Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to a German think tank, most people are not aware of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, with a majority of people even in European countries believing that the modern warming is at least partially a natural phenomenon. But the survey notes even believers are reluctant to embrace expensive climate interventions.
Denial of climate change leads to inaction
Tuesday, 24 November 2020
New research in Europe and the United States shows that less than half of the public across the countries surveyed are aware of the scientific consensus on climate change.
The survey, commissioned by dpart, a Berlin-based think tank, and the Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI), was published yesterday. The data collection for the survey took place in August. In total, the survey is based on the responses of 10,233 people, ages 18 to 74, in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic, the UK and the US.
“Many citizens across Europe and US still don’t realise that scientific consensus on human responsibility for climate change is overwhelming,” said Heather Grabbe, director of OSEPI. “Though outright denialism is rare, there is a widespread false belief, promoted by vested interests opposed to emissions reductions, that scientists are split on whether humans are causing climate change.”
“Our polling shows that the more convinced people are that climate change is the result of human activity, the more accurately they estimate its impact and the more they want action,” she added.
…
Large minorities – ranging from 17 per cent in Spain to 44 per cent in France -– still believe that climate change is caused equally by humans and natural processes. This matters because those who do accept that climate change is the result of human action are twice as likely to believe it will cause negative consequences in their own lives.
When added to the “hard” sceptics, who do not believe human activity is a contributing factor to climate change, these sceptics together make up the majority in France, Poland, the Czech Republic and the USA.
…
Read more: https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/142255/denial-of-climate-change-leads-to-inaction/
The survey (in English) is available here.
The survey also attempted to gauge support for climate action, and noticed that climate action skepticism was strongly correlated with climate skepticism.
Cost matters – the survey also noticed people are reluctant to support expensive climate interventions. “… Overall, people in all countries see action on climate change largely through a rather personal lens. They are more likely to consider changing their personal consumption than engage in collective action. In terms of policy, they are in favour of a government response, but seem reluctant to support policies that directly affect them in a costly way. …”
Why do people care about the cost, if the future of the planet hangs in the balance?
I suspect the inconsistencies in the climate narrative are a much bigger obstacle to acceptance of costly climate interventions than anything climate skeptics do or say.
For example, renewable energy advocates frequently claim renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel, but for some reason politicians still need to provide trillions of dollars in the form of green new deals or other costly interventions to drive the low carbon revolution.
Renewable advocates have never provided a satisfactory explanation for why the most profitable, lowest cost energy option needs so much government assistance.
Previous cost driven energy revolutions, like the switch from whale oil to lower cost kerosene, did not require any government intervention whatsoever. From 1858 to 1860 the number of US whaling ships collapsed from 199 ships in 1858 to 167 ships in 1860. Only 39 whaling ships were still in operation by 1876. An abrupt collapse like this is the kind of pattern you would expect to see from a genuine cost driven energy revolution.
People are not stupid. Having no satisfactory answer for obvious questions is the easiest way to kill enthusiasm for a proposed investment, even if a lot of people are onboard with the idea that the investment is necessary.
Do we REALLY have to pick trash like this apart? Again??
“New research in Europe and the United States shows that less than half of the public across the countries surveyed are aware of the scientific consensus on climate change.”
Did the author consider that maybe this indicates that more than half don’t believe that there’s a consensus?
“Many citizens across Europe and US still don’t realise that scientific consensus on human responsibility for climate change is overwhelming,…”
Replace the word “realise” with the word “believe”. Got it now?
““Though outright denialism is rare, there is a widespread false belief,…”
Who the hell is she to declare that someone else’s belief is false? Given the original premise, it is far more likely that hers is.
“Our polling shows that the more convinced people are that climate change is the result of human activity, the more accurately they estimate its impact and the more they want action,” …
Replace ‘accurately’ with ‘inaccurately’. Fixed that one. (Quite simply, too.)
“When added to the “hard” sceptics, who do not believe human activity is a contributing factor to climate change, these sceptics together make up the majority in France, Poland, the Czech Republic and the USA.”
Got it. Now…look up the definition of ‘democracy’.
And they wonder why so many of us think that some people should never be given a pencil. A German ‘think tank’?? Gruss Gott, how think tanks have tanked.
Exactly! What concensus? That the climate has been changing on planet Earth like forever and then along comes climate scientists and humans suddenly, inextricably own all the climate change?
These people are total idiots.
Unfortunately, Biden and his new Climate Czar Kerry believe it!
Careful with attributing things to people you don’t actually know. Biden might ‘believe’ in AGW, but that would be because he is a senile geriatric who thinks his dead son had multiple sex changes, turning into two girls. As for Kerry, I don’t think he believes one word of this climate bull, except this one thing: The more of us plebes believe this rubbish, the more money he gets to steal.
