Is Greta Thunberg a False Flag Tool for The New World Order and Why Is Sweden Exploding?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Hay I am back to take out those Ministers of falsehoods. Yes; you. What do you mean; I? I attached an article that I didn't author yet you ignored it because its out there. So are many others by other organizations. Your using simple wordsmith to evade the truth. Its not about me its about those independent journalists that I linked. Oh Greenpeace. Believe me their day of reckoning is coming.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: Jay-morris

Hay I am back to take out those Ministers of falsehoods. Yes; you. What do you mean; I? I attached an article that I didn't author yet you ignored it because its out there. So are many others by other organizations. Your using simple wordsmith to evade the truth. Its not about me its about those independent journalists that I linked. Oh Greenpeace. Believe me their day of reckoning is coming.

I read your link, agsin! Hersay no evidence! As for greenpeace, you know Absolutly nothing! Please tell me how their day of reckoning is coming?

Are you fanatics not only turning your back on climate change, but turning your back on organisations that do good work regarding the state of the planet?

Are you a trump supporter?

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: Jay-morris

Hay I am back to take out those Ministers of falsehoods. Yes; you. What do you mean; I? I attached an article that I didn't author yet you ignored it because its out there. So are many others by other organizations. Your using simple wordsmith to evade the truth. Its not about me its about those independent journalists that I linked. Oh Greenpeace. Believe me their day of reckoning is coming.

Are you fanatics not only turning your back on climate change, but turning your back on organisations that do good work regarding the state of the planet?

Perhaps you don't read well as it seems that English is not your native language. You also seem very young and naïve based on your vocabulary and spelling. Here it is in simplified form:
1. The climate is changing
2. The climate has always changed.
3. If you look at the evidence over the last few thousand years, you will see a range of temperatures unrelated to CO2.
4. We are about to enter a cooling stage that may be like the middle ages "little ice age."
5. The earth was warmer than now around the year 1000 -- note that Greenland was not named Whiteland or Snowland
6. None of the predictions about temperatures, rising oceans, or other dire events based on CO2 concentrations have come true.
7. CO2 is only important to those that stand to profit from trading in carbon emissions. This is merely another scam by those who wish to take from the common man to enhance their lifestyles. They have fooled many non-technical people into believing this, including Greta.

Nicely written. I need time to read that manual, looks interesting.

a reply to: pteridine
But is the first part of the title of the OP really about climate change or just a flimsy conspiracy theory about her being a puppet?

She will be 17 in a day or two. She will be 30 before she knows it but does that mean she isn't convinced of what she is fighting for, even if she is wrong?

She was guided by her parents. Aren't most people, except us rebel types?

How is her believing in climate change any different than the average christian, jew, muslim or child brought up in any religion taking on their parents beliefs any different?

To make it non secular, how is it any different to believing in your country, culture or community or even being polite because mom and dad taught you that?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: pteridine
But is the first part of the title of the OP really about climate change or just a flimsy conspiracy theory about her being a puppet?
She will be 17 in a day or two. She will be 30 before she knows it but does that mean she isn't convinced of what she is fighting for, even if she is wrong?
She was guided by her parents. Aren't most people, except us rebel types?
How is her believing in climate change any different than the average christian, jew, muslim or child brought up in any religion taking on their parents beliefs any different?
To make it non secular, how is it any different to believing in your country, culture or community or even being polite because mom and dad taught you that?

I believe that she is convinced that she is saving the world and that her parents have taken advantage of her. Her parents have stolen her childhood and her actress skills, whatever they are, are helping her. See my previous posts in this thread. I was responding to another poster about the climate change [yes, it is happening; no, CO2 has little to do with it. This will become apparent as the Earth starts into a cooling cycle.]

originally posted by: pteridine
I believe that she is convinced that she is saving the world and that her parents have taken advantage of her.

If she honestly believes, there is no taking advantage by her parents. It was her choice.

Her parents have stolen her childhood and her actress skills, whatever they are, are helping her. See my previous posts in this thread.

