IRONIC: WOMEN GO TOPLESS TO PROTEST RAPE OF THE PLANET

Topless Women Protest ‘Climate Rape’ in London on International Women’s Day

 

A group of 31 women formed a topless human chain in London to protest against climate change on International Women’s Day. (Warning: explicit images.)

Members of the climate change alarmist group Extinction Rebellion (XR) took off their shirts on Waterloo Bridge, blocking traffic in an protest against the supposedly disparate impact that climate change has on women. The protestors painted slogans on their chests such as “climate rape” and “climate murder”.
A former teacher who took part in the protest, Sarah Mintram, explained the rationale behind the topless protest, saying: “It’s mainly women in poorer countries in the global south that are experiencing the increase in violence but this will be the reality for all women if the climate and ecological crisis continues to go unaddressed.”
“We are here to raise the alarm about what is happening to our sisters around the world and to tell women in the UK the climate and ecological emergency is your issue – it will affect you as a woman if we do not persuade our government to take urgent action starting now,” Mintram told the Metro.
Extinction Rebellion cited a January 2020 report from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which claimed that climate change was responsible for violence against women in the Southern Hemisphere.
The group was mocked on social media, however, by people who thought their protest diminished International Women’s Day, with one user writing: “You reduce women’s day to a farce.”
The climate change protest group has plagued London’s Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for years, costing the capitol’s police force an estimated  £37 million last year alone. The cost associated with policing Extinction Rebellion was more than double the annual budget for the Violent Crime Taskforce, which is only £15 million.
The increased burden on manpower and resources reduced the ability of London’s police to investigate other crimes in a city experiencing a growing knife crime epidemic.
Last month, in an exclusive Breitbart London video, three climate change activists were caught on camera getting arrested by London police, after students, Antifa, and Extinction Rebellion occupied London Bridge during their annual “climate strike”.

IRONIC: WOMEN GO TOPLESS TO PROTEST RAPE OF THE PLANET

Topless Women Protest ‘Climate Rape’ in London on International Women’s Day

 

A group of 31 women formed a topless human chain in London to protest against climate change on International Women’s Day. (Warning: explicit images.)

Members of the climate change alarmist group Extinction Rebellion (XR) took off their shirts on Waterloo Bridge, blocking traffic in an protest against the supposedly disparate impact that climate change has on women. The protestors painted slogans on their chests such as “climate rape” and “climate murder”.
A former teacher who took part in the protest, Sarah Mintram, explained the rationale behind the topless protest, saying: “It’s mainly women in poorer countries in the global south that are experiencing the increase in violence but this will be the reality for all women if the climate and ecological crisis continues to go unaddressed.”
“We are here to raise the alarm about what is happening to our sisters around the world and to tell women in the UK the climate and ecological emergency is your issue – it will affect you as a woman if we do not persuade our government to take urgent action starting now,” Mintram told the Metro.
Extinction Rebellion cited a January 2020 report from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which claimed that climate change was responsible for violence against women in the Southern Hemisphere.
The group was mocked on social media, however, by people who thought their protest diminished International Women’s Day, with one user writing: “You reduce women’s day to a farce.”
The climate change protest group has plagued London’s Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for years, costing the capitol’s police force an estimated  £37 million last year alone. The cost associated with policing Extinction Rebellion was more than double the annual budget for the Violent Crime Taskforce, which is only £15 million.
The increased burden on manpower and resources reduced the ability of London’s police to investigate other crimes in a city experiencing a growing knife crime epidemic.
Last month, in an exclusive Breitbart London video, three climate change activists were caught on camera getting arrested by London police, after students, Antifa, and Extinction Rebellion occupied London Bridge during their annual “climate strike”.

CLIMATE CONUNDRUM

What Is Earth’s Temperature, Now or Then?

