Just Don’t Call It Global Warming! – #PropagandaWatch

02/04/202065 Comments

Watch this video on BitChute / Minds.com / YouTube

Global warming. Climate change. Climate weirding. Climate emergency. What’s in a name? A lot, apparently. So much so, in fact, that the advertising execs over at Ad Age are openly wondering whether they can “rebrand” climate change so it sounds scarier. Yipee!

SHOW NOTES

RENAMING CLIMATE CHANGE: CAN A NEW NAME FINALLY MAKE US TAKE ACTION?

Oxford Word of the Year: “Climate Emergency”… Seriously?

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (65)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Octium says:

    I’ll have admit my age here but I remember when it was still called the “Green House Effect”

    Or if you really want to go back, the “New Ice Age”

    For example, Alternative 3, the worlds longest running April Fools day joke (Still catching fools over 40 years later)

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

    Anyhow, My suggestion for a new name would be “Global Flattening”
    It’s obvious if you drive cars over things it causes them to flatten (See a Roadrunner cartoon for scientific proof)

    Obviously we must tax this, after all we wouldn’t want flat earthers to be made correct now would we?

  2. Bigpicguy says:

    It’s all about the sun! They are hiding the pole shift with all the name changes & misinformation. The Adam & Eve story from the CIA tells us the reason why they want to hide it. Please look into this before speaking on the topic.

      • generalbottlewasher says:

        Bigpicguy, that’s very interesting. Do yousuppose the Dr.Stangeloves could subtlety influence the mechanizing of natural forces to outcomes that are not natural? Easing or constricting at specific points changing the pressure and temperature of the atmosphere to influence and change the direction and locations of the Kinks in the jetstreams?

      • wylie1 says:

        [https://youtu.be/bl4cQKKudjM] Video is not accurate about global warming, even if correct about CO2 not being the culprit. The guy didn’t do sufficient homework. Not warming. Now cooling according to Martin Armstrong’s data and cycle analysis. He is not beholden to anything, no conflict of interest nor dog in that fight, doesn’t work in that field for a living, just a numbers cruncher… As well as other’s analysis of the empirical data rather than analysis of bad computer models.

  3. Duck says:

    After I read Collapse, by Jared Diamond, I realized that we have zero need to worry about global warming until Greenland was warm enough to support giant viking cow farms the way it did back in 1000 AD… having played SimEarth on PC (great game) and boiled the oceans off dozens of times I’d been pretty worried for a few years.
    When you get old enough to see these type of changes it makes you consider what they say- but I can tell you the acceptance of climate collapse has way more in common with a religious awakening then the dissemination of a scientific idea and trying to argue science is usually a waste of time. I’ve had better luck with the rather cheap trick of showing how many times the message has changed.

  4. Autonomous says:

    Hi James,

    Couldn’t agree more. It sounds also so much more powerful when politicians _declare_ a climate emergency…

    As the narrative has been pushed for quite some time to blame climate change on human activity through so many different buzz words now, many progressives (at least the radical left) have latched on pushing this ridiculous agenda even further.

    To the radical left, climate change or climate emergency is synonym to oppression and injustice and that any solution for this supposed climate emergency has to be intersectional (a believe system that progressives like think of as real science). Hence buzz words being pushed by the radical left among others: climate oppression and climate racism.

    It is the idea that affluent people have a bigger share in the causes of climate change whereas those groups that had the least share in it, the people that are less well-off, bear the brunt of the impacts of climate change. This idea has been out there for quite some time, but apparently this also needed a more catchy make-over that would stir people’s emotions more actively.

    Looked at through the lens of intersectionality, climate change is supposedly a system of oppression that can only be solved if all groups that are oppressed in this system team up against the common theme in their oppression. No surprise, they actually believe that therefore the white man needs to be hung out to dry for climate oppression and climate racism. To the radical left this climate emergency needs to be checked first and foremost with the colour of your skin.

    For example here in the Netherlands, the Amsterdam city council has a left wing majority. But even this left wing majority could be heard saying “whaaaat??” when the radical left party after the election in its maiden speech before the council was claiming that one of the problems facing the city of Amsterdam was climate racism. Although many people were laughing at that time, in the mean time Amsterdam has joined other cities in declaring this thing called climate emergency.

  5. firehorse says:

    climate tax cow draining? climate green stripping? I need a term that describes the scam in an easy catchy way…

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      climate cha-ching
      or
      climate windfall

      • cooly says:

        Hi Fawlty-

        A very convenient climate

        And on another, unrelated note,
        #The Trump boys should be tossed, unarmed, into a cage with a lion. Let’s see who gets the trophies this time.
        I know that’s not relevant to this thread, but it’s in the news again, and that shit disgusts me.

  6. Richard says:

    The elites trying to control the masses with taxes and then dictatorships using the threat of their manufactured “climate emergency” are distracting from the work of finding ways to continue minimizing human caused pollution.

    “Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. …

    Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.

    Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that’s the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.”

    –https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

  7. Autonomous says:

    Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen. He is known for his theory on the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation as an indirect cause of global warming (source: wikipedia)

    His ideas make a lot of sense and are presented in his documentary on climate change and cosmic rays:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

  8. Daniel B· says:

    How come James isn’t willing to cover the following (email I sent him, but didn’t any response to this or follow up)?

    There’s one GARGANTUAN scam that’s long overdue for a incontrovertible
    exposé, which I believe I can prove to you in under five minutes!

    Start the clock :).

    If I took a Waterworld fandom a little too far, and converted my open
    plan living area / kitchen into a good sized swimming pool (I actually
    like the movie, but not that much 😉 ), I could make it 8.5 meters
    long (interior length of my house), by 3 meters wide, by 1.79 meters
    high (exceeding my height of 5’9″), which equates to 45.65 m³ (meters
    cubed).

    Now check out the following official Airbus illustration of their
    claimed “jet fuel” capacity for the A330-300, an in particular, the
    fuel they claim you can store in just one wing (inner + outer tanks):
    https://i.imgur.com/5U038gx.jpg (if you’re super cautious about
    clicking email links, you can manually access it by manually entering
    address as i.imgur dot com, and then pasting /5U038gx.jpg ).