Do you really think Baal Gates wants to save us all with his vaccines because he believes in vaccines, or because he makes so much money out of the believers? The only unshakeable belief I see in that turd, is the belief that we plebes are overpopulating His earth.
So yeah, just because some kakastokrat promotes something, does not mean it believes it, it just sees gain in you believing nonsense, and more importantly, they need you to believe IN nonsense. Like “scientific concensus”. If you ask two scientists for an opinion, you get at least three replies, now suddenly, after millennia, there is concencus? What’s Up With That?
I’m with you.
These kind of “true believers” who believe they are completely right, and anyone who believes even slightly different is evil, are starting to scare me and that’s why I always refer to them as eco- or climate-nazis. The ecofascists keep druming the false message through the idiot media and even when facts turn against them they just turn up the volume even louder and pretend “it’s worse than we thought!”
The Maldives still haven’t sunk and are in fact building more airports and hotels for the tourists. The whole world has greened by 15-20% as measured by alarmist NASA itself over the past 40+ years, due to the higher CO2. And the poles refuse to melt and the polar bears are flourishing. But the eco-nazis keep telling us the end is near and they have the Final Solution.
I am not aware of a scientific consensus on anything scientific. I am aware of a faith based consensus on cagw that has all the props and lingo of sciencey down pat, but it is anti-science and fact-adverse, and only pushes that agenda to achieve power and control objectives.
Nor should there ever be a mandated ban on debate. Scientific progress would grind to a halt if all scientists behaved like AGW alarmists or German “think” tanks (isn’t there a word for that?).
Were I wrong, one would be enough…..
“…lingo of sciencey…”
You meant “sciencery”, I am sure.
Sciencery: v/n/adj. The magical process whereby ‘discretionary funding’ can make any product or service walk upon a cloud of scienciness.
It’s like having a poll about God carried out by Jesuits or Muslims.
IF theses babbling kooks claiming to be “science people” really want to reduce the threat of climate change and CAGW, I have the proper solution for their concerns.
Aside from getting some help with their emotional issues, they will vastly reduce their own contribution to CARBON POLLUTION if they just get their mouths sewn shut.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. If there is one single thing I”m grateful for, it is my newly-installed, fuel-efficient gas-fired furnace/AC that was put into place the beginning of November’s chilly weather in my humble abode. Life is good in my kingdom. And we had a light snow on my front steps, too.
What is given at links to “the survey” are the results of a survey.
Where are the actual questions?
As “Yes! Prime Minister” shows the questions can lead to the required answers.
Love how the Brussels Times leads with a picture of STEAM. !!
They obviously do not want to be taken seriously. 🙂
Surely even the DUMBEST of reporters must have realised that anyone with even a tiny fraction of brain left, would be awake to that CON.
“fred250 November 24, 2020 at 7:13 pm”
You will be surprised how many people believe those images of steam are in fact CO2. I have given up discussing the issue, I just laugh!
Patrick
That white colouration in the picture helps Greta spot CO2, apparently. If she had stayed in school long enough to get past special studies class on sulking and virtue signalling, she might have got round to science.
Clearly she didn’t think that was necessary her parents encouraged her to simply believe and all would be given….
There’s an add on tv at the moment. You’ve probably seen it. I think it’s for power company?
Lots of square black clouds of co2 floating about looking very sinister.
I’m sure a lot of people think it’s factual.
I once posted a distorted image of cars on the road in Las Vegas that looked like the cars were melting, and said “Global warming is so bad that it’s melting cars” – and people actually believed I was serious.
So yeah, I’m sure they believed that too.
Financial post had a front page picture of the syncrude upgrader by ft MCMurray, they inverted the picture so that the nice steam was pure black.
But it works with the terminally stupid.
It’s actually quite pretty flying from edmonton to Yellowknife on a clear -40 winter day, you look for the mushroom clouds all along the horizon
Because oilsands plants are steam plants
The Open Society Foundation is George Soros’ vehicle for “spreading turmoil and corruption, and for his self-enrichment.
Heather Grabbe, director of OSEPI, works for Mr. Soros. Expecting integrity from her is like expecting compassion from a sadist.
Following that link–George Soros has never personally generated one penny of wealth as far as I can see, as he has never worked in farming or forestry, mining or manufacturing; I find no evidence that he has ever had his hands dirty. Then from who did he take the $32 Billion that he has ‘philanthropically’ given to Open Society Foundations to fund their work, and how did he take it?