Date: March 10, 2020Author: Nwo Report 0 Comments

Source: Jonathon Moseley

Is Planet Earth warming, cooling, or staying the same?  I often challenge advocates for climate alarmism: what is the temperature of the planet today?  Or we can use any specific day in recent years for which data are available. We cannot know the temperature of the planet thousands or millions of years ago if we cannot even measure it today.
Yes, the question is one single temperature of the entire planet.  Not the temperature in Nome, Alaska or Dallas, Texas, or Sydney, Australia or in your home town.  One single temperature reading for the entire globe.  To put it that way immediately sounds strange.
But if we don’t have a single temperature reading for the entire planet for today, how can we say if the planet is getting warmer or cooler or not changing at all?  We cannot talk about the temperature in, say, Geneva or London or New York City only.  The question is whether the entire planet is getting warmer, not isolated cities.
Some of us have forgotten basic statistics. Some avoided it in school.  But most of us are vaguely familiar with the random sampling process used in public opinion surveys.  We see opinion polls in the news all the time.  If we want to know how the USA’s estimated 153 million registered voters are going to vote on Election Day, but we don’t want to actually ask all 153 million of them, we have to follow (not violate) strict statistical methodologies for taking samples that are smaller than the entire “universe” or total population.
So if we ask 1,000 people — the same 1,000 people every year — whom they are planning to vote for, the results will be meaningless hogwash.  To be statistically valid, the sample must be random.  Each time.  Not a random sample one time that is repeated year after year.  Each sample subset must be truly, honestly random.  No games.  No phony adjustments.  Every time.  (It might be interesting to follow a subset over time to investigate why people decide whom to vote for.  But that cannot be used to predict the entire population.)
We also know that when people actually vote, the survey predictions are almost always wrong.  For one thing, when we survey people, we are not measuring how they are going to vote.  We are sampling what they are telling us, which is not the same thing.
The Earth is 196.9 million square miles of surface area.  It is a sphere 24,901 miles in circumference.  The vast majority of the Earth is ocean, and in particular vast, mostly untraveled waters like the Pacific and Southern Atlantic and the Arctic Sea.  The Earth is just unimaginably, stupendously big.  Most of planet Earth never sees any human presence, much less a weather station.
Another fatal flaw in climate alarmism is the failure to understand that air moves.  Air is made of gases, which by definition are not fixed in place or shape, but flow freely.  Alarmists try to evoke the image of carbon dioxide as like a blanket.  But carbon dioxide is not nailed in place.  It is free to move.  When warmed, all gases move upward towards outer space.  Convection transports heat from the surface up to the thin air, where jet airplanes cruise.  Heat is radiated from there out into space.
Air masses travel horizontally across the Earth.  Remember the polar vortex?  Extremely cold air sitting over the Arctic Circle is sometimes dislodged by air currents and moved south into Canada or even the northern United States.  The weather gets extremely cold.
But the Earth did not change.  Very cold air simply moved from one place to another.  The Earth is still the same temperature.  The Arctic got warmer, while North America got colder.  The air moved.  But overall, the Earth did not change.
Probably all of us have experienced, as this author has watched, the temperature drop 10 to 20 degrees within hours as a strong cold front moves in.  Even in the Bahamas, I have watched the temperature drop from the 90s to the 70s in only three or four hours.  For some reason, cold fronts when arriving are typically more violent and abrupt than a return to warmer weather.
Because the air is in constant motion, even a truly random sample of Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area would have to be taken on the same day at the same time of day.  Note that even in one location, the swing from daytime temperatures to overnight temperatures can be a 20- to 40-degree swing on the same day.
So why can’t we just measure certain cities and average their changes?  Because we are measuring weather, not climate.  Unless we measure the entire Earth we are just measuring air masses moving around, changing temperatures.
We are told scientists have adjusted for these concerns (in some mysterious magic way).  But actual rocket scientists accidentally crashed a lander into the planet Mars due to a mathematics mistake.  So forgive us if we would just like to look over their math.
The reader can find attempts to measure the Earth’s one single temperature.  For example, Carbon Brief’s “Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature?” offers mental gymnastics.  The hand is quicker than the eye.  One with a science education, not indoctrinated, will blow a gasket at the house of cards.
To measure the Earth’s surface area of 196.9 million square miles, there are about 10,000 weather stations on the planet, plus about 2,000 ships, airplanes, and ocean buoys.  Remember: Those stations were designed to measure local weather, not the planet.
The alarmists explain: “The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period.”  But there is no normal.  Local anomalies are driven by weather patterns, such as El Niño and the Polar Vortex.  Many weather stations are at airports for good reason.  But aviation has changed over time from occasional propeller planes to jet airplanes every few minutes.  The expansion of cities causes the heat island effect to artificially raise temperatures at airports no longer out in the countryside.
So “[d]aily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month.  These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.”  This is nonsense.  Then: “After working out the annual temperature anomalies for each land or ocean station, the next job for scientists is to divide the earth up into grid boxes.”
NASA, they say, divides the world up into boxes of 2 degrees longitude by 2 degrees latitude.  That is a gigantic area — over 19,000 square miles — with enormous temperature variations within that box.  The other measurement schemes are 5 degrees by 5 degrees or over 119,000 square miles each.  There is vastly different weather occurring within each 119,000-square-mile box.  Again, there are only 12,000 weather stations, including part-time ones on mobile craft for the entire planet, unevenly focused too much on the “First World.”
From the time the thermometer was invented with a scientifically valid scale comparable from one thermometer to another around 1850, other than use as a novelty or hobbyist’s toy, and meticulous records started (every day, the same time of day), measurements were concentrated in Northwestern Europe and the Northeastern United States.  Gradually, decade by decade, driven largely by the rise of air strips in World War I, the locations, geographic diversity, quantity, and quality of weather stations changed over time.  So even the temperature records we have are not comparable across decades.
In short, you can claim to be able to measure the world’s temperature.  But if you want to really do it — good luck.

