Morrocan style lamb flesh

[Coogan's Bluff]

As if universities are the entire world.

where do their students/leaders migrate off to?

As we know, the conflicts
in academia are so bitter because the stakes are so small.

You really are one of the dumbest cunts I have ever seen!

Peer grant herding and the climate change hoax - learn!

https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/

A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence
that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact
on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes that even though
most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet
due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact,
the case. Instead, the study authors deduced that their research
unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human
activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is
merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.

The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the
warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited,
with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms
what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the
“manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers”
regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has
nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived
far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”

In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the climate
situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming, humans emit
CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared emission spectra that,
overall, acts to warm the planet. However, after that, there is much
disagreement over the most consequential issues propagated to fuel the
climate change narrative, such as how much of the warming has been
caused by humans and how significant is human-caused warming relative to
solar-variability, ocean circulation patterns, and so on?

Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for
political objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19
pandemic, the massive climate change scheme is about greed, power, and
control. Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
has become known as an outspoken scientist who doubts the “scientific
consensus” on climate change. Unsurprisingly, akin to the doctors who
dared speak up about the deadly mRNA COVID-19 shots, Curry was
“academically, pretty much finished off” and “essentially unhirable.”
But that has not stopped her from speaking up. When asked how far from
reality the picture of doom and gloom painted by those pushing the
climate agenda really is, Curry stated:

“It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and right
over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything because
they’re not doing enough.

People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe
dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would be
hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to do
what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the system.

If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as some
people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a very,
very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that trajectory
very much.

So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But
thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to net zero
very quickly is not good.”

Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in
the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any
measure than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists that
period was inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves, and
hurricanes. It makes no sense to rapidly revamp our entire energy
infrastructure to rely on wind turbines and solar energy, which require
a massive land and water footprint.

According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really
stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have
something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate
risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly
getting rid of fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right. Even if society
transitions to all wind and solar, massive amounts of fossil fuels will
be needed to do all the mining, establish the supply chains, transport,
and everything else. So, in the near term, even if the plan is to use
all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large amounts of
fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these mantras without any
thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”

And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the
Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity by a
despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers from the
Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in
Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the
world’s coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant
pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up planet
Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth
to warm up indefinitely.

As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere can
only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase
temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long time
ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse
consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can contain only
so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very
similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2
together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical
greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus,
amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge
that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence
Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is
not a dangerous thing, commenting:

“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole
argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s
good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow
creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic
ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely
to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global
warming.”

[D]

Post by Coogan's Bluff

As if universities are the entire world.

where do their students/leaders migrate off to?

As we know, the conflicts
in academia are so bitter because the stakes are so small.

You really are one of the dumbest cunts I have ever seen!
Peer grant herding and the climate change hoax - learn!
https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/
A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence that
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact on the
Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes that even though most
publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to an
increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the case.
Instead, the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally means
that the officially presented narrative that human activity is causing a
detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather
than a substantiated reality.
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the
warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited, with
the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms what
climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured
consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate
change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate
change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what
human beings are doing.”
In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the climate
situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming, humans emit CO2
into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared emission spectra that, overall,
acts to warm the planet. However, after that, there is much disagreement over
the most consequential issues propagated to fuel the climate change
narrative, such as how much of the warming has been caused by humans and how
significant is human-caused warming relative to solar-variability, ocean
circulation patterns, and so on?
Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for political
objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19 pandemic, the
massive climate change scheme is about greed, power, and control. Curry,
Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has become known as an
outspoken scientist who doubts the “scientific consensus” on climate change.
Unsurprisingly, akin to the doctors who dared speak up about the deadly mRNA
COVID-19 shots, Curry was “academically, pretty much finished off” and
“essentially unhirable.” But that has not stopped her from speaking up. When
asked how far from reality the picture of doom and gloom painted by those
“It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and right over
bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything because they’re not
doing enough.
People who think that they can control the climate
 It’s just a pipe dream.
Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would be hard to
detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to do what the
climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the system.
If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as some
people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a very, very
long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that trajectory very much.
So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But thinking
that we’re going to control the climate by going to net zero very quickly is
not good.”
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in the
United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any measure
than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists that period was
inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes. It makes
no sense to rapidly revamp our entire energy infrastructure to rely on wind
turbines and solar energy, which require a massive land and water footprint.
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really stupid
stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have something better
to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate risk right now is a
so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels.
Dr. Curry is right. Even if society transitions to all wind and solar,
massive amounts of fossil fuels will be needed to do all the mining,
establish the supply chains, transport, and everything else. So, in the near
term, even if the plan is to use all renewable wind and solar energy, we will
need large amounts of fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these
mantras without any thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”
And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the Science
Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity by a despicable
cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers from the Institute of
Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in Warsaw, Poland, the
study authors found that even if we dug up all the world’s coal, extracted
all the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant pyre, the CO2 emissions from
that endeavor would not heat up planet Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon
dioxide does not cause the Earth to warm up indefinitely.
As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere can only
hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase temperatures
anymore since the saturation point was reached a long time ago. The study
uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse consistently
emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat
before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar in that it
can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2 together can only contain so
much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees
with this conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around
climate change—and the knowledge that many things, including changes in solar
activity heavily influence Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the
“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole argument.
What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s good. The only
harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow creep unless
something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic ice sheet. And if
something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely to be associated with
under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global warming.”