Is that a legitimate way to direct society? Is a society that proceeds from such influence of one very rich man’s ideals evolving honestly and naturally, or is it one that is bought? If it is bought, for who’s benefit does it then function?
I don’t know, just asking…
Quote “I find no evidence that he has ever had his hands dirty.”
Oh his hands got extremely dirty during the second world war. Of all the people that died he is one that should have and I fell no guilt at all in saying that. One of the most despicable people that have ever lived.
George Soros may be a thoroughly unpleasant person for all I know.
However according to Wikipedia he was 13 years old when the Nazis invaded Hungary.
Many Jews who managed to survive those terrible times were faced with cruelly imposed ‘Sophie’ choices’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Personal_life
Which made him old enough to know better when it finished. Millions of others chose not to do what he did and he has shown the same colours since.
Yes, he cried himself to sleep every night – NOT! “These were the happiest days of my life”.
The world needs two new regulations:
Hedge funds are illegal
Lawyers cannot hold public office
Soros wealth came from currency manipulation, feeding of the bones of the people.
Always funny that leftists will take his money
Anything for the cause
I spotted that too Pat, even read the survey. Ambiguous questions, some of which people didn’t even bother to answer. Am I wrong to believe that to give a percentage out of 100, unanswered questions should be included and labelled ‘unanswered’? I would have thought that to simply leave out an undisclosed number of unanswered questions would skew the results.
Dogma and propaganda.
The links from Soros’s “philanthropy” to Lord Malloch Brown and the ongoing voting fraud in the US election are key.
Aside – Soros made billions on an attack on Sterling, a convenient excuse to keep it out of the Euro.
Also he managed the Queens very own Quantum Fund when the LTCM crash hit. Likely because of this Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, bringing bailout, bail-in, and now the Green New Deal.
https://canadianpatriot.org/2020/11/17/malloch-brown/
“The Open Society Foundation is George Soros’ vehicle for “spreading turmoil and corruption, and for his self-enrichment.”
AS expected, you’ve popped the fart bubble on a whole new thread of Shylockian anti-semitism, Pat. Starting with the predictable, “Following that link–George Soros has never personally generated one penny of wealth as far as I can see, as he has never worked in farming or forestry, mining or manufacturing; I find no evidence that he has ever had his hands dirty.”, and descending from there.
But we DO know of one extravagantly coiffed, well made up, high BMI’er who’s ears are turning red about now…..
As suspected, the ultra-leftist big oily blob tries to defend the anti-human filth that is Soros.
One of the questions that seems never to be asked in these ‘surveys’ is: Do you believe any action humans take regarding the changes in the climate will have any measurable effect? If so, how much will that effect cost -$ spent – and what will the negative effects be of taxing ans spending that much money?
Until that is answered there can be NO support for “climate change” in any form.
“Though outright denialism is rare, there is a widespread false belief, promoted by vested interests opposed to emissions reductions, that scientists are split on whether humans are causing climate change.”
What a disgraceful comment. Based simply on the public statements, published research and media records of many highly-resected and experienced atmospheric scientists, Heather Grabbe is either an idiot or is deliberately misleading people (or lying as we used to call it).
There are no other possibilities. She is either an idiot or a liar. To be fair, I suppose she could actually be both.
Both a knave, and a fool. Spreading her lies.
If all the CC alarmists got together and stopped using what fossil fuels produce what would the savings in CO2 be?
The climate jalopy only makes progress when everyone is on board and funding it.
If half the disbelieving population hops off, it crashes and stalls. If one country pulls out of an agreement, it crashes and stalls.
They don’t want to persuade people, they want courts to mandate action, they want the deep state to mandate action, they want the schools to propagandize the youth, and they will take modest gains over time while they wait for the unpersuaded to be crushed under the wheels or pass on.
Should be a German Non-Think Tank.
In Cockney rhyming slang:
A load of Castor and Pollux.
The Climatism body equivalent to a Christian Church Synod of bishops is the IPCC.
Their latest pronouncement to the faithful states inter alia:
‘It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report [i.e. most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations]’.
So sons and daughters it is still acceptable and obedient for one to believe that humans are not entirely responsible for the climate emergency, go in peace my children.
Sales 101.2
Customer acceptance of the sales pitch is almost always motivated by “what’s in it for me”.
If the customer doesn’t buy into that, your sale will not happen.
Yes because scientific consensus aka appeal to authority is ever so meaningful … no really I am right because I say so. We could just stick to science arguments but this is Climate Science (TM) which becomes more and more like the Spanish Inquisition.
Like most progressives, they are offended that people are still allowed to disagree with them.