https://nworeport.me/2020/03/10/what-is-earths-temperature-now-or-then/

CLIMATE CONUNDRUM

What Is Earth’s Temperature, Now or Then?

Date: March 10, 2020Author: Nwo Report 0 Comments

Source: Jonathon Moseley

Is Planet Earth warming, cooling, or staying the same?  I often challenge advocates for climate alarmism: what is the temperature of the planet today?  Or we can use any specific day in recent years for which data are available. We cannot know the temperature of the planet thousands or millions of years ago if we cannot even measure it today.
Yes, the question is one single temperature of the entire planet.  Not the temperature in Nome, Alaska or Dallas, Texas, or Sydney, Australia or in your home town.  One single temperature reading for the entire globe.  To put it that way immediately sounds strange.
But if we don’t have a single temperature reading for the entire planet for today, how can we say if the planet is getting warmer or cooler or not changing at all?  We cannot talk about the temperature in, say, Geneva or London or New York City only.  The question is whether the entire planet is getting warmer, not isolated cities.
Some of us have forgotten basic statistics. Some avoided it in school.  But most of us are vaguely familiar with the random sampling process used in public opinion surveys.  We see opinion polls in the news all the time.  If we want to know how the USA’s estimated 153 million registered voters are going to vote on Election Day, but we don’t want to actually ask all 153 million of them, we have to follow (not violate) strict statistical methodologies for taking samples that are smaller than the entire “universe” or total population.
So if we ask 1,000 people — the same 1,000 people every year — whom they are planning to vote for, the results will be meaningless hogwash.  To be statistically valid, the sample must be random.  Each time.  Not a random sample one time that is repeated year after year.  Each sample subset must be truly, honestly random.  No games.  No phony adjustments.  Every time.  (It might be interesting to follow a subset over time to investigate why people decide whom to vote for.  But that cannot be used to predict the entire population.)
We also know that when people actually vote, the survey predictions are almost always wrong.  For one thing, when we survey people, we are not measuring how they are going to vote.  We are sampling what they are telling us, which is not the same thing.
The Earth is 196.9 million square miles of surface area.  It is a sphere 24,901 miles in circumference.  The vast majority of the Earth is ocean, and in particular vast, mostly untraveled waters like the Pacific and Southern Atlantic and the Arctic Sea.  The Earth is just unimaginably, stupendously big.  Most of planet Earth never sees any human presence, much less a weather station.
Another fatal flaw in climate alarmism is the failure to understand that air moves.  Air is made of gases, which by definition are not fixed in place or shape, but flow freely.  Alarmists try to evoke the image of carbon dioxide as like a blanket.  But carbon dioxide is not nailed in place.  It is free to move.  When warmed, all gases move upward towards outer space.  Convection transports heat from the surface up to the thin air, where jet airplanes cruise.  Heat is radiated from there out into space.
Air masses travel horizontally across the Earth.  Remember the polar vortex?  Extremely cold air sitting over the Arctic Circle is sometimes dislodged by air currents and moved south into Canada or even the northern United States.  The weather gets extremely cold.
But the Earth did not change.  Very cold air simply moved from one place to another.  The Earth is still the same temperature.  The Arctic got warmer, while North America got colder.  The air moved.  But overall, the Earth did not change.