Well, hopefully Trump will leave all the crazy climate agreements like he
did last time, which is good for the US! =)

[clams casino]

Post by D

Post by Coogan's Bluff

As if universities are the entire world.

where do their students/leaders migrate off to?

As we know, the conflicts
in academia are so bitter because the stakes are so small.

You really are one of the dumbest cunts I have ever seen!
Peer grant herding and the climate change hoax  - learn!
https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/
A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial
evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have
zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes
that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic
future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious
doubt that this is, in fact, the case. Instead, the study authors
deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially
presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2
increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a
substantiated reality.
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that
the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally
limited, with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study
also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is
that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of
policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda
that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth
has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the
climate situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming,
humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared emission
spectra that, overall, acts to warm the planet. However, after that,
there is much disagreement over the most consequential issues
propagated to fuel the climate change narrative, such as how much of
the warming has been caused by humans and how significant is
human-caused warming relative to solar-variability, ocean circulation
patterns, and so on?
Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for
political objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19
pandemic, the massive climate change scheme is about greed, power, and
control. Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
has become known as an outspoken scientist who doubts the “scientific
consensus” on climate change. Unsurprisingly, akin to the doctors who
dared speak up about the deadly mRNA COVID-19 shots, Curry was
“academically, pretty much finished off” and “essentially unhirable.”
But that has not stopped her from speaking up. When asked how far from
reality the picture of doom and gloom painted by those pushing the
“It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and
right over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything
because they’re not doing enough.
People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe
dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would
be hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to
do what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the
system.
If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as
some people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a
very, very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that
trajectory very much.
So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But
thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to net zero
very quickly is not good.”
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in
the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any
measure than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists that
period was inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves, and
hurricanes. It makes no sense to rapidly revamp our entire energy
infrastructure to rely on wind turbines and solar energy, which
require a massive land and water footprint.
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really
stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have
something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate
risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly
getting rid of fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right. Even if society
transitions to all wind and solar, massive amounts of fossil fuels
will be needed to do all the mining, establish the supply chains,
transport, and everything else. So, in the near term, even if the plan
is to use all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large
amounts of fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these
mantras without any thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good
place.”
And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the
Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity by
a despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers from the
Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in
Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the
world’s coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and burned it in one
giant pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up
planet Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause
the Earth to warm up indefinitely.
As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere
can only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase
temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long
time ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a
greenhouse consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can
contain only so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the
atmosphere is very similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas,
but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like the
hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion
as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and
the knowledge that many things, including changes in solar activity
heavily influence Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth
“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole
argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s
good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a
slow creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West
Antarctic ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there,
that’s as likely to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to
be with global warming.”

Well, hopefully Trump will leave all the crazy climate agreements like
he did last time, which is good for the US! =)

I am 100% CERTAIN OF THAT!

Oooh rah!

[Dave Smith]

Post by clams casino

Post by D
Well, hopefully Trump will leave all the crazy climate agreements like
he did last time, which is good for the US! =)

I am 100% CERTAIN OF THAT!
Oooh rah!

That's another example of way so many countries don't like making deals
with the US. They usually make heavy demands and after a couple years
they back out of the deal.

