The Guardian publishes blatant Dana Nuttercelli climate fraud nearly every day, but censors an IPCC lead author
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
Recent Comments
- arn on The End Of Everything
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- Robert Austin on The End Of Everything
- czechlist on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on The End Of Everything
Yes, WUWT had the story yesterday about the death threats from global warmists at the Guardian and I am not surprised to see Dr. Tol censored for talking about this scandal. It took hours of badgering and begging for the Guardian staff to pull down the obvious death threats by greenies.
This really disgusts me. The entire point of censorship is to stop people from threatening fellow posters with death due to disagreements about debate points. Otherwise, censorship is stupid and the Guardian censors people who dispute the far left ideology all the time which makes comments there too stupid for words.
All you see is a comment from a lefty, then ‘censored’ over and over again then another comment by a lefty.
The right wing does this too. I notice you don’t do this here. Thank you, I am a liberal on a number of issues and disagree with various points you make but we agree about climate issues and so I thank you for not being lock step here.
They get what they want – an echo chamber. But then that is just a circle jerk among the participants.
Those indoctrinated by leftist thinking become largely incapable of making accurate moral judgments.”
-Dennis Prager
They lost that capability long ago. Everything is relative you know?
I would say rational, as they hate moral and avoid it out of principle.
That is truly disgraceful. I have been banned for life for being a climate non-conformist. That took about 2 minutes from when I posted and some denizen took exception to what I said.
The Guardian is not a healthy place to express views that go against their political ideology no matter how polite and rational you might be.
The Guardian is not a “healthy place” PERIOD IMO.
The climate Nazi’s go from fantasies about blow heads off deniers [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR73mcZW7B4?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D to one about chopping heads off deniers.
Climate Nazis.
Let’s be fair. According to their community guidelines, death threats are out of bounds. So anyone who points out that an actual Grauniad writer is issuing death threats needs to be censored. QED.
Here’s a silly question: as the “real danger to the world” is human over-population, what are a few death threats directed against individuals worth? From 4 to 7 billion people “have to go” and “before irreparable harm has been done to the biosphere.” Arguably that harm has already been done, but where are those billions going to go?
http://salem-news.com/articles/january302011/overpopulation-dangers-jda.php
Sociologists have been warning us for decades of the effects of overpopulation.
This topic was frequently discussed in the 60’s, but then shifting moral and political values intervened. If you would like your family members to survive the future, we need to realize the social ramifications of overcrowding. The appropriate dialogue has been stifled by the specter of eugenics, and the draconian measures taken by China. We need to learn from these mistakes, and admit that the Earth is a limited space with finite resources.
Nonsense. we have all the resources we need to support a higher then current global population indefinitely.
The Over Population issue is straight out of the Club of Rome play book.
wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/2014/01/05/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/
Our would be world rulers figure it is much easier to rule a lot fewer people.
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” ~ Ted Turner, Founder of CNN and founder of the UN Foundation.
NYC has a population of 8.3 million. So you are talking about 40 human ‘hives’
Turner is the one behind Pleistocene rewilding advocating the reintroduction of descendants of Pleistocene mega-fauna, or their close ecological equivalents.
He and his buddies want to turn 1/2 of the USA into their private Hunting Preserve. No humans allowed…. Except the Elite of course.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/cd19ab0784b9a30c2d667a266614cef1/tumblr_nf03dqaPCy1qz4s6ho1_1280.jpg
http://rewilding.org/tribanner.gif
Pleistocene Rewilding – The Rewilding Institute
The fact that the land is owned by the American people is not a problem. The UN biodiversity treaty that would have made 1/2 of the USA off limits was defeated so instead the plan is being implemented piecemeal. link
I have been put on pre-moderation status by The Guardian and most of my comments get censored before they are ever posted. I have never made threats like BlueCloud and I have never resorted to calling anyone names yet The Guardian censors my comments. They clearly are not an organization driven by the ideals of free speech and open discussion from my experience. These are not journalists plying their craft with the noble intent of presenting honest information to people, but rather fanatics with an agenda committed to political propaganda.
The good news is that circulation of this pitiful rag has dropped from 400,000 in year 2000 to 200,000 in year 2014 so they operate to serve a diminishing audience.
I though they were “Je suis Charlie” in support of free speech?
One could almost be forgiven for thinking that selling newspapers and advertising was more important than standing on principle.
I expect Tol has many followers; the Grauniad will likely receive their comeuppance
If they are like the US media, they never will. They will fade into obscurity and bankruptcy never understanding why. And all the while, they will demand government intervention to support their failing model.
Richard Tol’s Twitter feed reveals Bluecloud a Guardian editor (and Greenpeace operative).
https://mobile.twitter.com/richardtol
I have also just been banned by the Stalinist censors of the Guardian – they simply will not tolerate dissent from their propaganda on climate and homosexuality – the Holy Cows of the left. I also post polite comments and never threaten or otherwise use ad-hominem attacks. As someone else here has said, they do not want debate (just like old Uncle Joe Stalin Really) – they just want an echo chamber.