Probably all of us have experienced, as this author has watched, the temperature drop 10 to 20 degrees within hours as a strong cold front moves in.  Even in the Bahamas, I have watched the temperature drop from the 90s to the 70s in only three or four hours.  For some reason, cold fronts when arriving are typically more violent and abrupt than a return to warmer weather.
Because the air is in constant motion, even a truly random sample of Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area would have to be taken on the same day at the same time of day.  Note that even in one location, the swing from daytime temperatures to overnight temperatures can be a 20- to 40-degree swing on the same day.
So why can’t we just measure certain cities and average their changes?  Because we are measuring weather, not climate.  Unless we measure the entire Earth we are just measuring air masses moving around, changing temperatures.
We are told scientists have adjusted for these concerns (in some mysterious magic way).  But actual rocket scientists accidentally crashed a lander into the planet Mars due to a mathematics mistake.  So forgive us if we would just like to look over their math.
The reader can find attempts to measure the Earth’s one single temperature.  For example, Carbon Brief’s “Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature?” offers mental gymnastics.  The hand is quicker than the eye.  One with a science education, not indoctrinated, will blow a gasket at the house of cards.
To measure the Earth’s surface area of 196.9 million square miles, there are about 10,000 weather stations on the planet, plus about 2,000 ships, airplanes, and ocean buoys.  Remember: Those stations were designed to measure local weather, not the planet.
The alarmists explain: “The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period.”  But there is no normal.  Local anomalies are driven by weather patterns, such as El Niño and the Polar Vortex.  Many weather stations are at airports for good reason.  But aviation has changed over time from occasional propeller planes to jet airplanes every few minutes.  The expansion of cities causes the heat island effect to artificially raise temperatures at airports no longer out in the countryside.
So “[d]aily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month.  These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.”  This is nonsense.  Then: “After working out the annual temperature anomalies for each land or ocean station, the next job for scientists is to divide the earth up into grid boxes.”
NASA, they say, divides the world up into boxes of 2 degrees longitude by 2 degrees latitude.  That is a gigantic area — over 19,000 square miles — with enormous temperature variations within that box.  The other measurement schemes are 5 degrees by 5 degrees or over 119,000 square miles each.  There is vastly different weather occurring within each 119,000-square-mile box.  Again, there are only 12,000 weather stations, including part-time ones on mobile craft for the entire planet, unevenly focused too much on the “First World.”
From the time the thermometer was invented with a scientifically valid scale comparable from one thermometer to another around 1850, other than use as a novelty or hobbyist’s toy, and meticulous records started (every day, the same time of day), measurements were concentrated in Northwestern Europe and the Northeastern United States.  Gradually, decade by decade, driven largely by the rise of air strips in World War I, the locations, geographic diversity, quantity, and quality of weather stations changed over time.  So even the temperature records we have are not comparable across decades.
In short, you can claim to be able to measure the world’s temperature.  But if you want to really do it — good luck.