    Yeah, that’s right, they are LUDICROUSLY claiming that each wing can
    store my sizable SWIMMING POOL’s worth of “jet fuel”, of 45,650 liters
    (as you likely know, 1000 liters has a volume of one cubic meter),
    which is completely PREPOSTEROUS, and I can’t believe they’ve gotten
    away with this for all this time (ALL airlines make similar claims).

    Stop the clock! If at this point you are not 100% convinced (link to
    official source document, provided below), that they are MASSIVELY
    exaggerating the quantities of “jet fuel” modern passenger jet
    aircraft use, I will be completely flummoxed, but given your extensive
    body of quality work, such as exposing what actually transpired on
    9/11 (building 7 (as well as 1+2) OBVIOUS controlled demolitions,
    given that ZERO steel-core buildings have ever collapsed due to
    fire…), I can’t see how you wouldn’t be on board.

    Assuming you’re still with me, and I’ve thoroughly piqued your
    interest, check out my recent hi-res photo of the left wing of the
    Airbus A330-300, with spoiler flaps up, which CLEARLY cannot store
    ANYTHING, let alone the RIDICULOUS quantities of “jet fuel” they
    claim: https://i.imgur.com/B917VbA.jpg?1 (i.imgur dot com
    /B917VbA.jpg?1 ).

    The official AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS AIRPORT AND MAINTENANCE PLANNING
    manual (https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/backgrounders/techdata/aircraft_characteristics/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A330.pdf
    ), which I’ve updated on the WayBack Machine Internet archive, also
    has another BIG clue, which is the extremely low claimed refueling
    pressure of just 50 psig (unlikely to be a typo, as repeated three
    times), because at that very low pressure it would literally take
    hours to pump the quantities of fuel they publicly quote. IT IS though
    consistent with the refueling rig I captured on video, as shown in the
    following still, which PLAINLY does not have the capacity to pump “jet
    fuel” at the EXTREMELY high pressures, which would be required to
    refuel the VIrgin Airlines jet I was on in just the TWELVE minutes I
    witnessed (they claim my flight needed 46K liters…):
    https://i.imgur.com/qkby4V5.jpg .

    [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words. Longer comments can be broken up into multiple posts. -JC]

    • Daniel B· says:

      [Thanks James for allowing my comment to be posted. I’d super appreciate a birthday present for tomorrow (I’ll reach the big 50!), by posting any thoughts you have on the rock-solid claims I’m making?]

      Here’s the snipped portion of my email (I used the Regular Expression /\w+/g to count the words (< 400), which seemed to work well enough):

      Possible conclusions (on refueling pressures) one can reasonably make
      from this are: a) a limited quantity of fuel (NOTHING like what's
      claimed) is being pumped, at the low pressures stated, OR b) something
      else is being pumped, such as water, OR even c) NOTHING is being
      pumped, and the overly complicated refueling rig is ALL FOR SHOW, and
      "high bypass turbofan engines" (NOTE: even in official animations of
      the technology, they indicate that most of the thrust is obtained from
      the air that bypasses the core, so NO combustion / "jet fuel" is
      involved), not only DON"T use "jet fuel" (purely compressing the air
      creates the thrust required), they actually require minimal energy to
      sustain the cruising speeds.

      Why would they perpetrate this possibly UNPARALLELED scam? It's the
      MOUNTAINS of cash they not only STEAL from the travelling public, in
      grossly inflated airplane ticket prices, but ALSO, the HUGE tax
      write-off they make on the NON-EXISTENT (or minimal) "jet fuel" costs:
      https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/first-quarter-2019-us-airline-financial-data

      I made my own low-production video on the subject, but I know you
      could do a much higher-quality presentation exposing this HEIST, which
      is also HIGHLY relevant today because it's also underpinning the
      "climate change" SCAM, claiming passenger jets are one of the greatest
      contributors to their FAKE climate emergency, when in fact jets are
      very likely an impressively efficient, and safe, form of travel:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0RICLMb-D0 (on my danny8bit channel,
      which you could search for if you don't want to use the link).

      Also, you might like to check out my attempt to get a fighter pilot
      (also pilots 737s) to admit to this SCAM, and one interesting thing
      here is that he didn't question the refueling time of twelve minutes,
      and very likely the pressures he quotes are IMPOSSIBLE, and my video
      COMPLETELY underlines his claim (no evidence of very high pressures):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLVq1Je9AVM&lc=z22zgrdhesrizr3dbacdp433xjwo15n215wis00dkgdw03c010c.1579461480483328

    • Daniel B· says:

      Why is no one willing to talk about the “Jet fuel HOAX” (candlelight / David Kelly don’t count, as anyone who defends the elites’ claims that jet aircraft wings can store sizable SWIMMING POOL’s worth of “jet fuel” are pushing BOLD FACED lies), which unlike 9/11, which is freely discussed by James el al, is NOT directly responsible for several thousand deaths in the U.S. (such as from breathing the asbestos ridden dust from the controlled demolitions of buildings 1, 2 & 7), let alone the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, from the faux wars fought in the name of the 100% manufactured 9/11 attack?

      This MONUMENTAL scam is just a multi-TRILLION DOLLAR heist, that is also used to prop up the “climate change SCAM”, as these passenger jets IN REALITY use minimal “jet fuel”, so generate minimal carbon emissions.

      • candlelight says:

        Daniel B.,

        That’s a very good question – why isn’t anyone willing to talk about the “jet fuel HOAX”?

        But, first, I do want to commend your forthright stance on the false flag that was 9/11, and the miserable faux wars it was used to justify, causing literally hundreds of thousands of casualties in its wake. Besides, I’m in complete agreement with you that those towers were imploded.

        For me to make sense of this so-called “jet fuel HOAX”, I would need a little more specific information from you. Particularly, what do you mean by “minimal ‘jet fuel””? And, further, when you say “minimal”, is this a clarification of your earlier claim:

        “…as ZERO fuel combusted (in a jet turbine) means ZERO carbon emissions!”

        So, my question is, how much jet fuel consumption are you now talking about?

        Because, if it’s ZERO, then we have nothing to talk about on this matter. As that is an absurdity and as preposterous as believing the earth is flat.

        While an industry-wide, conspiratorial overstatement of fuel consumption – and here we are talking about an extremely extensive industry, from development to production to its employment through-out the globe – is hard to swallow (for me, at least), at least there’s a little meat on the bone.