To do something she might honestly believe in?

I was responding to another poster about the climate change [yes, it is happening; no, CO2 has little to do with it. This will become apparent as the Earth starts into a cooling cycle.]

I know, which is why I said Greta might be wrong but, that doesn't mean she isn't acting of her own free will, which seems to have become the focus of this thread.

a reply to: pteridine

Perhaps you don't read well as it seems that English is not your native language. You also seem very young and naïve based on your vocabulary and spelling. Here it is in simplified form:

Oh look! We have another clever one! lololol

1. The climate is changing
2. The climate has always changed.
3. If you look at the evidence over the last few thousand years, you will see a range of temperatures unrelated to CO2.
4. We are about to enter a cooling stage that may be like the middle ages "little ice age."
5. The earth was warmer than now around the year 1000 -- note that Greenland was not named Whiteland or Snowland
6. None of the predictions about temperatures, rising oceans, or other dire events based on CO2 concentrations have come true.
7. CO2 is only important to those that stand to profit from trading in carbon emissions. This is merely another scam by those who wish to take from the common man to enhance their lifestyles. They have fooled many non-technical people into believing this, including Greta.

Your list of "evidence" has been seen before, so chances are, you done a copy and paste job. Problem is, you back none of it up with any actual evidence (what a suprise) Maybe go and see what trump says about it, then copy and paste it on to this thread!

We know the planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century. Evidence is overwhelming for that. Go check it out yourself!

This change, and the data evidence shows, is driven largely by increased carbon dioxide, and of course other man made emissions going into the
atmosphere. And is it a coincidence that most of the warming occurred in the last 35 years? We know that the five warmest years on record has taken place since 2010.

But hey! Its all made up! The evidence is all made up to suit your wild conspiracies! I guess the conspiracy that HIV does not cause AIDS is true too, and also the flat earth! lol

Are you another trump supporter? I would love go know!

a reply to: pteridine

This will become apparent as the Earth starts into a cooling cycle.]

And your evidence that the world will start to cool is where?

a reply to: Grenade

You would be best served to ignore Jay-morris. Constructive debate isn't really his strong point. You know those videos of people trying to engage left wing liberals and they just put their fingers in their ears and scream in your face. Pretty much the same thing only on the forum. If you support trump or any right leaning policy then you're pretty much scum in their eyes.

There you go, lying about me again! You just cannot help it can't you? I answered his question, but you still have to post lies about me! You really need to stop doing that!

a reply to: Jay-morris

Right. I wonder when the USA will designate Greenpeace as a Terrorist organization as they looked the other way back in the day and wanted nothing to do with what we blew the whistle on concerning compromised USA nuclear reactors. They don't seem to protest too much on those power plants anymore do they. Greenpeace needs to go to China. As far as the UK goes I wonder if the Royal family has a clue of who really is running their country. Thats according to my relatives who live in London and were born there.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: pteridine
But is the first part of the title of the OP really about climate change or just a flimsy conspiracy theory about her being a puppet?

She will be 17 in a day or two. She will be 30 before she knows it but does that mean she isn't convinced of what she is fighting for, even if she is wrong?

She was guided by her parents. Aren't most people, except us rebel types?

How is her believing in climate change any different than the average christian, jew, muslim or child brought up in any religion taking on their parents beliefs any different?

To make it non secular, how is it any different to believing in your country, culture or community or even being polite because mom and dad taught you that?