https://nworeport.me/2020/03/10/what-is-earths-temperature-now-or-then/

AGW CAUSES DIABETES. PROF, CHELSEA CLINTON SAID SO

THIS IS A BLAST FROM THE PAST [3 YEARS TO BE EXACT].

ONE WAY TO COMBAT THE HOAXERS WHO BELIEVE THAT CONSENSUS IS SCIENCE, AND THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CATASTROPHIC,  IS TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC IS REMINDED OF THEIR IDIOCY. THEN, IT'S UP TO THE PUBLIC WHETHER THEY LAUGH OR CRY.  I INCLINED TO LAUGH AT THIS.

CHELSEA CLINTON IS A PROFESSOR, I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW !!!

Chelsea Clinton warns global warming causes diabetes

03/30/2017 / By JD Heyes

To the far Left, the “science” regarding so-called “global warming” and man-caused “climate change” is settled, and the only thing left to discuss now is just how much of our economy to wreck and who should be spared from such economic devastation. After all, we can’t have enough power plants, automobiles and commercial jets to serve everyone.
But the reality is, there is no science to support the claim that humankind is causing the planet to heat up and alter the natural changing of the weather. This has been proven time and again through the exposure of fake data used to “prove” global warming, as well as admissions by globalists that the entire issue has been fabricated as a way of destroying capitalism and controlling the world’s population.
The Alt-Left also has a tendency to blame the goofiest things on climate change. For instance, in recent days, former Vice President Al Gore, who has made tens of millions of dollars pushing the climate change hoax, actually blamed Britain’s “Brexit” on climate change. Former President Obama blamed terrorism on climate change. (RELATED: EPA chief Pruitt truth bomb: No, ‘carbon dioxide’ does not contribute to ‘global warming’.)
And now former first daughter Chelsea Clinton, that paragon of climate scientists, says climate change causes diabetes.
You just can’t make some things up.
As noted by The American Mirror, Clinton took to Twitter recently to express her concern that climate change will lead to 100,000 new cases of diabetes each year – not fast food, or sugary drinks, or a poor diet…the weather:
“Horrifying research shows correlation between global warming & rise in diabetes cases,” she tweeted, including a link to a Los Angeles Times story citing some ‘study’ that makes the conclusion.
The Times reported:
If the average temperature rises by 1 degree Celsius, sea levels will rise, crop yields will fall and vulnerable species will see their habitat shrink or disappear. 
And, a new study suggests, the number of American adults suffering from diabetes would rise by more than 100,000 a year.
How allegedly educated people can be duped by such demonstrable nonsense defies belief.
The impetus behind the study is this. A 2015 study of eight adults – eight – who had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes found that after they had spent 10 days in moderately cold weather, they had improved metabolism and thus became more sensitive to insulin, which helped reverse key disease symptoms.
And in a 2016 study, researchers claimed to have discovered a correlation between the outside ambient temperature and blood sugar measurement (HbA1c); when temperatures were higher, so too was the blood sugar.
Well, these two findings led Dutch researchers to ponder whether climate change might be partially responsible for the rise in worldwide diabetes cases from 108 million in 1980 to 422 million by 2014. Using Centers for Disease Control Data on the prevalence of diabetes in all 50 states between 1996 and 2013, and average temperature data for each state during the same period obtained from the National Centers for Environmental Information, they concluded that higher average temperatures “in a particular time and place,” the Times noted, “the higher the age-adjusted incidence of diabetes.”
That’s it! Climate change has to be the culprit! And all of this from just 1 degree C temperature increase. (RELATED: ‘Global Warming’ Hoax Of Giant Magnitude Not Meant For ‘Saving’ Humanity, But Controlling It.)
That’s just utterly amazing. Never mind the dramatic rise in obesity during that same period – which the researchers claimed to have ‘factored in.’ Nope. It’s warmer temperatures that are causing more diabetes.
Now mind you, these researchers discuss their findings from the standpoint that human-caused global warming/climate change is already settled, when it’s not. So in their minds, humans are essentially causing an increase in cases of diabetes because we are affecting global weather patterns and making the earth hotter.
Chelsea Clinton is not stupid and neither are the researchers who did these studies. But the manner in which they come to their conclusions is flawed because they are based on a falsehood.
It very well may be that a higher incidence of diabetes is seen in regions where even slightly warmer average temperatures exist. But a) that doesn’t prove that humans are the cause of the warming; and b) it doesn’t rule out other possibilities, like maybe people spending more time outdoors indulging in bad eating and drinking habits in the warmer weather. We just don’t know.
But we do know that so much of the data has been faked that it’s impossible to take conclusions like these at face value.
Or the people who push them. For similar stories, visit Libtards.news.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

AGW CAUSES DIABETES. PROF, CHELSEA CLINTON SAID SO

THIS IS A BLAST FROM THE PAST [3 YEARS TO BE EXACT].

ONE WAY TO COMBAT THE HOAXERS WHO BELIEVE THAT CONSENSUS IS SCIENCE, AND THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CATASTROPHIC,  IS TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC IS REMINDED OF THEIR IDIOCY. THEN, IT'S UP TO THE PUBLIC WHETHER THEY LAUGH OR CRY.  I INCLINED TO LAUGH AT THIS.

CHELSEA CLINTON IS A PROFESSOR, I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW !!!