        So, it would be nice to know if you have any measure of such falsification to back up your claim? Do you have any data you can point to? Any independent, quantifiable research on modern jet engine fuel efficiency?

        As far as the location of fuel storage in the wings of certain commercial jets, or jets in general, be they commercial, military, or otherwise, it has nothing to do with my “defending elites”.

        I don’t consider the words of an airline mechanic claiming to have repaired fuel repositories located in the wings of airliners to be that of a so-called “elite”. Nor do I think the dozens and dozens of photos taken in the field depicting such a phenomenon, to be somehow completely doctored, phony and misleading. But, that’s just me.

        And, that’s actually neither here nor there – where fuel tanks are located, and where they’re not. The much broader question, and the question that’s more apropos to your hoax theory, is the question of just how much fuel you are supposing these jet engines actually use.

        To say simply “minimal” is way less than adequate, way less than a minimal answer.

        • Daniel B· says:

          Candlelight,

          Many thanks for your reply, and your willingness to keep an open mind.

          First, I hope you will be happy to concede that “causing literally hundreds of thousands of casualties” vastly minimizes the hundreds of thousands of deaths that can be attributed to President Bush Jr’s regime change Iraq war, and even the Washington Post, who I normally disregard out of hand, has an 2018 article estimating the death toll at 600,0000! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/20/15-years-after-it-began-the-death-toll-from-the-iraq-war-is-still-murky/

          Back to the “jet fuel HOAX”; let’s just concentrate on my core claim, that this is MONUMENTAL scam, where by vastly exaggerating the quantities of “jet fuel” modern passenger jet aircraft require, the elites are perpetrating an ongoing multi-TRILLION DOLLAR heist.

          Doesn’t the official and current Airbus A330-300 “Hazardous Materials” illustration (I added the “dimensions” table) EASILY make my case (https://i.imgur.com/5U038gx.jpg ), as the quantities of “jet fuel” they quote are obviously PREPOSTEROUS, as the interior volume of the wings CLEARLY cannot accommodate ANYTHING significant, let alone the 45,650 liters (that’s 45+ metric tons worth, or the weight of SEVEN African Elephants – OH COME ON!!!)?

          Please also carefully re-review my hi-res photo of the left wing, with the spoiler flaps up, paying particular attention to the construction of the wing (there’s a horizontal “see through” gap extending 2/3 length of wing) and the thinness of the trailing edge: https://i.imgur.com/B917VbA.jpg?1 There’s really NOWHERE for ANY fuel tank to go!

          I thought my sizable SWIMMING POOL example (8.5 m x 3 m x 1.79 m) would make this CRYSTAL CLEAR, that we’ve ALL been had to a MASSIVE degree, but, let’s re-consider the total volume of 45.65 m³; if you had a tank extending the full length of the wing, of 27.33 m, with that volume you would need a tank 1 meter high, by 1.67 meters wide – OH REALLY???

          I also thought my point on the “refueling” pressures was possibly HIGHLY significant, as a pressure of 50 psig, as quoted in the official Airbus manual, is pathetically low, but IT IS consistent with the comical refueling rig: https://i.imgur.com/qkby4V5.jpg (my video snapshot). And, if they’re really pumping fuel, at LOW pressure, just because it’s attached to the wing doesn’t mean the fuel is stored there.

          • candlelight says:

            Daniel B·,

            600,000 deaths, yes. Over-all casualties, including wounded, and displaced, lives ruined, then we’re talking about millions, especially when considering not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but Libya and Syria, as well.

            The diagram you provided of the A330, showing the fuel tanks in the cross-hatched area, including outer wing, inner wing, center and trim tanks, according to the diagram adds up to a 36,743 gallon capacity. I was reading that the average fuel efficiency of the 747 is about one gallon per second, 3600 gallons per hour, and on a long distance flight of 10 hours – 36,000 gallons. So, from what’s described, it all makes sense.

            It was also discussed that very long flights – 13 hrs+, were discontinued due to the fact that the excessive weight of the fuel required didn’t allow for enough passengers to make it economically feasible.

            Even if these jet engines were incredibly efficient, still, we’re talking about 500 passengers on a transatlantic flight, together with the luggage, together with the weight of the plane, itself, huge fuselage, engines, etc., etc. That’s tens and tens of thousands of pounds to be kept up in the air against the force of gravity.

            In any event, there are plenty of people – many on this board, including James Corbett – who believe that man-made global warming is a hoax, or scam, perpetrated by elites, and believe so despite the probable full acceptance and acknowledgement – or even without a thought – of whatever fuel consumption the airline industry claims.

            One thing for certain, no matter what the carbon taxes are that may be ultimately imposed, if it does, indeed, come to pass, the airline industry will not be curtailed. The price of a ticket might go up, but, then again, only to the degree to which the market will bear. And, if, as you say, they’re reaping immeasurable profits based upon their inflated fuel costs, they’ll have a lot of leeway to absorb the additional cost to cover their purported carbon footprint. And, further, if what you say is accurate, maybe when such carbon taxes come to pass, the industry will come clean on their actual fuel expenditures….Just a thought.

            Anyway, I think that there’s so many other factors involved in the over-all climate debate, that adding another controversy, especially one that’s not readily embraced by those who are actually on the same side of the climate debate as you are, adds very little if anything to the debate, and very possibly, and inadvertently, believe it or not, may do more harm than good.

            Anyway, I think it’s something to consider.

            Be good.

            • Daniel B· says:

              Candlelight,

              🙁

              Are you really defending the elites claim that a transatlantic passenger jet wing can store “jet fuel”, equivalent to the weight of SEVEN male African Elephants (45+ metric tons), which in REALITY would far exceed structural integrity of the aircraft, and would result in the wing being ripped off the plane??? If so (you don’t sound entirely convinced of your position), then if your thinking is representative of even Corbett Report members, the pathetically weak spell the elites have cast on Humanity cannot be broken, and we’re all SCREWED!

              I bet any mechanical engineer would take one look at that Airbus illustration and ask “That has to be from an Onion article?”, and EFFORTLESSLY backup my claims, including on the laughable low refueling pressures (50 psig), which would take many hours to pump the quoted FANTASY LAND fuel levels.