I think she is convinced she is right ... so here’s a little anecdotal poem my dad once told me: “She was right, dead right, as she sped along, and now she’s just as dead as if she’d been wrong.”
Moral of the story : climate change activists who “ know” they are right will lead the lemmings right off the cliff while they make rules that they believe are necessary to stop climate change ( you know things like taxing us 90# and stopping air flight and making us eat vegan fake meat because cow farts are methane) .

a reply to: Jay-morris

Here's what a disabled UK comedian was quoted as saying:

British comedian Rosie Jones has provoked a mass clutching of pearls on Twitter after she took aim at media’s most sacred cow, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, with an X-rated joke during a TV show. Appearing on Channel 4’s ‘The Last Leg’ on New Year’s Eve, Jones was asked what she thought of the 16-year-old campaigner, who was named Time Magazine’s ‘Person of the Year’ for 2019. “I think Greta’s amazing and what she’s doing is brilliant,” the disabled comedian said. “But don’t do it now.” She needs to live a little, she’s only 16. She should be doing two things: drinking Lambrini and getting fingered.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: pteridine

You would be best served to ignore Jay-morris. Constructive debate isn't really his strong point. You know those videos of people trying to engage left wing liberals and they just put their fingers in their ears and scream in your face. Pretty much the same thing only on the forum. If you support trump or any right leaning policy then you're pretty much scum in their eyes.

As for CO2, it's not really a pollutant as it's a naturally occurring gas. However, we have altered the climate significantly in the last 100 years or so by pumping too much of it into the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 has definitely increased and has had an impact on the greenhouse effect. If you have information which contradicts this assertion i would love to see it.

I would say however there appears to be exploitation of the data by certain institutions and an over inflated emphasis on reducing CO2 at all costs. I would also agree there are other factors in relation to climate change that are overlooked. Naturally occurring climate change isn't profitable however could be considered more of an influence.

C02 breathed by humans has very little impact. You should try warming up Montana in the dead of winter some time.
If Gore was really convinced he was right, then why did he have a mansion home on the ocean front ? And he expects the rest of the useless waters to live in duplexes and apartments while he claims carbon credits. Moral of the story : those who spout the lie expect to live in luxury while the rest of us pay.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I totally agree, CO2 emissions and their impact are over-inflated and the data exploited for political and financial gain. Without doubt I question the agenda, however it would be foolish to think that human pollutants don't effect the environment at all when they clearly do. Things like sulphur dioxide for example have a clear and direct impact on both our health and the environment.

Champagne socialists are abhorrent to me. It's amazing anyone actually believes their lies when you look at the lifestyle of those espousing them.

a reply to: Jay-morris

I read your link, agsin! Hersay no evidence! As for greenpeace, you know Absolutly nothing! Please tell me how their day of reckoning is coming?

And what is it exactly that you think you “ know”? Even if you didn’t copy/paste, you still get your info from sources which are misleading or just plain wrong. In the end it won’t matter whether you copy/paste, so long as you give credit to sources.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Here you go again. On the heels of a book deal! Plus, both sisters were diagnosed with several disabilities concurrently. So lets look at the picture. I have disabilities and I don't eat white bread but she does? Obviously the parents dont know what to feed their children Plus, whats up with all of that plastic.

There have been suggestions that having famous parents means Thunberg is the product of a wellorchestrated PR campaign. It is true that she started her school strike around the time their book was published.

Greta The Great

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I totally agree, CO2 emissions and their impact are over-inflated and the data exploited for political and financial gain. Without doubt I question the agenda, however it would be foolish to think that human pollutants don't effect the environment at all when they clearly do. Things like sulphur dioxide for example have a clear and direct impact on both our health and the environment.

Champagne socialists are abhorrent to me. It's amazing anyone actually believes their lies when you look at the lifestyle of those espousing them.

Yes of course you are right, but the problem is that Climate Change proponents are tackling the wrong stuff for one thing because their premise is wrong. Sure plastic litters the oceans but does that cause the planet to warm?
In fact we are in a natural cooling phase due to a solar minimum. The planet will cool even as Mr Harvard dropout is working with scientists to “block the sun”. That will be human intervention where it ought not to be and will actually make it worse.
Where are the environmentalists on Fukushima ? Why is coal so bad but not irradiated water from Fukushima?

a reply to: Waterglass

Because you do not agree with all their policies, that means they should be classed as a terrorist organisation lolololol You could not make this stuff up!

So, let me ask you this before I go any further. In your eyes, does greenpeace do any good work, or are they all evil terrorists lol