starting strength gym
Page 2550 of 3115 FirstFirst ... 15502050245025002540254825492550255125522560260026503050 ... LastLast
Results 25,491 to 25,500 of 31149

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #25491
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,377

    Default

    • starting strength seminar october 2024
    • starting strength seminar december 2024
    • starting strength seminar february 2025
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    Most certainly planned, but I am sure even the governors are surprised
    Governors or should we call them Marshalls?
    Thanks (or unthanks ) to you, I am currently reading Wall Street and FDR (Antony Sutton). Scary shit. They have been planning this stuff for a long time. For all intents and purposes Clinton Roosevelts 1841 booklet Socratic discussion between the Author and the Producer, and then Bernard Baruchs (1915) implementation of that message, is basically a reworded version of the Communist Manifesto.

  2. #25492
    Join Date
    Jul 2022
    Location
    Scottsdale Arizona
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    This is what USA Today, the world's premier news authority and foremost employer of 26-year-old journalism/mass comm majors, says about Steve Kirsch:
    If there is an FAA medical examiner on this board they should be able to confirm or debunk this information.

  3. #25493
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,377

  4. #25494
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    3,239

    Default

    Are we really bragging about popping a balloon?

  5. #25495
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    54,586

    Default

    This is very important: Climate Science Criticized by Climate Experts & More - YouTube

    46 enlightening statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC:

    Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
    Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
    Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
    Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
    Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
    Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
    Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
    Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
    Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
    Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
    Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
    Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
    Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
    Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
    Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
    Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
    Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
    Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
    Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
    Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
    Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
    Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
    Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
    Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
    Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
    Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
    Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
    Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
    Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
    Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
    Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
    Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
    Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
    Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
    Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
    Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
    Dr Murry Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
    Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
    Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
    Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
    Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
    Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
    Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
    Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
    Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
    Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
    My summary: https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...EC-6-17-22.pdf

    Really, think about this: A 4.6 billion-year-old planet with an 8000-mile diameter, with a molten core (heat, etc.), with an atmosphere that is only 50 miles/240,000ft thick (being rather generous), that orbits a star only 93 million miles away with 330,000 times the earth's mass and that emits enough radiation to burn your naked ass in 30 minutes, is having its weather unalterably changed over the course of the next 5/10/15 years (whatever it is now) by the presence of a weak greenhouse gas, CO2, that happens to now be at its lowest level in damn near the entire history of the planet -- a history punctuated by global glaciations while that weak greenhouse gas was far higher than it is now -- and that also happens to be the basis of plant life (and therefore atmospheric oxygen), a gas whose greenhouse effect is dwarfed by that of water vapor (on a planet with a surface area that consists of 70% water), and that geologically is currently in an interglacial period. The models that generated this political bullshit have predicted nothing correctly -- not sea level change, polar ice cover, or weather.

    And everybody believes it anyway, to the extent that they are handing the management of the world's economy to elderly megalomaniacs with an agenda based on their own personal power. You're not even allowed to question it -- otherwise sensible people have agreed with the ridiculous premise that CO2 is a deadly poison that must be eliminated from the surface of the earth. Every August, everybody runs around like it's not supposed to be hot. Every time there's a drought, everybody acts like it's the very first time it's been dry too long. "Hurricane season" started in June, and how many hurricanes have devastated the coastlines already inundated by the molten ice caps? How many times over the past 20 years of this shit have the hurricane predictions been correct?

    Really, the children are in charge now, seeking validation for "caring about the planet," running around yelling about "carbon" -- the 4th most abundant element in the physical universe --being a deadly poison. Their managers are common criminals whose entire agenda is money and control, and we are letting it happen. It is the result of the shitty science education we received in the government schools, and it probably cannot be stopped.

  6. #25496
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    This is very important: Climate Science Criticized by Climate Experts & More - YouTube

    46 enlightening statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC:
    This list is from 2013, I wonder how much longer it is today. Although things like this don't seem to help with the main issue, they just seem to keep circling among people who already know the climate change scandal is fake. Do you know anyone who was a firm believer in this and then saw something like this list and changed their minds?

  7. #25497
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,377

  8. #25498
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilead View Post
    Governors or should we call them Marshalls?
    Thanks (or unthanks ) to you, I am currently reading Wall Street and FDR (Antony Sutton). Scary shit. They have been planning this stuff for a long time. For all intents and purposes Clinton Roosevelts 1841 booklet Socratic discussion between the Author and the Producer, and then Bernard Baruchs (1915) implementation of that message, is basically a reworded version of the Communist Manifesto.
    I like Sutton's whole trilogy. Who knows, maybe it is a cover up or something, but he points to very good historical data, transcripts and stuff. It is just one of those works that make you realize almost everything about official history is a fabrication of some kind. He is British though, you can never trust those guys completely.

  9. #25499
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Dr Robert Malone's speech in Stockholm Sweden on Jan 21, 2023 - PsyWars: Fifth Generation Warfare and Sovereignty
    Thesis: Western Nations have globally deployed military-grade Psy-Ops on their citizens during the COVID crisis.

    He encourages us to stop thinking in terms of fairness and justice. "These people have no ethical boundaries." To quote Dr Malone, "Do not be naive."

    And, he touches on Barry's valid and still unanswered question: Who is the "they"?

    It's 43 minutes or you can skim the transcript.

  10. #25500
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    1,352

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Charles View Post
    Are we really bragging about popping a balloon?
    Yep. Looks that way. Maybe people won't notice South Carolina's coast isn't the one closest to China.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •