Cartoon by Timo Essner on climate change and Australia burning, Siemens and the adani mining project in Australia, coal and fuel to the fires
and again, please stop confusing climate change sceptics with pro-pollution activists, nobody wants to live in a dumpster
not believing in the climate religion doesn't make DENIERS evilwe doubt the political agenda behind it (carbon tax), another racket, another scam, for the profit of the same establishment who will simply transfer the rest o their dirty industries to the 130 counties allowed to keep growing their pollution levelsCan you see how the establishment could be behind a fake new green push now?
you say conspi theory i say verified conspiOne.org supports GretaWho supports One.org?Gates, Soros, Bono, Oprah, and banks, etc. Elite establishment, friends of the people? Their About Us link says it, not me.
Report: Soros funds Global Climate Strikehttps://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/joseph-vazquez/2019/09/26/soros-gave-global-climate-strike-partners-more-24m
But i said more than enough. this site isn't for discussion anyway.
Yeah, Nature is change and that change isn't always good for us. And well, I do see a lot of marketing. A lot of marketing against something clearly happening. We know about it by those who are affected by it. On the other hand, I simply can't grasp, that you'd rather see a conspiracy (that isn't proven) than the actually proven effects of close to 250 years of reckless worldwide industrialization. It's not just pollution in the air - it's air, water, land, everything. Frozen down as a proof in arctic ice, with rising and rising concentration. It's not just CO2 - it's the whole system of how we do things and do things to or environment. We are running this wrong and need to correct some of the gears and wheels in our machinery. That's all. But it's necessary. Forget about the media and politics, look at the big picture. And don't tell me, we can't change anything, we changed this place in one direction, we can change it in another. It's a question of critical mass and cooperation - ask any ant nest, you can find.
okay, i probably won't get you to question the marketing pushed on us
what is NATURE's principle? CHANGE...like it or not, nature will always change
someone decides what the perfect climate is (UN) and we're supposed to make it NOT change, how? by controling how climate works ? how arrogant is that ? should we stop the poles from shifting too, because that will certainly change the axis angle and then climate too... are we gods ?
industrial overfishing, pollution, climate: these are 3 different thingshuman problems need to be adressed = overfishing, pollution (like dumping plastic waste in the ocean)
climate doesn't need to be adressed, it's nature's job, not oursmega projects in china and soviet russia intended to manipulate weather and create micro climates, in general worsening the situation
europe was hotter than today under the roman empire and covered by ice during the ice age, and there was a mini ice age in the middle ages, obviously not caused by human industrial activity
if you don't see enough reasons to question this global agenda,well, i triedi said enough and let you reflect on that
consider that before believing some pseudo-science, pseudo-science is not new, the soviets used it among others
it's the cartoonists's job to question powerbut most here illustrate the narratives pushed on us by the elitesi'm just trying to shake some of you out of the hypnosis
Ice Age actually is a very good example ot catastrophic climate change, that we not would have an easy time coping with. Usually, ice ages came as an effect of other cataclysmic causes, like stellar bombardment or supervolcanos exploding. There is sign of reoccurrent Ice Ages due to precision in the Earth's voyage around the sun, but those are the ages that are known as "Little Ice Age" like e.g. in the middleages, where temperatures on average were like 10 degress celsius lower than today. Still, as far as I'm informed, that was no comparison to an Ice Age that covers all of Europe (or Canada) in ice 10,000 years ago.
Please hold back any conspiracy theories about who paid whom, until you have prove. If you don't have an invoice, an account, any written prove, theories about puppets and/or puppet masters have no place on this network nor as a comment to my cartoons, thank you. Let's stick to the facts. Also, a friendly hint: If you need a conspiracy theory to 'prove' a point -- there's no point to make. That's no prove, no valid argument, nothing to build upon. It's more of a self-induced, public disqualification. I'm being kind and constructive here, dude.
