Seeing CO2

Experts tell us that life can’t survive CO2 levels over 400 PPM, which makes train travel rough at 2,500 PPM.

Link

Greta Thunberg can see CO2, which must make it difficult to also see what she is eating on the train.

“My daughter can see CO2 with the naked eye” – Afrinik

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Seeing CO2

  1. Ron Clutz says:

    Greta’s small world prevents her from seeing the consequences of her beliefs.

    https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/greta-sees.png

  2. steve case says:

    “My daughter can see CO2 with the naked eye”

    Bullshit

  3. Anto says:

    When two intelligent people come together and raise a family, they will usually end up with good kids, who go on to equal or exceed their parents’ achievements (at least, that’s what we would wish).

    When educated idiots like these clowns inculcate their children with worthless doom-mongering, end-of-the-world catastrophism, all they do is severely harm their children.

    It’s a crying shame, because it’s all for nothing – the world is perfectly fine. It’s not going to die anytime soon.

  4. rah says:

    These days I have to work at seeing a lot of things clearly simply because of all the bull shit flying around.

  5. scott allen says:

    Notice the plastic water bottle on the left side of the picture, the disposable plastic container of salad, the plastic wrapper around her bread or the plastic tops on her stainless steel water bottles and it sure doesn’t look like an area where bananas grow, bet those things were flown in 0n an airplane

  6. Mark Frank says:

    I am not aware of any expert has claimed that life can’t survive CO2 levels over 400 PPM. CO2 is of course currently over 400 ppm at the moment and has been much higher in the past.

    The article Tony links to makes it clear further downthat the quote from her mother about seeing CO2 was a metaphor not to be taking literally.

    But heigh-ho – in this age of Trump truth is for wimps.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Metaphor – a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

      So in plain english lying!! Or as Steve so eloquently put it BULLSHIT …and yet folks want the magical retard to get the Nobel. WTF??

      Keep up the great posts Tony.

    • Terry Shipman says:

      No, I believe this was a classic case of walking back a patently absurd comment. Politicians do it all the time. “I really didn’t mean what I plainly said.”

    • Gator says:

      According to her mother Malena Ernman (48), 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg can see CO2 with the naked eye. She writes that in the book ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate’, which she wrote with her family.

      Greta was diagnosed as a child with obsessive-compulsive disorder and Asperger’s syndrome, just like her younger sister Beata. The activist also has a photographic memory. She knows all the capitals by heart and can list all the chemical elements of the periodic table within one minute. In addition, she has another gift according to her mother.

      “Greta is able to see what other people cannot see,” writes Malena Ernman in the book.

      She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how it flows out of chimneys and changes the atmosphere in a landfill.”

      I guess we can add fact denier, along with science and natural climate change denier, to MF’s list of severe maladies.

      Leftists are batcrap crazy, and when we point out how batcrap crazy they are, they occasionally deny some of the batcrap crazy sh!t they actually said. We know who the deniers really are.

    • Vegieman says:

      You got it mixed up. Tony was using metaphor, Greta’s mom was literal.

    • TimA says:

      You said all that while wearing your pussy hat?

    • Henning Nielsen says:

      Greta’s mother is making a very unconvincing retreat. Metaphor for what, exactly?

      Her ravings are downright scary:
      “She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how it flows out of chimneys and changes the atmosphere in a landfill.”

      What on earth is a landfill’s atmosphere? No, Ma Malena simply could not resist making up fairy tales. The tragic thing is that Greta clearly did not get the help she needed:

      “Greta stopped going to school, cried constantly and only spoke to her parents, sister and one teacher. At the age of eleven, she slipped into depression.”

      • Gator says:

        Greta started off life as a challenged child, and her “parents” have only made matters worse. The Swedish authorities, if they had any moral principles or guidance in such matters, would place Greta in a loving foster home and lock her parents up. I have a feeling that things will end badly for Greta.

        • arn says:

          I hope this won”t happen.

          The last thing we need(and special interesst groups hope for) is a Greta Martyr.
          The media would run this nonsense than 24/7 for next five years how grown ups who are killing the climate also killed Greta.