[clams casino]

Post by Dave Smith

Post by clams casino

Post by D
Well, hopefully Trump will leave all the crazy climate agreements
like he did last time, which is good for the US! =)

I am 100% CERTAIN OF THAT!
Oooh rah!

That's another example of way so many countries don't like making deals
with the US.

Excellent, ya whinging tundra-hoping hoser!

Post by Dave Smith
They usually make heavy demands and after a couple years
they back out of the deal.

Ekshually it is JINA that backed out of behaving under the strictures of
the Paris Accords, you stunningly under-educated oaf!

Is there any conceivable statement you can make politically that is not
easily and swiftly rebutted?

Just one???

🤦🔌


https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/china-abandons-paris-agreement-making-us-efforts-painful-and-pointless

China Abandons Paris Agreement, Making U.S. Efforts Painful and Pointless

China has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of going along with
the Western push to net-zero.

EVs are not emissions-free, because they need electricity to charge
them, and electricity generation creates emissions.

All these costs will result in no reduction in global emissions. The EPA
has America on a path to all pain and no gain.

Copied
It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on
emissions reduction. President Xi Jinping reiterated that his country
would set its own path on the issue and not be influenced by outside
factors, according to the Washington Post and Bloomberg. This
contradicts Xi’s 2015 Paris Agreement pledges to reduce its carbon
emissions at the latest after 2030.

Xi’s remarks came while climate envoy and former secretary of state John
Kerry was visiting Beijing to reopen a dialogue. This was shortly after
Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived, and just before former
secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the architect of opening China to
the West 50 years ago, came for a visit.

The clear signals from China are a deliberate slap in the face to
America and provide a rationale for a bill sponsored by Representative
Chip Roy (R., Texas) to defund Kerry’s climate-change office at the
State Department. The bill is cosponsored by over two dozen other House
Republicans.

This should not be news, because Xi gave the same message last fall. In
October 2022, he said that China would not abandon coal-fired power
plants before renewables could substitute for the lost fossil fuel. But
this substitution will not occur because fossil fuels generate
substantially more energy than renewables.

“Based on China’s energy and resource endowments, we will advance
initiatives to reach peak carbon emissions in a well-planned and phased
way, in line with the principle of getting the new before discarding the
old,” he announced in an address to the Communist Party Congress, as
reported by Time.

Xi’s remarks should resound in the halls of the Environmental Protection
Agency, which is planning to impose billions of dollars of costs on
Americans to reduce U.S. emissions. China has repeatedly stated that it
has no intention of going along with the Western push to net-zero.

In April, the EPA released a proposed tailpipe rule that would require
60 percent of new vehicle sales to be battery-powered electric by 2030,
and two-thirds by 2032. And in May, the EPA proposed a power-plant rule
that would require most power plants to sequester, or bury, 90 percent
of their carbon emissions, or go out of business by 2040.

These rules would result in tens of billions of dollars in annual costs
to the U.S. economy—and with no reduction to global emissions, if China
replaces U.S. emissions with its own emissions.

Even if the United States were to get rid of all fossil fuels, this
would only make a difference of two-tenths of one degree Celsius in the
year 2100, according to Heritage Foundation chief statistician Kevin
Dayaratna.

The tailpipe rule would raise driving costs for all Americans, and
lower-income Americans would struggle more with those costs than
higher-income Americans. New electric vehicles (EVs) cost about $10,000
to $25,000 more than the equivalent gasoline-powered vehicle, and the
time it takes to recharge is inconvenient on long road trips, or if no
in-home charging port is available.

[D]

Post by clams casino

Post by D

Post by Coogan's Bluff

As if universities are the entire world.

where do their students/leaders migrate off to?

As we know, the conflicts
in academia are so bitter because the stakes are so small.