I'm not quite sure where you read the 5%, but you've heard of the ExxonPapers? And another thing: It's part of science, that scientists try to counterprove other scientists. That's actually part of science and it's a good thing. That's why it's really hard to be a scientist: You can come up with a theory and work all your life on it and somebody could make rid of it by proving you wrong. Yo really have to be into it, to be part of it. Now, let's assume, that some industry makes false statements. Science will prove it wrong - but it will take time. That's why, in the beginning of a new idea - may it be fact or not - there is much disapproval, *until proven right*. Now, some years ago, there was this number of 2% of environmental scientist who were opposing the theory of climate change. Well, yeah - duh. That's the statistical margin of dumb, lying or corrupt people. That does mean in fact, that 98% agree. Or let's considering your 5%, then just 95% agree. That's more of a majority agreeing, than people at *any parlamentary vote ever*. THIS is a topic, that one of the most fighting-with-facts group of people actually agree on!
Never mind the typos. Hope you don't mind mine, too. Well, and I hope you can understand what I'm writing, English is not my native language.
I don't care whether the industry pays for COP or not. Those conventions never worked out anyway. See latest examples. Same shit: Somewhere, there's a country blocking the decisions and others then saying: 'Well, if they don't, why should we?' That's why the botton-up was needed, and possible. The protesters are there, because COP et al. don't work out anyway. The protesters are there, because they see it. For a long time. A long enough time to form a critical mass. Whether you like it or not, agree or not - Mother Nature simply doesn't care. Because it's not an entity or person, it's a complex system, like a grown machine of millions and billions of different pieces, and we ripped out some parts here and there and put some other parts other places. Try that with your car, that's built from ONLY like 10.000 pieces and it simply won't work anymore.
I'd suggest you should take a trip out to the country and to the sea, and speak to farmers and fishermen. Take a trip to the woods and talk to the forester. I actually don't care about any papers - I can see it. I can literally observe nature, climate, weather changing where I live within the last 35+ years. Try to call the embassy of Bangladesh or any island state in the pacific. Seriously, dude - this ain't no marketing joke. And we are in the middle of it and there's no way, we can get out of here and leave it all behind, so we better save the place.
sorry for the typos, this comment section is not for long comments and has no editing...
i meant that less than 5% of scientific papers on climate were considering human activity having an impact on climate = one of the theoriesthanks to UN/G20/G8 + media now that's the only theory we hear aboutan article about climate change in a scientific paper is not a scientific paperscientists from the group UN bases its report on said their data was distortedone scientific magazine on climate admitted their numbers had been tweeked 40% up
i mean, it's easier to believebut there are too many reasons to seriously distrust it
okmaybe there is a problem with C)2 levels
i still suggest doubting powersbecause they have been trying that for decades with a changing scenario, first it was mini ice-age, then global warming, now climate change...as i said, the criteria for UN funding these researches is partial: human industry influence on climatebefore that it was less than 5% of scientific papersso maybe there is too much CO2 now, but there is too much of the same theory being shown, used as a religious truth and not as one of many theories, climate is not an established science. no science is final. this level of belief is not scientific.it's about the last 150 years only (industrial era), part of the criteriawhat about previous eras like ice age, the global flood 12 000 years ago, the dinosaus era with more carbon in the atmosphere and 4 or 5 animal extinctions with no humans around ?according to Gore, no ice in Artic in 2013according to NASA more ice in Antarticetc.
Greta is a symbolic, a puppet, knowingly or not, and part of that propaganda operationThe organisation behind her is funded by crooks like Bono and bigger player like Soros.
COP conferences are sponsored by energy players and nuclear energy like EDF for the Paris accords.
Don't you think there might be something wrong there?
In the Netherlands, there are greenhouses with an artificial atmosphere, containing up to 11% CO2. Why? Because that actually acts as a fertilizer for certain plants, e.g. bell pepper and tomatoes. Workers there have to wear breathing masks. Why? Because our breathing system is not adopted to 11% CO2 concentration in our breathing air. This is a problem for other species as well. Plus there are species that react very delicately to environment changes, e.g. sea creatures in rising sea water temperatures. So, CO2 in itself is not a poison - but too hight levels of CO2 will have poisonous and other destructive effects. It's the dosis, not the substance.