          The problem is your feeling is spot on
          as we have to deal with a child who can not cope with the most normal everyday stress.
          And now she is exposed all the time on a massive scale.
          This could cause a sensory overload to normal children and better don”t ask what it”ll cause to her ,
          especially if she really has photographic memory
          which (maybe is the cause of her problems) won’t let her forget all the massive input she is getting since she left her isolated home.
          And noone with her.

      • arn says:

        It was not a metaphor.

        I read the article on german.

        She explicitly says that her daughter belongs to the very few who can see co2.
        This is not just very specific
        but she also calles it a talent only very few have.
        There is no metaphor at all.

        But she uses here a rhetorical trick
        as “atmospheric landfill” can be defined as metaphor,
        which is not really so
        as she is just keeping the talk she started some sentences before about the pollution of the oceans with huge plastic patches(which gretas teacher was telling the pupils)
        and that this pollution also happens to the atmosphere with co2.

        Sadly noone told the mother that(even if someone can see co2) the co2 concentration is so extremly low(0.04%)and
        humans are responsible for just a fraction of it
        and that that “visible” that is released in fron of gretas eyes
        is barely more than a spit in the ocean.

    • Gord says:

      ***I am not aware of any expert has claimed that life can’t survive CO2 levels over 400 PPM. CO2 is of course currently over 400 ppm at the moment and has been much higher in the past.***

      I too was not aware of it until a few weeks ago.
      The University of Manitoba has been holding “Visionary Conversations” for a number of years. They held one on the “climate emergency” on Nov 6, 2019. The President, Dr. David Barnard, chairs the meeting while several “experts” are there to give their view, then answer questions from the attendees. There were 4 panel members on Nov 6. The first person made a comment that CO2 is not a pollutant and that below 150 ppm, plants will die. This was responded to by Curt Hull from the Manitoba Climate Change Connection. He said that 350 ppm is OK but at 400 ppm, CO2 is a pollutant. So my view is that they make it up as they go along. You can hear the whole podcast at:
      http://umanitoba.ca/community/visionaryconversations

      • Mark Frank says:

        Gord

        There is a big difference between saying it is a pollutant and saying that life can’t survive.

        • Gator says:

          Only morons believe CO2 is a pollutant. The rest who claim this are liars. Which are you MF?

        • Gord says:

          Mark:
          I also take issue with the pollutant call.
          First, he made it up as he went along.
          Second, I think the EPA under Obama called it a pollutant.
          Now the Canadian government is falsely calling it a pollutant.
          Big difference = No. both are false.

    • rah says:

      For the left the issue is never the real issue. What you read never says what you thought and what you hear never means what you think no matter how plainly stated and outrageous it is if they like it. Now go back and get in line following your little Scoldilocks leader Frank.

  7. scott allen says:

    Greta’s mother wrote this in her book, it was no metaphor (that was the author of the article, quoting the publisher of the book, INTERPRETATIONS of what she wrote). Her mother and Greta really believe she can see CO2.
    The book is called ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate’
    I copied these quotes directly from the book, how anyone could interpret these lines as metaphor, and in the same post state “truth is for wimps”. No where in the preceding pages or following pages does Malena refer to those statements as metaphors.
    “Greta is able to see what other people cannot see,”
    “She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how it flows out of chimneys and changes the atmosphere in a landfill.”

    • Mark Frank says:

      Scott Allen

      “I copied these quotes directly from the book”

      According to Amazon the book is not available in English until March 2020. Did you get an advance copy?

      • The book was published in 2018 and people do read other languages besides English.

      • Scott Allen says:

        It is available in German.
        Some people are not constrained by a single language.

        • Mark Frank says:

          Scott – so you have access to a German copy?

          Clearly didn’t copy it the quote directly. Please may we have the German so we can see if we agree with your translation.

          • Gator says:

            The original text:

            ”Greta tillhörde det lilla fåtal som kunde se våra koldioxider med blotta ögat. Hon såg hur växthusgaserna strömmade ut från våra skorstenar, svävade uppåt med vindarna och förvandlade atmosfären till en gigantisk osynlig soptipp.”

            https://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2019/01/10/recension-av-malena-ernmans-bok-scener-ur-hjartat/

            The English translation per Google:

            “Greta belonged to the small few who could see our carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She saw how the greenhouse gases were pouring from our chimneys, floating upwards with the winds and turning the atmosphere into a gigantic invisible dump. ”

            Germans need not apply.

