but instead, it's mini ice age the fear was about

9
derkevevin 9 points ago +10 / -1

Can't really blame china, when they are producing products for the whole world to consoom.

14
sad_apu 14 points ago +14 / -0

THIS. until you stop consooming shit from china you can stfu about climate anything. every time i see a climate change apostle with a fucking iphone in their hand and a tesla in their driveway i want to make them eat their fucking teeth.

side note - notice how it’s no longer “global warming” it’s now “climate change”. rhetoric is important, as all good meme lords know. the latter phrase is broader and harder to define, like nailing water to a wall. it can be used against us no matter what the weather is doing. it’s. all. a. scam.

7
Emacs 7 points ago +7 / -0

They always deflect personal responsibility and say, "only government action will work"

5
TakenusernameA 5 points ago +5 / -0

Before it was "Global Warming", it was "Global Cooling".

Its an unfixable "problem" that the elite keep on using to fleece the masses of money.

1
BatMitzvahAtEpsteins 1 point ago +1 / -0

global warming is real and its mainly caused by the current geomagnetic excursion

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
ClownTamer 4 points ago +4 / -0

The most hypocritical part of people treating climate change in the same way vegans treat everything is that they usually don’t do the simplest and most effective of things to combat it. People in my hyper leftist area argue and go on all the time about what kinds of disposable bottles and cans are best for the environment and what to do with them after in the greenest of ways. People ask me what I do and I always honestly tell them that I don’t eat processed food and I don’t drink anything out of disposable containers so I don’t have anything like that to recycle, and I can usually get by taking out the trash nearly never by comparison to them. Hell, I only need to do laundry once every couple months too. I’m not doing it to be green but it is the greenest thing you could actually do when it comes to that, and none of them fucking even bother, they just argue over which mineral water or soda’s the greenest and other nonsense.

2
80960KA 2 points ago +2 / -0

it’s. all. a. scam.

Yep, or at best the equivalent of a retard with a "THE END IS NIGH!" sandwich board that's been standing on the same corner for 3 decades yelling about how the world is coming to an end any minute.

But mostly outright scamming.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
8
TriumphoftheSwill 8 points ago +8 / -0

The climate change bullshit kind of went out the window when they burned down cities and sent who knows how many tons of toxic chemicals into the air and cheered about it. Literally up in smoke.

And the fact that every few years its OMG eNvIroNmEnTAl CriSiS!!! Either it's too hot or too cold or acid rain or ocean's rising. At this point I pray for that to happen as long as they shut the fuck up.

4
80960KA 4 points ago +4 / -0

I wish the oceans were rising and flooding places like NYC away.

Sadly, they're not. Same continuous linear rises/falls due to tectonics for the last 100+ years.

2
Call_Me_Kaiser 2 points ago +2 / -0

I kept hearing that if we didn't do something cities would be underwater, despite these so called emissions getting worse these cities aren't under water

2
TriumphoftheSwill 2 points ago +2 / -0

It amazes me how goddamn stupid lefties are. Any moron can see this is just another way for corporations (jews) to take more power and make everyone pay more money. For all their talk about fighting the establishment, they really like doing their bidding.

8
then 8 points ago +8 / -0
8
Medicnz2 8 points ago +8 / -0

Can we get a copy of this graph without the Down’s syndrome ?

8
JackOfDiamonds 8 points ago +9 / -1

Calling global warming an "existential crisis" is a hysterical exaggeration. That being said, it is something that's worth monitoring and trying to mitigate where reasonably possible, and this graph, while technically true, isn't depicting the fact that the US had enormously more per capita emissions to begin with, such that even after dropping 10% while China more than tripled, we still have more per capita emissions.

13
zzbg 13 points ago +13 / -0

One of the best distinguishers between old / good ConPro and the current ConPro is that every retard shuts their mind off when anything about the environment comes up and now, suddenly, we worship at the alter of the economy and the GDP.

'Member when a large portion of these users were unironically EcoFash?

I 'member.

11
Pelides 11 points ago +11 / -0

EcoFash. Now there’s one I haven’t heard in a while. Nice.

10
sad_apu 10 points ago +11 / -1

i’m 100% on board with ecofash. i’m ready to never have another device or product made in china. need to communicate? use HAM. need entertainment? try books and gardening. Need fertilizer for that garden? use ground cover and learn how to compost your own turds.

the system brainwashes us into thinking we can’t live without consumer goods and group think. yet for thousands of years humans existed without that shit. it’s time to actually return and stop just talking about it. time to use our fancy phones and computers to learn how to live without consumer goods and make our own shit and how to trade with others who know how to make the shit we don’t know how to make.

i’m ready to hop in the deep end on this.

8
zzbg 8 points ago +8 / -0

Based

If you haven't, read these 2 books:

Deep Ecology for the 21st Century

and

Can Life Prevail by Pentti Linkola

and this one is a bit lefty in some of the social stuff it complains about and is very 'half-measure' but is still pretty alright for an overview of what an EcoFash economy would look like

Deep Economy

3
-iPushFatKids- 3 points ago +3 / -0

Human fertilizer is a terrible idea

2
Blursed2021 2 points ago +2 / -0

You should never compost your own shit.

8
FreudianLisp 8 points ago +8 / -0

Trashing the envorinment is about as consumer as you can get. Please, load up my grocery bags with more useless plastic that I can throw in the ocean!

