Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17
What annoys me is how otherwise intelligent people are either too lazy or too gullible to think for themselves and use just a tiny bit of common sense.
I live in Minnesota, where it routinely drops below freezing in winter and tops 100 degrees sometime during summer. That's a 100 degree change over about 6 months. Life survives. Yet, a one or two degree change spread over 100 years is supposed to be disastrous?
Carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring form of carbon in a carbon-based world, is required for all plant life (trees, grass, plants, vegetables, algae, etc.) Yet it comprises just one half of one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. That means, for every 2,500 parts in the atmosphere, only ONE is CO2. And that is supposed to be too much, to the point of trapping heat and causing calamity?
People need to think just a little bit.
|
There was a vid of a CBC journalist talking about how CBC told her "We don't want people thinking for themselves, we want them to believe everything we tell them" when she wanted to talk about/air all the adverse affects/vaccine injuries that were happening but the CBC refused.
She ended up quitting do to that as she didn't like their controlling/biased/brainwashing attitude and their media coverage regarding that.
Of course that vid has now been removed and is nowhere to be found so I'm thankful I was able to watch it before it was.
The thing is people can't connect the dots and see that Trudeau funded them 675 million dollars of our tax payer money but they still think the CBC isn't biased/favors Trudeau and the Liberals.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ticle29354285/
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth
Just for fun I had to look it up.
Minnesota Hottest day on record is 115 F Coldest day on record -60 F 175 degree difference.
South Dakota Hottest day on record is 120 F Coldest day on record -58 F 178 degree difference.
Seems like we get some extremes at both places.
https://www.rd.com/list/coldest-warm...n-every-state/ |
Did you notice some of those dates, Ben? 1899, 1915, 1925, 1905, 1936, 1913, 1916, etc. I'm sure if one were to look, they'd easily find many articles debunking these dates and debunking the science/temperature taking techniques back then.
Many articles, science data from years ago has now been deleted and many others that haven't been, are very difficult to find/look up anymore. I wonder why they would do that?