      • Gator says:

        The original text:

        ”Greta tillhörde det lilla fåtal som kunde se våra koldioxider med blotta ögat. Hon såg hur växthusgaserna strömmade ut från våra skorstenar, svävade uppåt med vindarna och förvandlade atmosfären till en gigantisk osynlig soptipp.”

        https://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2019/01/10/recension-av-malena-ernmans-bok-scener-ur-hjartat/

        The English translation per Google:

        “Greta belonged to the small few who could see our carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She saw how the greenhouse gases were pouring from our chimneys, floating upwards with the winds and turning the atmosphere into a gigantic invisible dump. ”

        Why is it you lefties always deny facts?

        • Mark Frank says:

          Gator

          Oh come on – a Google translation of two sentences. I want to know if any of you critics have read the book or even seen the page on which those sentences lie. Context is all. I also want a proper translaton – not a literal machine interpretation.

          • Gator says:

            MF

            Oh come on – A Google translation of the exact text in question, and you still deny facts. Number of sentences does not matter. You received verification of the translation, proving you are wrong, it’s past time to stop being a little pissy bitch.

            What is it with you lefties that you can never admit when you are wrong? even when all the facts clearly refute your ignorant claims?

            Find a safe space, and go cry it out.

          • Scott allen says:

            A simple fix for you is to find someone who lives in Germany or Sweden or is traveling to or thru those countries and spend the 19 Euros and have them get you a copy.
            Then you can translate it all as you will never be satisfied with anyone else’s translation as you move the goal post with every post

          • Gator says:

            Good suggestion Scott, but as you point out, MF is not exactly a disinterested party. He mocks an impartial Google translation of the original Swedish text, yet he believes in a Facebook post. LOL

      • spike55 says:

        And I bet you have your Greta signed copy, on pre-order.

        Right Mark. ;-)

  8. arn says:

    I am not an expert in physic or human physiology(i hope this is the correct english term)
    but something tells me that the cells in our eyes that make us see are several magnitudes larger than a 3 atom molecule
    therefore co2 should be invisible to us.

    And in case co2 would be visible for her(i don”t even dare to ask greta carbo which color these molecules have)
    she should have several issues to see beyond an inch far
    as co2 and all the other similar sized molecules and the dust in the air
    would obstruct her view massivly.
    +the constant fast movement and bumping of those molecules would make her sea sick within seconds.

    ps
    teach this little asshole some manners.
    Using a knife or a spoon instead of dipping her fingers into the stuff wont turn her into a racist bigot nazi.

    • Mark Frank says:

      Arn

      Greta of course never said she could see CO2 and recognises it is a stupid idea. However, your reasons for her not seeing it are absurd. There many gasses that are visible in quite low concentrations (e.g Chlorine and Iodine vapour) some with much smaller molecule sizes than CO2. The reason we can’t see CO2 (or oxygen or nitrogen) is they don’t absorb light in the visible wavelength.

      • arn says:

        I don”t think it is absurd to say that gas with 0.04%concentration is not visible.
        What you mentioned are much higher concentrations.

        It is about the necessary amount of atoms that inside a specific space that make the color.
        + i do not go along with you “light absorbtion”-theory
        as it does not make sense to me.
        Maybe i”m to stupid to understand,
        but absorbed light does not make us see shit
        as absorbed light does not reach my eyes.
        It is the reflected light that gives objects the color we see.

        • Mark Frank says:

          Arn

          You need to learn some (very) basic physics. The colour of something can derive from reflected light or by the removal of some wavelengths from light shining through the thing – that is how coloured glass works and is also how gasses get their colour. So for example, a red glass absorbs light mostly from bandwidths other than red.

          I have no idea what concentration of Chlorine is visible but I see no reason why it should not be less than 400 ppm which would kill you within 30 minutes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136961/). However, it is not strictly relevant. The point is your the reason CO2 is not visible is because it does not absorb light in the visible spectrum. Even Watts Up agrees with that!

          • arn says:

            An object must reflect light in order to be seen of it does not emmit light.