You really are one of the dumbest cunts I have ever seen!
Peer grant herding and the climate change hoax  - learn!
https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/
A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence
that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact on
the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes that even though most
publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to
an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the
case. Instead, the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally
means that the officially presented narrative that human activity is
causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a
hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the
warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited,
with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms
what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the
“manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers”
regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing
to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger
insults that what human beings are doing.”
In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the climate
situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming, humans emit CO2
into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared emission spectra that,
overall, acts to warm the planet. However, after that, there is much
disagreement over the most consequential issues propagated to fuel the
climate change narrative, such as how much of the warming has been caused
by humans and how significant is human-caused warming relative to
solar-variability, ocean circulation patterns, and so on?
Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for political
objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19 pandemic, the
massive climate change scheme is about greed, power, and control. Curry,
Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has become known as an
outspoken scientist who doubts the “scientific consensus” on climate
change. Unsurprisingly, akin to the doctors who dared speak up about the
deadly mRNA COVID-19 shots, Curry was “academically, pretty much finished
off” and “essentially unhirable.” But that has not stopped her from
speaking up. When asked how far from reality the picture of doom and gloom
“It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and right
over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything because
they’re not doing enough.
People who think that they can control the climate
 It’s just a pipe
dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would be
hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to do what
the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the system.
If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as some
people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a very,
very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that trajectory
very much.
So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But
thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to net zero very
quickly is not good.”
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in the
United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any measure
than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists that period was
inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes. It
makes no sense to rapidly revamp our entire energy infrastructure to rely
on wind turbines and solar energy, which require a massive land and water
footprint.
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really stupid
stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have something
better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate risk right
now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly getting rid of
fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right. Even if society transitions to all wind
and solar, massive amounts of fossil fuels will be needed to do all the
mining, establish the supply chains, transport, and everything else. So,
in the near term, even if the plan is to use all renewable wind and solar
energy, we will need large amounts of fossil fuels to get there. “People
just repeat these mantras without any thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s
not a good place.”
And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the
Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity by a
despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers from the
Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in Warsaw,
Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the world’s
coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant pyre, the
CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up planet Earth. Indeed,
this is because carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth to warm up
indefinitely.
As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere can
only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase
temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long time
ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse
consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can contain only
so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very
similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2 together
can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse. The
CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the
fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge that many things,
including changes in solar activity heavily influence Earth’s weather—Dr.
Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is not a dangerous thing,
“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole
argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s
good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow
creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic
ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely
to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global
warming.”

Well, hopefully Trump will leave all the crazy climate agreements like he
did last time, which is good for the US! =)

I am 100% CERTAIN OF THAT!
Oooh rah!

Horay! Horay for the king! It will be wonderful to see the tears of greta
and other socialists once he does it! =D

On the other hand gretas new hobby is anti-semitism, so maybe she is busy
in some concentration camp in the middle east? Would not surprise me.

[clams casino]

Post by D

Post by clams casino

Post by D

Post by Coogan's Bluff

As if universities are the entire world.

where do their students/leaders migrate off to?

As we know, the conflicts
in academia are so bitter because the stakes are so small.

You really are one of the dumbest cunts I have ever seen!
Peer grant herding and the climate change hoax  - learn!
https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/
A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial
evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have
zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes
that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic
future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious
doubt that this is, in fact, the case. Instead, the study authors
deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially
presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2
increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a
substantiated reality.
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that
the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally
limited, with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study
also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which
is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of
policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an
agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that
“Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are
doing.”
In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the
climate situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming,
humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared
emission spectra that, overall, acts to warm the planet. However,
after that, there is much disagreement over the most consequential
issues propagated to fuel the climate change narrative, such as how
much of the warming has been caused by humans and how significant is
human-caused warming relative to solar-variability, ocean
circulation patterns, and so on?
Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for
political objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19
pandemic, the massive climate change scheme is about greed, power,
and control. Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of
Technology, has become known as an outspoken scientist who doubts
the “scientific consensus” on climate change. Unsurprisingly, akin
to the doctors who dared speak up about the deadly mRNA COVID-19
shots, Curry was “academically, pretty much finished off” and
“essentially unhirable.” But that has not stopped her from speaking
up. When asked how far from reality the picture of doom and gloom
“It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and
right over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything
because they’re not doing enough.
People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe
dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would
be hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to
do what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in
the system.
If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as
some people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for
a very, very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that
trajectory very much.
So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But
thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to net
zero very quickly is not good.”
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather
in the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by
any measure than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists
that period was inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves,
and hurricanes. It makes no sense to rapidly revamp our entire
energy infrastructure to rely on wind turbines and solar energy,
which require a massive land and water footprint.
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really
stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have
something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest
climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of
rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right. Even if
society transitions to all wind and solar, massive amounts of fossil
fuels will be needed to do all the mining, establish the supply
chains, transport, and everything else. So, in the near term, even
if the plan is to use all renewable wind and solar energy, we will
need large amounts of fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat
these mantras without any thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a
good place.”
And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the
Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity
by a despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers
from the Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of
Technology in Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if
we dug up all the world’s coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and
burned it in one giant pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor
would not heat up planet Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon
dioxide does not cause the Earth to warm up indefinitely.
As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere
can only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase
temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long
time ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a
greenhouse consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling
can contain only so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the
atmosphere is very similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas,
but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like
the hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this
conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around
climate change—and the knowledge that many things, including changes
in solar activity heavily influence Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry
believes even if the Earth is warming, it is not a dangerous thing,
“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole
argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of
what’s good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And
that’s a slow creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to
the West Antarctic ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens
there, that’s as likely to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as
it is to be with global warming.”