              This MASSIVE fraud is directly linked to “climate change” SCAM (see Tony Heller’s YouTube channel for almost daily debunking of practically ALL the BOGUS stats, such as there being NO observable sea level rise!), as climate alarmists often site passenger jets as big contributors to anthropogenic “climate change”, so DISPELLING the “jet fuel SCAM” would not only save the travelling public $$$, it would also remove a significant pillar from the “global warming” BS (as you have eluded to, this would be a significantly easier slogan for the public to get behind, as the idea that ZERO fuel is used is non-starter).

              PLEASE, please, though address my KEY point, because if CLEARLY, an Airbus A330-300 jet wing BEYOND OBVIOUSLY cannot hold the claimed 45K liters of “jet fuel”, one MUST CONCLUDE that the claimed fuel levels are WILDLY exaggerated, as IN REALITY, the available space to store fuel (NOT in the wings), is rather limited.

              • candlelight says:

                Daniel B·,

                If this jet fuel obfuscation is real, it means that it is incredibly immense, ubiquitous and thoroughly consistent the world over. It means it is perpetrated not only by the owners of the airlines industry, but by tens of thousands of ordinary working people who are hardly elites – technicians, mechanics, truck drivers, mechanical engineers, draftsmen and draftswomen – people who by their profession would by rights have to know better, and be concealing “your truth”, whom you seem to share with relatively very few, and I dare say, extremely few, people.

                On either side of the climate debate, I don’t see any disagreements fomenting regarding the quantities of jet fuel being actually burned or not burned, or being argued as a key issue or a major source of the problem. Yes, it’s argued by climate alarmists that the burning of jet fuel adds to global warming, along with everything else, of course. Global political and financial elites along with their IPCC may claim this about jet fuel, but meanwhile, the airline industry who you say has taken great pains to inflate their consumption of jet fuel, also claim at the very same time, that said quantity burned equals a relatively paltry 2 to 3 percent of over-all carbon emissions, world-wide, and through advances in technology plan to decrease this percentage substantially.

                Do you see how something doesn’t add up here?

                Meanwhile, if a lot of folks go WTF on your jet fuel hoax theory, and don’t believe you, or think that your jet fuel hoax is a hoax, that can’t be a good thing.

                In other words, rejection of your jet fuel hoax is only going to make Greta look more credible, and not the other way around.

                Unless you start backing up what your saying, other than making conjectures from a few photographs, and hopefully start getting some corroboration from insiders, preferably, I think what you’ve got going here is a negative, not a positive thing.

                I’m not trying to put you down or anything, as everybody is entitled to their beliefs; I’m just trying to be constructive. To me, the jet fuel hoax is a non issue and not worth the confusion.

            • Daniel B· says:

              Candlelight,

              The IMMENSITY of the SCAM is ACADEMIC; any SANE reasonably intelligent high school student, who hasn’t previously had any thoughts on the subject, would recognize Airbus’s own illustration of claimed fuel levels as a COMPLETE JOKE (FOR GOODNESS SAKE, you PLAINLY cannot store SWIMMING POOl’s worth of anything in the wings, that is equivalent to the weight of SEVEN African Elephants)! WHY CAN’T YOU CONCEDE the obvious, and if you rightly do, you HAVE TO CONCLUDE this possibly UNPARALLELED scam has to be 100% real!

              Airbus’s own claims on the refueling pressures of the very low 50 psig (repeated three times in THEIR documentation), along with the HARDLY impressive refueling truck I videoed (in terms if the hose attached to the wing), that somehow managed to pump 46,0000 liters in just twelve minutes (ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE!!!), also corroborates my claim!

              GIVE IT UP Candlelight; whilst I agree the “jet fuel SCAM” is fantastical, is it really any more so than the numerous people that must have been involved to pull of the 9/11 FALSE FLAG, including how on Earth they managed to plant the huge quantity of super-thermite charges required to bring down buildings 1, 2 & 7???

              • candlelight says:

                Daniel B·,

                Even less certain than your hoax, would be convincing me that there are any reasonably sane, intelligent high school students left to ask!

                Provided below is a link to an aviation website page, headed with the question:

                “How long does it take to refuel a big jumbo jet?”

                https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26132/how-long-does-it-take-to-refuel-a-big-jumbo-jet

                Here’s one answer:

                “I worked for a long haul airline with 744s departing South East Asia to Europe.

                The airplane usually required 120-140 metric tonnes of fuel for the trip back. There would usually be around 15-20 tonnes left from the previous sector and you would usually require around 30-40 minutes to fuel 100-120 tonnes. This is using two pumps, one on each wing.

                The problem was if you needed to fuel up to max which was around 170 tonnes (depending on the fuel density), the last 10-20 tonnes took longer to fuel. This was rare though. Since we only had slightly more than an hours ground time we had to board while fueling was in progress. There is an SOP for this, basically a door had to be open at the rear and a set of steps positioned, we usually used door 5L. Also passengers were told not to fasten seat belts, crews were required to be at their stations and most importantly a firetruck had to be standing-by at the stand. We had to pay for the firetruck call-out but on-time departure was more important.”

                Here’s a youtube video about fueling the wing of a A380 jumbo jet. Get a load of the size of the wing! Ha! These aren’t little wind-up toys!

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BiYQbD-mVk

                There are innumerable videos, articles, discussions and anecdotes of those who work or who have worked in the industry, that can be found Online.

                Here’s a fueling video from jetBlue:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKA2lV1-GvU

                You can spend days and weeks watching and learning about this subject.

                It is not a hoax, Daniel B·. It’s reality.

                It’s time to stop basing your argument upon what some random, uninformed, high school student might surmise about a subject they know absolutely nothing about, which would be, unfortunately, as you freely admit, a satisfactory and conciliatory affirmation of your jet fuel hoax, that is, as far as you are concerned, which isn’t actually very far at all, is it, Daniel B·?

                The veracity of your fuel hoax is not at issue here.

                Au contraire!

                🙂

                It is far, far less ingenuous, is it not?