9
zzbg 9 points ago +9 / -0

BUT LEFTISTS SAID IT SO ITS BAD HAIL THE GDP HAIL THE ECONOMY

5
codreanuAppreciator 5 points ago +5 / -0

Im an ecofash

5
80960KA 5 points ago +5 / -0

The CO2 narrative is fake, it's based on very incomplete computer models solving for a desired outcome.

I bet our land/water use has changed local climates a LOT tho, and that should be paid attention to.

7
zeppelincheetah 7 points ago +7 / -0

No. It is a complete charade. There is 0 danger from carbon emissions.

5
TakenusernameA 5 points ago +5 / -0

There is a danger locally from pollutants, but carbon dioxide isnt a pollutant.

2
zeppelincheetah 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah thats true

3
systemthrowaway 3 points ago +5 / -2

People here act like it's completely made up while ignoring that the entire planet is getting observabley warmer. Gee, I wonder what could be causing that? 🤔

3
TakenusernameA 3 points ago +3 / -0

The sun.

That gigantic, glowing nuclear fusion reaction in the sky.

The Earth is currently in an ice age, and its ending.

1
systemthrowaway 1 point ago +2 / -1

Ending over the course of a few hundred years? There's no way that's normal. We're already seeing the effects first-hand in one lifetime.

2
-iPushFatKids- 2 points ago +2 / -0

How would you know if its normal or not? Because you are being told there is more adverse weather events but that isnt even true

1
BatMitzvahAtEpsteins 1 point ago +1 / -0

the earth's magnetic field is 9% weaker compared to 200 years ago. thus more energy is absorbed by the sun

the earths average temperature is up 7% over the same time period.

wild swings in temperature happen during geomagnetic excursions.

1
80960KA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Except we're not.

You remember that story where like WWI artifacts and bodies were being pulled out of a receding glacier?

How can there be WWI artifacts showing up if this glacier hadn't also been growing all through most of the industrial era.

Gosh it's almost like the Earth is a dynamic place and changes happen all the time on their own.

2
80960KA 2 points ago +2 / -0

getting observabley warmer.

The climate has changed for billions of years , it's not a 100ppm rise in a <500ppm trace gas that already shares most of its absorbtion spectrum with the much much more common water that's doing it. The CO2 narrative confuses cause and effect, probably intentionally.

There is no way CO2 is a "control knob" for anything, because a "control knob" by definition has GAIN coming from somewhere - an outside energy source. If it's a "control knob", where is the "battery". There isn't one. It's fake.

1
BatMitzvahAtEpsteins 1 point ago +1 / -0

you are right about cause and effect being backwards

the warming of earth is caused by the weaker magnetic field due to the geomagnetic excursion

the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to off-gassing of the oceans due to the lower solubility of CO2 in warmer water

2
Blursed2021 2 points ago +2 / -0

So?

1
BatMitzvahAtEpsteins 1 point ago +1 / -0

Include the entire population and emissions of the all of north and south america and europe, and the emissions per capita are lower than that of china

8
fuckyoupelosi 8 points ago +9 / -1

Carbon Dioxide is plant food

7
KekistanPM 7 points ago +7 / -0

Someone at work was lamenting about this at lunch once..."The U.S.A. is outsourcing its pollution to China for cheap goods and labor!"

I tried to find out whether he thought the solution was for China to tighten their pollution restrictions, but he kept deflecting the question back to how evil the U.S.A is.

5
MasksAreChildAbuse 5 points ago +5 / -0

People, er I mean communists, like to claim that the emissions growth in China is simply because we have offloaded the emissions we would have made into Chinese manufacturing, and they only emit what they do because we have our stuff made there.

But that is completely ridiculous because we, and every major western nation, was already deep into being an industrialized, developed and consuming country by the year 2000.

Yes it’s true our manufacturing has gone to China, but they have simply ignored any safety or environmental practices. The amount produced rising so much, isn’t because we offloaded it to them, it’s that the people producing just don’t give a shit. Communists inherently don’t think sustainably.

If we retained our manufacturing, our advances in clean production would continue to advance and would continue, and China would have either remained a backwards commie clown show, just in a jungle instead of depressing Blade Runner-esque city scapes, or the Republic of China would have been able to retake it and the entire nation would not be enslaved to the CCP.

5
5DPancake 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't listen to potatoes, progressives, democrats, Marxists, commies or any other type of mentally handicapped degenerates.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
BatMitzvahAtEpsteins 1 point ago +1 / -0

the satellite record show the earth is warming. its warming due to the weaker magnetic field thanks to the current geomagnetic excursion.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
BidenLikesMiners 3 points ago +3 / -0

and if the fuckin boomers would stop buying their cheap shit on amazon, that would be nice.

3
rattleS 3 points ago +3 / -0

I wonder what that puppet's owners would say about that

3
BigMikesBrownCock 3 points ago +3 / -0

I hope this retarded bitch catches a rogue wave or something on her sponsors million-dollar yachts

3
rablecti 3 points ago +3 / -0

Each glacial era is colder with lower levels of CO2. During the previous one the CO2 concentration came within a hair of 150 parts per million, the threshold where plants asphyxiate.

Interglacial eras last 10K-15K years and have also been subsequently colder, with the current one being coldest. The one that preceded was so warm that polar ice caps didn't exist, yet life made it alright. If in fact we are warming the planet with CO2 emissions we may have postponed the next glacial era by a few a decades and even made it a bit warmer, dodging the likely death of plants once it arrives.

This interglacial is 10K years old already, so the next glaciation could start tomorrow or in 5K years.

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

Got it, nuke china.

India'll sort itself out.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0