Greta is just a symbolic figure. Don't get caught in hatred against a child. She's not Jesus and she's not responsible for having merely a catalytic effect in hitting a point, that millions and millions agree on: Our industry is wrong, we live in a non-sustainable way, we wreck up the environment that we're living within, we've been too long ignorant and arrogant towards other life on this planet. This still would be true if Greta wasn't there.
The oceans are heating up. Warmer water contains less CO2. Warm water has more volume than cold water. The sea levels are literally rising both by melting ice AND the simple expansion of water through warmth. That's all basic schoolbook physics/chemistry. Now, the main CO2 short-time storing mechanism is not working anymore. Reforestation takes to long time and will not "drain" the atmosphere of CO2 to an extend needed within the next 20-30 years. In Canada, you'll be fine - but people in e.g. Bangladesh are literally losing their homes and homeland due to rising sea levels.
Effects take longe to be observed on a global scale, so we all have this time lapse, but the time is now, where we observe the effects and it's easy to predict based on the time lapse observable today, that the worst has yet to come.
CO2 in itself isn't a poison, but when CO2-levels in the atmosphere rise, this will disturb a system of different gases that only works with certain concentration levels. Now usually the atmosphere can cope with that, through exchange with the massive oceans. But since humans have raised the CO2-levels in the atmosphere to a certain degree, within very little time, the natural coping systems are not sufficient anymore and start to collaps. Wildfires and volcanos have always been there, but wildfires plus volcanos plus deforestation plus fossil fuels to an amount of millions of tons of oil, gas and coal being burned day by day, that otherwise would have stayed buried in the ground and storing the extensive CO2. The world won't go down - but our living home planet is about to become a nasty place that neither we nor lots of animals and plants are adjusted to. That's all - but's acutally, it's a rather big deal.
that doesn't mean pollution is good and fossile industries are angels.pollution should be adressed of course, who ants to live in a toxic environment?
it just means we are being sold another lie because it doesn't make sense, it is a fantaisy,
i mean, only te catastrophic scenarios get funding, and the last UN report produced 40 different scenarios. so, you can believe the one you want. The positive scenarios won't get funding from the UN, so you can't read those there.. the media chose to side with the UN and won't report the positive studies either. the only certainty is that we are doomed unless we accept to pay hundreds of billions for that dream.
if you were to receive such a message on your email box from a nigerian prince, would you believe it's a scam or a scientific certainty?
i know it's a cartoon, and that my question might sound weird, but actual green politics are cartoon physics:coal is bad, CO2 is bad, it heats the planet, causes fires, cartoon physics,i see green policies causing fires (forbidding fire-stopping controlled bush fires) and criminals putting fires, not digging for coal.same thing with california (millions of dead trees left to rot and forbidding owners to clear their own lands because nature policies).
I don't remember learning in school CO2 was a poison. Now they say it is poison. Kills the planet. cartoon physics at the UN. we're supposed tolearn from thebiggest expert on the planet, a know nothing 16 year old girl who gets to cross the Atlantic in a $6 million sailing boat belonging to the son of princess of monaco? well, how many of us can afford that kind of green stuff?
so i wonder how many of you here know it takes high density energy (fossil fuel) to produce things like steel that make up inefficient green low density energy producing generators like wind towers? and when there is no wind, they need backup from a fossil fuel or nuclear plant... real physics show the whole idea is illogical and counterproductive.cartoony.
Nah, it's a cartoon, dude. Think of 'vicious circle' as a simplified setup in an actual context. I'm quite surprised having to explain that in this environment. ^^
BUT I have to be a little nosey: Coal mining has been a big political, social, and environmental issue in Australia for decades (compare to e.g. oil sands in Canada). Siemens/Joe Kaeser are merely new protagonists in an ongoing play.
so a mining project (in the future) is causing actual fires?
Please Login to leave a comment