Well, hopefully Trump will leave all the crazy climate agreements
like he did last time, which is good for the US! =)

I am 100% CERTAIN OF THAT!
Oooh rah!

Horay! Horay for the king! It will be wonderful to see the tears of
greta and other socialists once he does it! =D

Greta is such a consummate rich, spoiled brat phony.

Post by D
On the other hand gretas new hobby is anti-semitism, so maybe she is
busy in some concentration camp in the middle east? Would not surprise me.

This is the thing with being part of a grievance-driven political
identity, when one dragon is slayed, or refuses to play, on to another
one they must go.

That's why our Dems are constantly creating new sub-minorities to "help
out".

And the prior ones get discarded (as blacks have been) so the new slaves
are made to feel "special".

It's a rancidly hubric game.

[D]

Post by clams casino

Post by D

Post by clams casino

Post by D

Post by Coogan's Bluff

As if universities are the entire world.

where do their students/leaders migrate off to?

As we know, the conflicts
in academia are so bitter because the stakes are so small.

You really are one of the dumbest cunts I have ever seen!
Peer grant herding and the climate change hoax  - learn!
https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/
A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence
that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact
on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes that even though
most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet
due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact,
the case. Instead, the study authors deduced that their research
unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human
activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is
merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the
warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited,
with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms
what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the
“manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers”
regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has
nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived
far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the climate
situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming, humans emit
CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared emission spectra that,
overall, acts to warm the planet. However, after that, there is much
disagreement over the most consequential issues propagated to fuel the
climate change narrative, such as how much of the warming has been
caused by humans and how significant is human-caused warming relative to
solar-variability, ocean circulation patterns, and so on?
Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for
political objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19
pandemic, the massive climate change scheme is about greed, power, and
control. Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
has become known as an outspoken scientist who doubts the “scientific
consensus” on climate change. Unsurprisingly, akin to the doctors who
dared speak up about the deadly mRNA COVID-19 shots, Curry was
“academically, pretty much finished off” and “essentially unhirable.”
But that has not stopped her from speaking up. When asked how far from
reality the picture of doom and gloom painted by those pushing the
“It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and right
over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything because
they’re not doing enough.
People who think that they can control the climate
 It’s just a pipe
dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would be
hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to do
what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the
system.
If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as some
people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a very,
very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that trajectory
very much.
So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But
thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to net zero
very quickly is not good.”
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in
the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any
measure than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists that
period was inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves, and
hurricanes. It makes no sense to rapidly revamp our entire energy
infrastructure to rely on wind turbines and solar energy, which require
a massive land and water footprint.
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really
stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have
something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate
risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly
getting rid of fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right. Even if society
transitions to all wind and solar, massive amounts of fossil fuels will
be needed to do all the mining, establish the supply chains, transport,
and everything else. So, in the near term, even if the plan is to use
all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large amounts of
fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these mantras without any
thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”
And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the
Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity by a
despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers from the
Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in
Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the
world’s coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant
pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up planet
Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth
to warm up indefinitely.
As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere can
only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase
temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long time
ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse
consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can contain only
so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very
similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2
together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical
greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus,
amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge
that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence
Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is
“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole
argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s
good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow
creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic
ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely
to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global
warming.”

Well, hopefully Trump will leave all the crazy climate agreements like he
did last time, which is good for the US! =)

I am 100% CERTAIN OF THAT!
Oooh rah!