            That was my basic shit i learned as a child and as a printer.(at least in Germany)

            And this goes even for “filtered” light that passes glas,gas or liquid.
            Guess why the sky on the moon is black even during daytime-
            no atmosphere,no gas etc to reflect some albedo.
            And it does not matter wether the (laser)lightbeam is white,red or filtered.
            You need to add dust or(reflecting) gas to show to make it visible.
            You still need reflection.

            My problem with visible 400ppm chlorine is as simple as my mind.
            At such low concentrations every single molecule/atom is surrounded by thousands of
            other atoms/molecules.The ratio of reflection should be inexistent for our eyes as the necessary quantity is not there.
            Let”s say you cover a surface with an atomic layer of leafgold.It will look golden somehow.
            Than you remove 99.96 % of all atoms from the surface.
            Result-the gold is gone.It can no longer be seen as everything is now dominated by the surface color and even if the surface is dark the gold can no longer shine.As the gap of the goldatoms is to big and the number of atoms is far to small to have an impact on our eyes.

            btw-why haven’t you responded to the comment i made below.
            As you had almost an hour to answer when you answered this comment?

          • spike55 says:

            Big difference, little mind

            Chlorine gas is highly poisonous, because it is highly reactive with H2O to form HCl

            Visible from around 20,000 ppm, poisonous at much , much less.

            CO2 gas is highly NECESSARY for all life on Earth. Without it, life would not exist.

            No toxic up to around 8,000 ppm, if you acclimatise to it. Above that it starts to change the balance of breathing and CO2 in the bloodstream.

            CO2 is NOT a pollutant at any possible atmospheric concentration.

            There is no empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 does anything except increase plant growth

          • Mark Frank says:

            arn

            “An object must reflect light in order to be seen of it does not emmit light.

            That was my basic shit i learned as a child and as a printer.(at least in Germany)”

            Well I think you should complain to your school.
            Spike55 has kindly provided the answer. Chlorine is visible from about 20,000 ppm.

          • spike55 says:

            And you, little mark, have provided NOTHING.

            CO2 is never pollution at any possible atmospheric level.

            It is absolutely necessary for all life on Earth, and is currently at very low levels.

          • arn says:

            So Chlorine “only” needs 20.000 ppm concentration
            to become visible.

            That”s just a tiny tiny 50* more than co2 is in our atmophere.
            Where exactly is your point when someone needs a 50* time better vision than the average human as this is impossible.

  9. Mark Frank says:

    You might want to read what she says herself:

    https://www.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/posts/of-course-the-ongoing-hate-campaigns-never-rests-there-is-at-least-one-new-consp/823189474715541/

    “Of course the ongoing hate campaigns never rests…
    There is at least one new conspiracy theory a day.
    The latest – and perhaps most entertaining – spin is that ”I can see CO2 with my own eyes”.
    This is of course a metaphor from a book taken out of it’s context, taken from a German newspaper.
    No one has said that I can literally see CO2… that is beyond stupid.
    This should of course not be necessary to mention but since some respected newspapers have written about this without realizing that this is a fake news campaign I thought it was best to point this out.
    While I am at it I also want to point out that when I say that ”our civilisation is almost like a castle built in the sand” or that ”our house on fire” these are metaphors too:)”

    • Gator says:

      She only posted that after her handlers realized her credibility was tanking as a result of that ignorant claim. As at least two of us already pointed out above, batsh!t crazy leftists are knows for this very sort of deceitful behavior. Leftists make insane comments all the time, and then once they are ridiculed for those same nutso statements, they then claim they never made them.

      “She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye.”
      -Malena Ernman (Greta’s “mother”)

      But at least we now know how gullible you are MF.

    • xenomoly says:

      In the book it did not appear to be metaphor. It seems like this is walking back the claims made in the book when people rightly said it’s absurd to think humans can see CO2. Of course now they would say this. But at the time it was written and for the audience for whom it was intended — there is no reason to think they would assume it to be a metaphor.

      Why be dishonest about all this? And you know Tony is just saying this to troll them for hypocrisy. It may very well have been a metaphor but these people are selling their kid to the world as a Climate Change Morality Crusader™. Do you really not think there is a possibility they would embellish for the cause?