            • Daniel B· says:

              Candlelight,

              I see I have to simplify things for you, and ALL you have to do is go on record and either AGREE or DISAGREE with the following statement (if you don’t say either, you AGREE with the statement):

              “Each wing of the Airbus A330-300 has the capacity to store 45,650 liters of “jet fuel”, which has a volume of 45.65 cubed meters (length of wing is 27.33 meters), and would fill an impressive sized swimming pool, measuring 8.5 x 3 x 1.79 meters, with the weight of 45.65 metric tons, or the equivalent of SEVEN male African Elephants.”.

              REMEMBER, if you DON’T say either AGREE or DISAGREE, and do your BS politician Nancy Pelosi impression, and refuse to answer, you AGREE with the statement!

              • candlelight says:

                Daniel B·,

                I hereby go on record, for all eternity, and then some, according to multiple sources, which seem to vary only slightly, your figures on volume are on target. So, yes, I agree. However, I don’t agree with your metric tonnage figure of 45.65 metric tons. At an average weight of jet fuel of 6.8 lbs/gal, and 2204 gal/metric ton, if there’s approx 12060 gal per wing, then there’s approx 37.21 metric tons per wing, not 45.65. Perhaps you had transferred the 45.65 cubed meter figure by mistake.

                From what I see of the wing design of the A330, I see no reason to discount the above statistics which are corroborated by multiple sources. The average cross section of the wing, particularly between the fuselage and the engine, indicates that the wing has quite a bit of interior volume to accommodate a considerable amount of jet fuel, commensurate to the volume of your “swimming pool”, especially given the additional volume afforded by the outer tanks.

                While stationed on the ground, the wings are supported by the landing gear. So, unless the elephants start dancing to a disco beat, their combined weight shouldn’t be a problem. On take-off, when sufficient speed is reached, the airliner takes flight, whereby the plane is “lifted” by its wings, therefore, at that point, the weight of the fuel is nullified.

                That’s most likely why a plane’s landing weight is critical, when any excessive fuel weight could spell disaster if there’s too much fuel still remaining in the wings. If the plane is fitted with a central tank, its fuel is consumed last, after fuel in the wings are used up.

                Your no fuel hoax hoax, I’m afraid, is unfounded.

            • Daniel B· says:

              Candlelight,

              Prepare to eat humble pie: https://i.imgur.com/U4iOCVB.jpg

              The dimensions are again taken from Airbus’s A330 “AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS AIRPORT AND MAINTENANCE PLANNING” manual (link in original post), and what I’ve calculated is the surface area of the FANTASY fuel tanks (inner + outer), and volumes for an average wing thickness of 1 ft (0.3 m), of 24 m³, which is being generous, and for 6″ (0.15 m) which is probably closer to the real average, which would yield a mere 12 m³, without allowing for ANY of the required flap hydraulic piping, etc, etc, as shown in my hi-res photo of the wing (see original post).

              So if we’re being REALLY generous, and say the average thickness of the wing is 12″, the volume, NOT ALLOWING for ANYTHING else, would be around HALF what’s claimed!!!

              P.S. on the fuel weights, that’s interesting (I was aware of the claim that “jet fuel” weighs significantly less than water, but this largely doesn’t effect my claims, and 37.21 metric tons would still likely EXCEED the structural integrity of the aircraft), and I’m going to buy 1 liter of gasoline and confirm it really does weigh around 0.75 kg (a liter of water weighs 1 kg).

            • Daniel B· says:

              Candlelight,

              I “somewhat” jumped the shark in my previous comment (2 x 2 m is 4 m², not 2…). Here’s my corrected reply, which still SUPPORTS the hoax:

              Prepare to think again: https://i.imgur.com/TSpMECg.jpg

              The dimensions are again taken from Airbus’s A330 “AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS AIRPORT AND MAINTENANCE PLANNING” manual (link in original post), and what I’ve calculated is the surface area of the FANTASY fuel tanks (inner + outer), and volumes for an average wing thickness of 1 ft (0.3 m), of 41.4 m³, which is being VERY generous, and for 6″ (0.15 m) which is probably closer to the real average, which would yield a mere 20.7 m³, without allowing for ANY of the required flap hydraulic piping, etc, etc, as shown in my hi-res photo of the wing (see original post).

              So even if we’re being REALLY generous, and say the average thickness of the wing is 12″, the volume, NOT ALLOWING for ANYTHING else, would be 4.25 m³ (4+ cubed meters) BELOW what’s claimed!!!

              P.S. on the fuel weights, that’s interesting (I was aware of the claim that “jet fuel” weighs significantly less than water, but this largely doesn’t effect my claims, and 37.21 metric tons would still likely EXCEED the structural integrity of the aircraft), and I’m going to buy 1 liter of gasoline and confirm it really does weigh around 0.75 kg (a liter of water weighs 1 kg).

              • candlelight says:

                Daniel B·,

                I might very well starve to death if this is all the humble pie you’re giving me!

                To whit:

                Based upon the .30 m thickness, giving a volume of 41.4m3: (yes, I’m using the more “generous” dimension*)

                41.4m3 = 1,462ft3. If 1ft3 = 7.48gal, then 41.4m3 will accommodate 10,936 gals.

                What was the statistic that was stated in the earlier post? 12,060 gals/wing?

                10,936 gals comes to a little over 90 percent of 12,060 gals purported to be the holding capacity.

                I’ll take the 90%, along with my little sliver of that humble pie. 🙂

                *Personally, I think the lesser thickness of .15m yielding 20.7m3 seems ridiculously thin. There is a LOL after this figure displayed on the diagram. Ha ha, Laughing Out Loud? Maybe someones joke?

                By the way, this has been a bit of a marathon betwixt the two of us. I find it odd not a single subscriber has bothered to join in. LOL

                cheers

            • Daniel B· says:

              Candlelight,

              Hmm, you might be embarrassed when you see the following photo, as I think most would agree that even 6″ may be generous, for the estimated average thickness of the wing: https://i.imgur.com/SZGwWbl.jpg

              Given that the diameter of front of engine is 2.76 meters (center of the flap track fairings are 3.44 meters apart – source Airbus A330 manual), the wing rapidly thins out from 0.39 meters, and at the engine it’s already down to 0.13 meters, where it’s mounted quite close to the fuselage (at 25% of wing extension, excluding tip).