Horay! Horay for the king! It will be wonderful to see the tears of greta
and other socialists once he does it! =D

Greta is such a consummate rich, spoiled brat phony.

Post by D
On the other hand gretas new hobby is anti-semitism, so maybe she is busy
in some concentration camp in the middle east? Would not surprise me.

This is the thing with being part of a grievance-driven political identity,
when one dragon is slayed, or refuses to play, on to another one they must
go.
That's why our Dems are constantly creating new sub-minorities to "help out".
And the prior ones get discarded (as blacks have been) so the new slaves are
made to feel "special".
It's a rancidly hubric game.

It is an inhuman and revolting game that strips every participant of their
dignity and soul.

[clams casino]

Post by D

Post by clams casino

Post by D

Post by clams casino

Post by D

Post by Coogan's Bluff

As if universities are the entire world.

where do their students/leaders migrate off to?

As we know, the conflicts
in academia are so bitter because the stakes are so small.

You really are one of the dumbest cunts I have ever seen!
Peer grant herding and the climate change hoax  - learn!
https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/
A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial
evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere
have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study
concludes that even though most publications attempt to depict a
catastrophic future for our planet due to an increase in CO2,
there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the case. Instead,
the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally means
that the officially presented narrative that human activity is
causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a
hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms
that the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is
naturally limited, with the limit having been reached decades ago.
The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has
stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at
the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a
ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change.
She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what
human beings are doing.”
In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the
climate situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming,
humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared
emission spectra that, overall, acts to warm the planet. However,
after that, there is much disagreement over the most consequential
issues propagated to fuel the climate change narrative, such as
how much of the warming has been caused by humans and how
significant is human-caused warming relative to solar-variability,
ocean circulation patterns, and so on?
Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for
political objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19
pandemic, the massive climate change scheme is about greed, power,
and control. Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute
of Technology, has become known as an outspoken scientist who
doubts the “scientific consensus” on climate change.
Unsurprisingly, akin to the doctors who dared speak up about the
deadly mRNA COVID-19 shots, Curry was “academically, pretty much
finished off” and “essentially unhirable.” But that has not
stopped her from speaking up. When asked how far from reality the
picture of doom and gloom painted by those pushing the climate
“It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and
right over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything
because they’re not doing enough.
People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a
pipe dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice.
It would be hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate
is going to do what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot
of inertia in the system.
If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as
some people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us
for a very, very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change
that trajectory very much.
So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened.
But thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to
net zero very quickly is not good.”
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the
weather in the United States, for example, it was much worse in
the 1930s by any measure than it is now. When you look at the
data, she insists that period was inundated with forest fires,
droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes. It makes no sense to rapidly
revamp our entire energy infrastructure to rely on wind turbines
and solar energy, which require a massive land and water footprint.
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do
really stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before
we have something better to replace it with.” She believes the
biggest climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the
risk of rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right.
Even if society transitions to all wind and solar, massive amounts
of fossil fuels will be needed to do all the mining, establish the
supply chains, transport, and everything else. So, in the near
term, even if the plan is to use all renewable wind and solar
energy, we will need large amounts of fossil fuels to get there.
“People just repeat these mantras without any thought,” Curry
said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”
And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have
the Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon
humanity by a despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by
researchers from the Institute of Optoelectronics, Military
University of Technology in Warsaw, Poland, the study authors
found that even if we dug up all the world’s coal, extracted all
the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant pyre, the CO2
emissions from that endeavor would not heat up planet Earth.
Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth to
warm up indefinitely.
As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s
atmosphere can only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide
cannot increase temperatures anymore since the saturation point
was reached a long time ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept
of a fire inside a greenhouse consistently emitting heat. The
glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat before
emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar in that
it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2 together can
only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse.
The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus,
amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the
knowledge that many things, including changes in solar activity
heavily influence Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the
“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole
argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of
what’s good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And
that’s a slow creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to
the West Antarctic ice sheet. And if something catastrophic
happens there, that’s as likely to be associated with under-ice
volcanoes as it is to be with global warming.”

Well, hopefully Trump will leave all the crazy climate agreements
like he did last time, which is good for the US! =)

I am 100% CERTAIN OF THAT!
Oooh rah!

Horay! Horay for the king! It will be wonderful to see the tears of
greta and other socialists once he does it! =D

Greta is such a consummate rich, spoiled brat phony.