    • Archie says:

      So she called out her own Mother’s FAKE assertion. Brilliant!

  10. G W Smith says:

    I’ve heard the CO2 level in the Space Station is consistently around 5000 ppm. And scientists tell them it’s safe. Are they lying? It must be dark as night in that thing.

  11. Mac says:

    Greta Thunberg is just a modern version of the tent revivalist con men of the 19th century. Run to Greta, repent, and save your soul, and she might just let you have at least some control over your own life. This kid a sick and dangerous little totalitarian, and her parents must be real head cases.

    I cannot believe people actually believe this garbage. It’s nauseating.

  12. Mark Frank says:

    I am intrigued by how certain you are all are about what her mother wrote. As far as I can see the book is only currently available in Swedish and German. Have you really gone to the trouble of getting hold of a Swedish or German book to look it up and then translating it? Or have you come across an English version I am not aware of?

    You couldn’t possibly just be repeating what you read about what a German newspaper said about the book could you?

    Meanwhile, until there is an English version (I read neither German or Swedish) I hope you will understand that I place more faith in what Greta herself says about the book than what is reported by the right wing blogosphere.

    • Gator says:

      The original text:

      ”Greta tillhörde det lilla fåtal som kunde se våra koldioxider med blotta ögat. Hon såg hur växthusgaserna strömmade ut från våra skorstenar, svävade uppåt med vindarna och förvandlade atmosfären till en gigantisk osynlig soptipp.”

      https://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2019/01/10/recension-av-malena-ernmans-bok-scener-ur-hjartat/

      The English translation per Google:

      “Greta belonged to the small few who could see our carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She saw how the greenhouse gases were pouring from our chimneys, floating upwards with the winds and turning the atmosphere into a gigantic invisible dump. ”

      Now crawl back under your gullibility rock, MF.

    • arn says:

      You are intrigued?lol

      I am intrigued how you can deny stuff that was released in a Newspaper
      not just more than half year ago
      but also the fact that this was not just an article from the FAZ(it was not. it was an OFFICIAL prepublication( i hope this is the correct english term)
      of parts of the the book.
      The whole “article” was “MADE BY THUNBERG” except the headline and short introduction.
      and she(mother) clearly says that greta belongs to the few who can see co2.

      I know this because,well,i speak german and while my english sucks my german doesn”t.
      I do not know if this text managed it into the final print
      and i wont spent a cent to feed these dragons to find out
      but i”m pretty sure it is there.

    • spike55 says:

      LOL, the standard leftist

      Caught in a LIE, they just keep digging themselves in deeper and deeper.

      Making themselves look like total morons.

      Hint: Mark, stop digging, you are burying yourself in your own BS. !

      • Gator says:

        This is why lefties have zero credibility. If they would occasionally admit when they are clearly wrong, it would be a different story. They are their own worst enemy.

        • GCSquared says:

          When I hear someone admit, “I don’t really know.” or, “I was mistaken.”, my trust in them goes up immensely. Such a person can speak the truth not just to me, but to themselves as well, so they’re worth hearing.

          Sadly, that level of honesty is quite rare.

          • Gator says:

            The climate experts I admire most, are those who admit that they really do not fully understand how our climate operates. Anyone who says they do is a liar, or self deluded.

            Science is about the pursuit of truth. Pursuit of anything less is not science.

            MF asked for the original Swedish, which I provided at the expense of my time and effort (apparently he was not up to the task), and then I used an impartial translator. What did I discover? The truth, that MF was wrong, and that he is a true leftist. IOW, MF does not care what is true, because he has an agenda, and MF will deny any facts that do not support the pursuit of his agenda.

            Amazingly, MF will continue to post comments here, somehow falsely believing that he still has even a shred of credibility remaining. Leftists have virtually zero self awareness.

    • Gino says:

      Your religion is global warming and you choose to believe your faith when the truth is right in front of you.

      You cannot be reasoned with. I agree – go crawl back under your head rock.