              I can’t see how you can discount anything I’ve said here, but let’s just agree to completely disagree, and I’m entirely confident in the evidence I’ve provided, and 100% maintain that passenger jet aircraft wings ARE NOT used to store ANY “jet fuel”, because doing so would break many laws of physics, and therefore the relatively small amount of fuel these jets actually do use is stored somewhere in the fuselage, using the limited space that is actually available (allowing for passenger luggage, landing gear, etc, etc).

              • candlelight says:

                Daniel B·,

                Compare the leading edge of the wing in your picture to the size of the windows. That should give you an idea that the thickness of the wing is not 6″, or anything close.

                I do like your idea, though, of agreeing to mutually disagree, as we are not going to change each other’s minds any time soon. I totally respect that.

                At any rate, I’ll rest my case with this very detailed cut-away mechanical drawing of an A330.

                https://conceptbunny.com/airbus-a330/

                Make of it as you wish, or not. That’s entirely up to you.

                All I know, is the next time I’m on an A330, however long the flight, at least I know I’ll be able to strike up an interesting conversation for the duration – I may also be tempted to play devil’s advocate, just for fun.

                Cheers!

            • Daniel B· says:

              Candlelight,

              Err, someone else just “jumped the shark”!

              If you use good old MS Paint to “grab a window”, it roughly matches the height of the leading edge of the wing, where it attaches to the fuselage (measuring the window I make it 0.44 m, so slightly taller). But, if you move that same window over to where the engine is attached, it’s CLEARLY several times the height, corresponding with the 0.13 m I quoted (3.4 times).

              To verify my calculations I calculated the height of the door (excluding frame), which is RIGHT NEXT to the wing, at 1.936 m, and INDEED, this corresponds with the ACTUAL measurement in the manual of 1.93 m, which is 4.96 times the thickness I quoted for the wing, at the fuselage, which ANYONE can VISIBLY see!

              Someone’s thoroughly OUT OF GAS here, but it’s been fun :).

              The Ministry of Truth may be able to get CNN / MSNBC viewers to believe 2 + 2 = 45,650, but I would hope James Corbett members are IMMUNE to such POPPYCOCK!

              As you say, it’s a REAL shame that no one else threw in their considered opinion, but, ho hey…

              • candlelight says:

                Daniel B·,

                Yup, it’s been fun, and I’m a bit out of gas, too, ha ha.

                Though, I feel the need to mention, that the particulars of your above post, I’m afraid to say, I do not follow.

                I’m guessing there is a “paint” feature in Microsoft Word or Office? I have no idea. Also, I don’t know which window, in which link, you’re “grabbing”. So, I cannot reference any of the measurements that you’re calling out.

                One thing to keep in mind is that if you are “moving” any object in a perspective rendering of any sort, from one place to another, you are by default going to distort its relative size.

                Anyway, if you want to further clarify your above post, feel free. If you truly are out of gas, I can understand that, too.

                Be good.

  9. zyxzevn says:

    It should be called: Climate Amnesia

  10. geisha says:

    I agree with this having been made into a political issue to heat up all sides and achieve more control over the masses.

    I’d also suggest to keep in mind ‘intentional’ climate and or weather modification. So much data incl. US senate and Air Force documents, Iranian UN statement, former military or commercial pilot interviews, NASA photography, independent (also from academia) lab data etc. on intentional climate engineering is available at http://www.GeoengineeringWatch.org

    Climate engineering might be used to obscure what Earth’s climate patterns are facing and/or to impact another country’s weather patterns (causing droughts, floods or ice/snow as in the Vietnam War or in China, or in all countries listed as axis of evil after Sept. 11.). Aerosols used for stratospheric aerosol injections may also contain microbes as ice nucleation nuclei,…. etc. “Owning the weather by 2025, Weather as Force Multiplier” by the US Air Force writes about it. Pres. L. Johnson speaks about ‘Owning the Weather”; “and he who owns the weather owns the World” – video is still available online.

    Of course neither the creators & proponents of the ‘Green New Deal’ nor environmental groups or scientists admit to the reality of intentional climate engineering. NOAA and weather service personnel has been gagged, and the active military service anyway.

    I think this is important to explore.

    • wylie1 says:

      Thank you for posting. Now I don’t have to keep saying: Any discussion of weather factors that doesn’t include the impacts of GeoEngineering – Weather Modification – Chemtrails – HAARP, are erroneous.

    • candlelight says:

      geisha,

      You’re absolutely right about considering the global climate impact of geoengineering, and the fallacy in either downplaying it, or altogether ignoring it.

      By the way, Corbett member Noahsark723 posted a link below of that LBJ speech where he says “And those who control the weather, will control the world”. LBJ looks and sounds like a damned lunatic as he pronounces this now apparent prophetic and dire statement.

      Member Thomas.j, below, posted a video link featuring William van Wijngaarden, a Canadian university professor at York, specializing, among other topics, weather. According to articles about him, he’s a so-called climate skeptic, which implies he doesn’t go along with or agree with the main stream “science” modeling of climate change/warming, and by his statements refers to those folks as alarmists and discounts the idea of increased CO2 or methane levels as being of any impacting importance to earth’s climate.

      That’s all well and good. Because I have my doubts about that, too. But, what bothers me is that when Wijngaarden discusses his studies and experimentation with green house gases, he site only five! Co2, methane, ozone, etc. I absolutely object to the fact that at no time does the good professor discuss possible effects of the slew of chemical compounds, heavy metals, particulates of all kinds that are pumped into the atmosphere, year round, world-wide, 24/7. Let alone, the fact that at no time this good professor mentions squat about geoengineering.

      Why is that? Is he dumb? Is it off topic?

      It’s interesting that he, along with another colleague and co-author of a certain influential paper, William Happer, have the ear of the Trump administration. Here’s a link:

      https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/unpublished-paper-former-white-house-climate-adviser-calls-methane-irrelevant-climate

      First, I want to say one thing: I am no supporter of the Al Gore “Inconvenient Truth” movement, or whatever you want to call it, because it’s core premise – increases of CO2 driving climate change -smells a helluva lot more like a “Convenient Lie” than anything else. And, on this topic, there’s lots to go into, to be sure….