Chelsea Clinton warns global warming causes diabetes

03/30/2017 / By JD Heyes

To the far Left, the “science” regarding so-called “global warming” and man-caused “climate change” is settled, and the only thing left to discuss now is just how much of our economy to wreck and who should be spared from such economic devastation. After all, we can’t have enough power plants, automobiles and commercial jets to serve everyone.
But the reality is, there is no science to support the claim that humankind is causing the planet to heat up and alter the natural changing of the weather. This has been proven time and again through the exposure of fake data used to “prove” global warming, as well as admissions by globalists that the entire issue has been fabricated as a way of destroying capitalism and controlling the world’s population.
The Alt-Left also has a tendency to blame the goofiest things on climate change. For instance, in recent days, former Vice President Al Gore, who has made tens of millions of dollars pushing the climate change hoax, actually blamed Britain’s “Brexit” on climate change. Former President Obama blamed terrorism on climate change. (RELATED: EPA chief Pruitt truth bomb: No, ‘carbon dioxide’ does not contribute to ‘global warming’.)
And now former first daughter Chelsea Clinton, that paragon of climate scientists, says climate change causes diabetes.
You just can’t make some things up.
As noted by The American Mirror, Clinton took to Twitter recently to express her concern that climate change will lead to 100,000 new cases of diabetes each year – not fast food, or sugary drinks, or a poor diet…the weather:
“Horrifying research shows correlation between global warming & rise in diabetes cases,” she tweeted, including a link to a Los Angeles Times story citing some ‘study’ that makes the conclusion.
The Times reported:
If the average temperature rises by 1 degree Celsius, sea levels will rise, crop yields will fall and vulnerable species will see their habitat shrink or disappear. 
And, a new study suggests, the number of American adults suffering from diabetes would rise by more than 100,000 a year.
How allegedly educated people can be duped by such demonstrable nonsense defies belief.
The impetus behind the study is this. A 2015 study of eight adults – eight – who had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes found that after they had spent 10 days in moderately cold weather, they had improved metabolism and thus became more sensitive to insulin, which helped reverse key disease symptoms.
And in a 2016 study, researchers claimed to have discovered a correlation between the outside ambient temperature and blood sugar measurement (HbA1c); when temperatures were higher, so too was the blood sugar.
Well, these two findings led Dutch researchers to ponder whether climate change might be partially responsible for the rise in worldwide diabetes cases from 108 million in 1980 to 422 million by 2014. Using Centers for Disease Control Data on the prevalence of diabetes in all 50 states between 1996 and 2013, and average temperature data for each state during the same period obtained from the National Centers for Environmental Information, they concluded that higher average temperatures “in a particular time and place,” the Times noted, “the higher the age-adjusted incidence of diabetes.”
That’s it! Climate change has to be the culprit! And all of this from just 1 degree C temperature increase. (RELATED: ‘Global Warming’ Hoax Of Giant Magnitude Not Meant For ‘Saving’ Humanity, But Controlling It.)
That’s just utterly amazing. Never mind the dramatic rise in obesity during that same period – which the researchers claimed to have ‘factored in.’ Nope. It’s warmer temperatures that are causing more diabetes.
Now mind you, these researchers discuss their findings from the standpoint that human-caused global warming/climate change is already settled, when it’s not. So in their minds, humans are essentially causing an increase in cases of diabetes because we are affecting global weather patterns and making the earth hotter.
Chelsea Clinton is not stupid and neither are the researchers who did these studies. But the manner in which they come to their conclusions is flawed because they are based on a falsehood.
It very well may be that a higher incidence of diabetes is seen in regions where even slightly warmer average temperatures exist. But a) that doesn’t prove that humans are the cause of the warming; and b) it doesn’t rule out other possibilities, like maybe people spending more time outdoors indulging in bad eating and drinking habits in the warmer weather. We just don’t know.
But we do know that so much of the data has been faked that it’s impossible to take conclusions like these at face value.
Or the people who push them. For similar stories, visit Libtards.news.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

MORE FACT CHECKER FAILURES.

ONE OF OUR FACEBOOK PAGES, RIGHT TO SPEAK 2, WAS PUNISHED FOR SHARING AN ARTICLE REFERRING TO THE NUMBER OF RECENT AUSTRALIAN BUSHFIRES WHICH HAD BEEN STARTED BY ARSONISTS.

THE ARTICLE WAS FROM A WEB SITE CALLED "SUMMIT NEWS". NO ARTICLE THAT WE HAVE SEEN HAS MANAGED TO INCLUDE EVERY MINUTE DETAIL OF EVERY FACTOR INVOLVED IN THE FIRES. AT THE STAGE THAT THE ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN, IT WAS TOO EARLY TO WRITE A POST MORTEM - DOES THE SANCTION MEAN THAT NO STORIES CAN BE WRITTEN UNTIL ALL FACTS ARE KNOWN? THAT'S A RIDICULOUS PROPOSITION.