Post by D
On the other hand gretas new hobby is anti-semitism, so maybe she is
busy in some concentration camp in the middle east? Would not surprise me.

This is the thing with being part of a grievance-driven political
identity, when one dragon is slayed, or refuses to play, on to another
one they must go.
That's why our Dems are constantly creating new sub-minorities to "help out".
And the prior ones get discarded (as blacks have been) so the new
slaves are made to feel "special".
It's a rancidly hubric game.

It is an inhuman and revolting game that strips every participant of
their dignity and soul.

And somehow they manage to simultaneously transmit arrogance,
self-satisfaction, and approbation at the rest of us while doing so.

Like watching a cuttlefish fast cycle through its predatory camo.

A vastly superior creature to humans, imho.

[JTEM]

Post by D
It is an inhuman and revolting game that strips every participant of
their dignity and soul.

Don't play it. Unsubscribe. STOP trying to change everyone
else, just change yourself.

You're not willing so don't expect anyone else to do it for
you.

[clams casino]

Post by JTEM

Post by D
It is an inhuman and revolting game that strips every participant of
their dignity and soul.

Don't play it. Unsubscribe. STOP trying to change everyone
else, just change yourself.

By reading his posts you ought to be able to discern he is farther down
that road than you give him credit for.

At some point (once "changed") one owes it to the sleepers to rouse them
from their somnambulist stupor.

Post by JTEM
You're not willing so don't expect anyone else to do it for
you.

That's a hostile, petty, and ill-considered swipe.

But you be you.

[JTEM]

Post by clams casino

Post by JTEM
You're not willing so don't expect anyone else to do it for
you.

That's a hostile, petty, and ill-considered swipe.

Nope. Everyone is pissing & moaning about everyone else.

Nobody is fixing themselves.

[clams casino]

Post by JTEM

Post by clams casino

Post by JTEM
You're not willing so don't expect anyone else to do it for
you.

That's a hostile, petty, and ill-considered swipe.

Nope. Everyone is pissing & moaning about everyone else.
Nobody is fixing themselves.

Unless you have God's powers to look within you can not make that judgment.

Here's a hint - this is not an exclusionary set of behaviors.

And a LOT of rubbish here is due for removal.

[D]

Post by JTEM

Post by clams casino

Post by JTEM
You're not willing so don't expect anyone else to do it for
you.

That's a hostile, petty, and ill-considered swipe.

Nope. Everyone is pissing & moaning about everyone else.
Nobody is fixing themselves.

“...first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”
Matthew 7:5 (King James Version)

[clams casino]

Post by JTEM

Post by clams casino

Post by JTEM
You're not willing so don't expect anyone else to do it for
you.

That's a hostile, petty, and ill-considered swipe.

Nope. Everyone is pissing & moaning about everyone else.
Nobody is fixing themselves.

“...first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou
see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” Matthew 7:5
(King James Version)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[D]

Post by JTEM

Post by D
It is an inhuman and revolting game that strips every participant of their
dignity and soul.

Don't play it. Unsubscribe. STOP trying to change everyone
else, just change yourself.

By reading his posts you ought to be able to discern he is farther down that
road than you give him credit for.
At some point (once "changed") one owes it to the sleepers to rouse them from
their somnambulist stupor.

Post by JTEM
You're not willing so don't expect anyone else to do it for
you.

That's a hostile, petty, and ill-considered swipe.
But you be you.

You are a wise man! Amen to that!

[clams casino]

Post by D

Post by clams casino

Post by JTEM

Post by D
It is an inhuman and revolting game that strips every participant of
their dignity and soul.

Don't play it. Unsubscribe. STOP trying to change everyone
else, just change yourself.

By reading his posts you ought to be able to discern he is farther
down that road than you give him credit for.
At some point (once "changed") one owes it to the sleepers to rouse
them from their somnambulist stupor.

Post by JTEM
You're not willing so don't expect anyone else to do it for
you.

That's a hostile, petty, and ill-considered swipe.
But you be you.

You are a wise man! Amen to that!

🫡

[D]

Post by JTEM

Post by D
It is an inhuman and revolting game that strips every participant of their
dignity and soul.

Don't play it. Unsubscribe. STOP trying to change everyone
else, just change yourself.
You're not willing so don't expect anyone else to do it for
you.

We fight with love as our weapon! As the saying goes... slowly, slowly
catchee monkey!