      But, one of the things that really burns my ass about Donald Trump, is why in fuck, if he’s such a people’s champion, like his big mouth says he is, then why the fuck hasn’t he said one goddamned word about fucking chemtrails? Not a single word. He’s such a big climate denier, but not a peep out of that big mouth on geoengineering….Why?

      Because he’s nothing but a big, fat, stinking puppet.

      That’s why.

      • Daniel B· says:

        Candlelight,

        Could it be geoengineering is just another tool in the toolbox of the long con being perpetrated against Humanity, along with the “climate change” SCAM and … (no prizes for guessing, but let’s stay on the same page for a moment 😉 )?

        I woke up this frigid morning to beautiful blue skies, with warming sunshine, only to be replaced with a completely chemtrailed sky, very effectively limiting temperature increases for the day, AND thus requiring EVERYONE being blasted by the Arctic chill, to shell out on high heating bills…

        See my impassioned rant and video exposé of a chemtrailing event, soon after chemtrailing came to the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia in December of 2017, which also touches on the “climate change” SCAM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-_JsfAeVd0

        Just recently, I had never been given a reason to question my Dominion electricity bill, but back in mid-December, we had some unseasonably warm temperatures, where I was out and about in my shorts, however, despite me using my space heaters significantly less than normal (there’s nothing I use that would account for high bill, e.g. don’t use my heat pump), my electricity usage was somehow just as high as last year, and DOUBLE what I had expected! Since then I’ve been monitoring my usage like a hawk, however the temperatures have remained normal (cold), and I saw no unexpected jump on my meter (used 776 kw/h, vs. 1000+ last year)…

        On President Trump, yeah, I’ve had the same question: if he’s really fighting for U.S. citizens, why didn’t he promptly END the geoengineering program??? I confronted my Virginia Senator, Tim Kaine, on the chemtrailing in a public meeting, and, of course, he claimed he knew nothing about it (when he was taking questions he wouldn’t take mine (wise move on his part), but in hindsight, I should have just jumped in). Following the meeting I emailed his representative and he gave me the official contrails BS…

        I will also say though, President Trump is INFINITELY more palatable than HRC (and the Democrats in general), who was talking tough on Russia leading up to the 2016 election, where the unimaginable prospect of WW3 really couldn’t be discounted!

        • manbearpig says:

          “…I woke up this frigid morning to beautiful blue skies, with warming sunshine, only to be replaced with a completely chemtrailed sky…”

          me too.

        • candlelight says:

          Daniel B·,

          Rather shocked to see you on a different thread!

          @15:42 “…Here we go, look at this, look at this bloody…jet!…”

          Your accent made me laugh.

          Question: What do you mean when suggesting geoengineering is perhaps “…just another tool in the toolbox of the long con being perpetrated against Humanity, along with the “climate change” SCAM…”

          Assuming nefarious political debate on “climate change”, leading to carbon-capture, leading to carbon-taxation is a long con(job), in what way does spraying the atmosphere with toxic particulates add to this supposed “climate change” deception?

          It is interesting how the political elite not only deny the ongoing implementation of geoengineering, they even feign total ignorance of the subject manner. It’s stupid.

          The concept of geoengineering can’t even be referred to as an open secret. Because it’s not secret, at all. Scientists and researchers write about it and have panel discussions about it. It’s an included subject in textbooks. And, yet, political hacks like Tim Kaine play Mickey-the-Dunce, because it’s not listed in their myopic, dumbed-down playbook of sanctioned rhetoric.

          And, for good reason. 1. Said scientists and researchers couch their discussions on geoengineering as something to be considered on a theoretical level, for implementation in the future . So, officially, ongoing geoengineering is denied. 2. Well, secondly, there is no secondly. Since geoengineering is officially denied, politicians blithely shut their mouths.

          Although, the dam may be breaking – let’s hope! Check this out:

          https://www.ecori.org/government/2019/5/13/ri-geoengineering-bill-has-international-implications

          As for Don the Con: There’s something unsettling about being literally a captive audience to Trump’s art of brinkmanship. I dismissed him as a hopeless egoist 40 years ago when he first unabashedly plastered his gilded name on the skyline. And I dismiss him as a hopeless egoist 40 years hence.

          In 2016, for the first time in my life, I didn’t vote in the general election. I had zero interest in voting for the lessor of two evils. People tell me that my not voting was a vote for Trump. In the coming election, I will vote for anyone but Trump, except if Hillary was on the ticket. Hillary, the witch, will never get my vote.

          But, really, the truth of the matter is, it just so happens, that these people, by and large, are all in the same league, the Hillarys and Trumps of the world.

          That’s the biggest con of all.

          Hmm, sounds like “carnival”.

          • Daniel B· says:

            Candlelight,

            I volunteered for Bernie in 2016, and after he was cheated out of the nomination (e.g. 200K voters purged from the election rolls in NYC, which the authorities admitted to, and yet there’s been ZERO consequences…), and then after he promptly endorsed “the witch”, I voted for Jill Stein. Since then he’s lost the plot, reversing mainstream positions on things like immigration (open borders, REALLY?)…

            As to what I meant on how geoengineering might relate to the deep-state’s long con, I was suggesting that the reason they blanketed our blue sky today, robbing us from the warmth of the sun, could be to keep electricity consumption high. Also, how my previous month’s bill was DOUBLE what I expected, which did correspond with the seasonal average, might be linked (perhaps they were not willing to lose out on expected revenue). I suppose someone could have been stealing my electricity, but I’m at home most of the time, so that would have been very hard to pull off, consuming 400+ kw/h extra (nothing this month has spiked my usage).

            Does anyone else remember the unseasonably warm temperatures from mid-December to mid-January, where you could have been outside in short sleeves and shorts?

            There is another possibility that might explain the reason for the chemtrailing (it could of course be multi-faceted), which is backed up by excellent evidence; see my video DANGER, Will Robinson! Chempilots have the day off?! for another rant, and before you make any snap judgements, you should then review my quality evidence in the video description (e.g. there’s my video snapshot from FAA weather cams that CLEARLY shows a unknown celestial object, that the authorities quite possibly don’t want people to see, hence heavy chemtrailing – might only be visible in infrared wavelengths, i.e. only some digital cameras can see them): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFJkO1J1HpE

  11. marc.g says:

    Could that article by AdAge (https://adage.com/help/about-us) be just a publicity stunt?