  13. KevinPaul says:

    Maybe that’s one of the reasons she detests flying, since CO2 levels can reach 5000 ppm on a bad day, 1000 on a reasonable one, and 650 on a good one, seeing all that circulating vital plant respirant would torture her poor wretched soul.
    Seriously, the use of the adjective “naked” surely disqualifies it as an intended metaphor. These people are New Age Apostles of the Lucifarian church of deception, muses and confounders of reason.

  14. Martin says:

    Can see CO2 with the naked eye? I’ve truly heard everything now… the girl is either lying or hallucinating, and her mother is an idiot for believing her. They both need help.

  15. GCSquared says:

    What happened to the good old days when the elites scammed money the people by selling indulgences? It was essentially benign. The arguments for its practice being beneficial made some sense. Sometimes, people engaged in its practice out of love of someone deceased, vis-a-vis hatred of the living.

  16. Mary I says:

    As far as CO2 levels over 400 ppm being dangerous to life, apparently OSHA is not aware of this because the acceptable limit for CO2 in the workplace is 5,000 ppm for up to 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week.

    • KevinPaul says:

      To save fuel on long haul flights pilots can reduce the cabin air exchange as fresh air requires heating. CO2 levels can easily reach a maximum of 5000ppm, of course they don’t do this if they know air quality is being monitored. So I guess OSH guidelines rule anywhere.

  17. annieoakley says:

    The Navy tries to keep the CO2 level in submarines @ or below 5,000ppm.

  18. Mark Frank says:

    One more time – is there anyone taking part in this discussion who has actually read the book (in any language). Or are we all relying on quotes taken out of context on the internet?

    • Gator says:

      One more time!

      The original text:

      ”Greta tillhörde det lilla fåtal som kunde se våra koldioxider med blotta ögat. Hon såg hur växthusgaserna strömmade ut från våra skorstenar, svävade uppåt med vindarna och förvandlade atmosfären till en gigantisk osynlig soptipp.”

      https://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2019/01/10/recension-av-malena-ernmans-bok-scener-ur-hjartat/

      The English translation per Google:

      “Greta belonged to the small few who could see our carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She saw how the greenhouse gases were pouring from our chimneys, floating upwards with the winds and turning the atmosphere into a gigantic invisible dump. ”

      I’m not expecting MF to do anything other than deny the facts, it’s what lefties do, but this is really too fun!

      Come on denier! Keep the big lie going…

    • rah says:

      What I know we aren’t relying on is you or your opinions.

      • Gator says:

        Maybe MF should take a few years to learn to read Swedish fluently. Then he could read the book, and later come back here with a full book report. Until then, nobody cares what MF has to say on this subject.

        This denial of facts from MF is proof positive that the left will never accept any facts that interfere with their warped beliefs. This is why they always deny natural climate change, even though they cannot refute it. They will cling to the idea that they are right with zero evidence to back their claim, and ignore the massive mounds of evidence that they are wrong.

        • rah says:

          All to defend an ignorant manipulated little girls rants. The Polar bear failed and now they have Greta. Personally I Love it and hope they keep it up. They have been losing the climate wars and they know it and I see their pushing Scoldilocks to the forefront as their spokesperson as a sign of desperation.

          This year for the first time since 1989 we here in central Indiana may have snow cover on the ground for Thanksgiving. When I was a kid back in the 60’s and early 70’s my dad and I and usually an uncle or my grandfather would go rabbit hunting on Thanksgiving morning and there was almost always of snow on the ground back then. Sometimes several inches. This year we only had a 10 day period in July when the highs consistently got to or over 90 deg. F and no days that broke 100. Somewhat remarkable since the climatological record for central Indiana shows an average high of 85 F for the month of July. Also the night time lows were noticeably lower than last summer. Bottom line is it’s getting colder here again and all the fabricated or manipulated numbers in the world can’t change that.

    • arn says:

      One more time.

      The FAZ article is a full Segment of the Thunberg book
      and not a patchwork of quotes taken from the book
      The “i see co2”-part is pretty much in the middle of the whole text=
      There is nothing to missquote or out of context.

  19. rah says:

    Thomas Sowell right on target as usual.
    The economist and social theorist Thomas Sowell once said that activism is “a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.”

  20. Grant Willetts says:

    MF, MF, MF could you dig any further down that hole…Repeating the same crap over and over does not make it true unless you are at a meeting of climate alarmists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.