BUT NOT FOR FACEBOOK AND THEIR FACT CHECKERS CALLED [IN THIS CASE], SCIENCE FEEDBACK.

THEIR CLAIM OF A VIOLATION RESTED ON THEIR "FACT" THAT THE SUMMIT NEWS ARTICLE DID NOT INCLUDE CLIMATE CHANGE AS A FACTOR IN THE SEVERITY OF THE FIRES. THUS, RIGHT TO SPEAK 2 WAS PUNISHED FOR SHARING IT TO THEIR TIMELINE, EVEN THOUGH AT THAT TIME HUNDREDS OF SIMILAR ARTICLES WERE BEING PUBLISHED IN BOTH MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND ON INTERNET SITES. BUT RIGHT TO SPEAK 2, COPPED A BAN.

NOW THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE FACEBOOK FACT CHECKERS WERE WRONG

NOT ONLY ARE THEY WRONG .............. THEY HAVE UNJUSTLY DELETED AND PUNISHED FREE SPEECH BASED ON FACT. THE POSTED ARTICLE WAS NOT MERE OPINION. AND SO WHAT IF IT WAS?

HERE IS A SCREENSHOT OF THE ADVICE FROM FACEBOOK. I WON'T LENGTHEN THIS ARTICLE BY PUBLISHING THE ACTUAL ARTICLES SHOWN.

 


  

AS ONE CAN SEE FROM THE SHOT ABOVE, THE CAUSE OF THE FIRES AND THEIR SEVERITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.

THAT'S THE FACT CHECKERS ERROR #1

WHAT FOLLOWS IS THEIR ERROR [AND INJUSTICE] #2

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC STUDY PUBLISHED IMPLICATING CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE BUSHFIRES.

IN THE ARTICLE BELOW, THE CSIRO COULD NOT FURNISH SUCH A STUDY.

CSIRO caught fudging to boost climate conspiracy

March 05, 2020

It’s got to be one of the most awkward silences the Senate has ever seen.
For 10 excruciatingly long seconds yesterday, CSIRO boffins couldn’t answer a simple question from Queensland Senator Matt Canavan.
It all started when, in an attempt to push the “bushfires are caused by climate change” narrative, Labor senators got the CSIRO’s bushfires explainer document tabled in parliament.
They weren’t counting on the fleet-footed Canavan actually reading the explainer and catching the CSIRO out red-handed:
“When I read through it I noticed that the CSIRO had failed to include some key information,” said the savvy senator.
Canavan quoted the CSIRO’s official published position on climate change and bushfires: ‘However, no studies explicitly attributing the Australian increase in fire weather to climate change have been performed at this time’.
“Why wasn’t that sentence included in the explainer?” Canavan asked Doctor Peter Mayfield who was fronting Senate Estimates on behalf of the CSIRO.
“…it is really a question of what you choose to put in and not put in. There’s a lot of other things we could have written,” poor Mayfield bumbled.
Canavan replied:  “This is apparently the latest version of ‘Climate Change in Australia’.  Is that still the [CSIRO’s] position – that there are no studies attributing the Australian increase in fire weather to climate change?”
<insert said 10 excruciatingly long seconds here>
Mayfield silently stared down at his notes, searching in vain for a shovel.
“I can have a crack at that if you want, Peter,” a CSIRO colleague’s voice is heard over the microphone.
But Mayfield soldiered on:  “I was just having a quick check on it, yes.  At this stage there are historical studies around that but at this stage we haven’t done any specific work.”
To be clear, this was the Australian federal government agency responsible for scientific research caught red-handed trying to pin the bushfires on climate change despite its own official position being that there are no studies to prove this.
Speaking later in the evening, Canavan said:
“This was a document about climate change and the science about bushfires and they failed to include that the CSIRO has concluded in their last report on climate change in Australia that there are no studies linking climate change to fire weather at this stage.
“It’s like writing a report for a newspaper about a football match and not including the final score.
“It was essential to what they were trying to write and they left it out.”
Clearly this wasn’t a mistake by the CSIRO.
It was a deliberate attempt to fan the flames of the climate cult.
And of course, as solid members of said cult, the mainstream media hasn’t uttered a word about the exchange in Senate Estimates yesterday.
Information is being censored.  Only one story gets up these days:  Australia is burning and it’s all climate change’s/the government’s fault.


 

  THE END.