    I was about to share it and suddenly I got a pang that that was exactly what they wanted.. to have their article shared by everyone..

    It seems too “good” to be true..

    Anyone sharing the suspicion?

  12. Ethan Hunter says:

    Just want to say that I love the humorous approach that James takes here – and we do need humor when we see how ridiculous the lengths the globalists are taking to hype up the carbon footprint nonsense to justify a global carbon tax system.

    Oh, and what a pertinent reminder to what Edward Bernays described at the beginning of the last century of whom the Invisible Government really uses to socially engineer the public.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      Yes I too was smiling as James kicked off the video with his humorous approach.
      But it was more than just humor. It was the first time I had seen James partake in acting!
      I think he should be encouraged to push further into the possibilities of this untapped video dimension.

      • Ethan Hunter says:

        I agree…he has a lot of potential for acting and for humor that would definitely add some spark and spice to his already wonderful video presentations!

  13. Ian Davis says:

    Hi James, sorry I haven’t watched the video yet (will do in a bit) but just wondered if you are familar with the current work of Joseph Postma (GooTube Climate of Sophistry).

    His latest video is, in my opinion, quite mind blowing. His argument is that, at the most basic level, the physics of so called anthropogenic global warming is flawed in the most fundamental way. I can’t refute his logic and have asked AGW true believers to do so. As yet, the few that have bothered to respond, have been unable to do so with any clarity at all.

    I really think he’s on to something and wonder if he would make an interesting guest.

    I don’t think the Earth is flat and I also believe the Sun exists. So does Joseph but apparently Climate Scientists do think it is flat and don’t believe in the Sun. At least, that’s the apparent conclusion.

    Check this out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUNQTyH76j0

    All the best and thanks for the mention in the Fake News of the Year awards.

  14. Libertydan says:

    The whole Climate, (The Sky is falling) thing is a Diversion intended to divide the masses so that the elites can take even more control as they kill off those that don’t work for them. You have to admit that they have to get creative if they want to get the world population down to 500 million.

  15. scpat says:

    The constant renaming of the climate campaign runs parallel to the constantly changing years in which action must be taken or else. They both are the process of “moving the goalposts.”

  16. Seeker says:

    Looking a bit like a military man today James.

  17. wylie1 says:

    We are in a “climate emergency” any time politicians are in the vicinity, typically wanting to reign all over us.

  18. Noahsark723 says:

    Those in power have been steering hurricanes since after world war 2. The whole climate change psy-op is not designed to create a non-existent problem but to be the cover story in regards to them taking over the weather system/systems of the planet. The weather is now their weapon and they knew the effects it was going to have and was having. The “climate change” is happening; because they are changing the climate with their technologies, all James is doing here is exposing the cover story to be a lie. The question should be; to what end?

    I am well aware that the weather has changed. When I was young growing up in South Eastern Pennsylvania there were 4 seasons. Summer was hot the Fall cooled off into Winter were it got cold and stayed cold until Spring came rolling around and it would warm up into Summer again. I was 23 the first year that there wasn’t a real winter, it was 1998. It never really got cold and stayed warm all winter. I worked for a landscaper at that point and we really didn’t stop working for too long that season. We cut back to 2-3 days a week about… My point is that I remember when the weather changed and I remember when the chemtrails started full time in 2003, around where i was living then. A few years later the bees started dieing – the first sign in the effects of among many that their weather weapon is causing.

    There is more to this story – we need to look beyond this false dialectic or either real or fake – sure it is fake, no doubt!!! – BUT TO WHAT END?

    https://geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/vol3ch15.pdf
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSckAwdkcAU

    As far as I am concerned we are the looking at a repeat of the Fall of Atlantis, this is no different; its the same shit – different technologies.

  19. PaulaPaalu says:

    Here is perhaps the best insight how and why climate science became corrupted. Dr. Peter Lindzen is an Emeritus Professor of Meteorology in MIT and he witnessed the whole history of climate science since 1960s, How James Hansen and other pundits became corrupted.

    https://www.cato.org/events/science-progressing

  20. ab17 says:

    Climate Aggggggggggh! Fools! You’re all going to die!!!!!!!!™ *

    * People probably won’t die.

  21. thomas.j says:

    Here is a refreshing video about the climate change consensus. Not only is there not a consensus but here is a professor that actually claims climate modeling is complicated

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

    No wonder since climate is a complex system. Perhaps the consensus scientists should read up on chaos theory.

  22. 111823 says:

    I would like to see James interview Ben Davidson at

    suspicious0bservers.org

    I think James sharp mind and interview skills would make this interview with Ben a must see.

  23. phaedrus42 says:

    The latest term that seems to be becoming fashionable with the alarmists here in South Africa is “Climate Collapse”

  24. manbearpig says:

    idle comment:

    so I was rewatching Jane McGonigal’s Ted Talk “gaming can make a better world” with a student; and there’s this part where she describes the 4 things she says she thinks generations of gamers are becoming virtuosos at (after having spent 10,000+ hours playing online games).

    -Urgent optimism
    -Weaving Social Fabrics
    -Blissful productivity
    -Epic meaning

    and I realized that climate change has been totally gameified. What appears to be Urgent pessimism is in fact Urgent optimism, the optimism of camrades heading out to slay the dragon, a mission to prevent the apocalypse, a sense of moral purpose, a place to put your creative efforts, to channel your indignation and revolutionary spirit, your magical spiritual druid energy complete with nordic virgin priestess with flowing hair…

    This sustainable, feudal, egalitarian, new world environmental community paradise being touted by the 17 Global Goals is Camelot… it’s Matrix… the technocratic reality veiled by deep-sleep virtuality… carbon footprints calculated in points, carbon credits, play again…

    I mean, she’d explained her real-world problem games she’d devised; peak oil, Superstruct with its Global Extinction Awareness System and some other bank/UN sponsored social innovation program offering certification an’ all..

    but I hadn’t quite seen Climate Change and its portrayal in the media, its proposed solutions and pep talks in quite this light before…

    I even understand my climate change expert neighbor a whole lot better now…He’s playing Arthur…

  25. a822 says:

    Endless rebranding clearly points to the manipulation at work in this whole weather scam. Was that Greta calling?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top