And as I’ve observed before, the dependable thing about progressivism is that all the charming lip service for enduring democratic polity and tender care for the downtrodden is readily forgotten when they ascend to power and those same now ‘deplorables’ just won’t get with the program that drains them of their hard-won earnings, while wealthy commissars are veritably sustained by similar oppressive constraints as were once decried. Indeed this seemingly inverted outcome is so consistent that it must reflect a reliably insincere propelling feature of these regimes headed by mere mortals with feet of clay.
“11 While we, as authors, consider the term ‘climate crisis’ more appropriate to describe the severity of the issue, we used ‘climate change’ in most questions posed to respondents, as we wanted to be able to capture perceptions across the full range of understandings within the public.”
https://dpart.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Comparative_report.pdf
The questions appear as footnotes.
The climate alarmists, anti-fascists, anti-racists, and others must work hard to create artificially powerful enemies as means of leveraging their otherwise weak positions on facts. You have absolutely nothing to offer policy wise, so you try to convince people that powerful forces are at work to block good things from being done. It is an artifice to gain political power to be used for their other agendas.
Tom, you used “agendas” plural. It’s just one agenda – their bank accounts.
Science shouldn’t take place on Dominion voting machines.
LOL!
Or Smartmatic for that matter!
I’m half German, so I don’t want to pick on Germany but there was once an overwhelming scientific consensus on eugenics. Just about every US University had a eugenics department. These were quietly eliminated after WW2.
A certain German dictator took Eugenics to the next level and its logical conclusion. After the Holocaust was revealed to the world in the pictures of the work camps and death camps, it fell out of favor for obvious reasons.
But the same eugenics attitudes of superiority and elitism are all this there. Hillary’s “Deplorables” comment on the people who would never vote for her. Dementia Joe Biden had his deplorable moment when he told black Americans “You ain’t black if you don’t vote for me.”
That all is based on ideas that CO2 Arrhenius propagated.
Whereas Angstrom was correct.
Lord Maynard Keynes was treasurer of the Eugenics Society. Co-founder of the WWF, Huxley, President of the Eugenics Society, said in 1946:
“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
It did not “go away”.
Climate change, global warming etc., whatever one wants to call it is an even bigger scam than eugenics which had an influence on WWII. Climate changes constantly and will forever more as it has in the past and into the future. It has been politicised by vested interests with no understanding of physics and chemistry.
There was also a ‘scientific consensus’ that was a bit harsh on Galileo. That one also exposed the consensus crowd to ridicule down through history.
As well as one on Alfred Wegener (who, coincidental to this article, happened to be a German.)
Who said words to this effect –
“when those who assert that there is a manmade climate crisis happening act themselves like there is a manmade climate crisis, we can start to take notice of them”
So that rules out all attendees to COP gabfest ho-downs, yes?
‘German Think Tank’ full of treasonous morons.
It seems, that Heather Grabbe has nothing to do with a “German Think Thank”:
“Heather Grabbe (born 30 August 1970) is a political scientist, activist, and director of the Open Society European Policy Institute in Brussels, Belgium.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Grabbe
More exactly: She is a paid agent of Mr. Soros Open Society Foundation, and her main task is to sermonize “progressive liberalism” (more exactly Liberonazism aka Neobolshevism). Oh yes, the climate alarmist investment funds must generate extraprofit.
She’s a fascist.
Synarchist is the correct term.
Most today have not heard that, yet the US Army OSS discovered and documented it.
What they are really saying is that the propaganda is not having the effect they had hoped for.
Ah! Most people are rational. Duh! What a finding! Geeeze.
And, more intelligent than the “experts” or whatever, seem to perceive them.
Heather Grabbe (appropriate name!) underestimates the good sense and rationality of ordinary people. This is common for Socialists.
Climate Action is a Jobs For Scientists program.
Pretty sure the consensus is still “at least 50% of observed warming” is anthropogenic. That’s another way of saying “Up to half of the observed warming” is natural.
Trouble is…… at least half, is from “adjustments”
Woo Hoo! We are stopping humanity from wasting trillions of dollars on a hopeless and meaningless quest.
I feel like we skeptics have accomplished something after all.
Glass half full.
“German Think Tank: Climate Deniers are Holding Back Climate Action”
–
Well, yeah. In no small part because calling people “climate deniers” is just one part of their lie.
Quote “the more accurately they estimate its impact and the more they want action”
It would be interesting to see who declares it accurate. What a one sided stupid comment.
An article I read recently somewhere noted that older people were far more considerate of the environment than younger ones who seem most concerned about it. Rather ironic.
It is long established that single issue surveys are completely unreliable. Minor changes in the questions, that do not even slightly change their meaning, produce wildly different results. All you need is a little work on the questions with focus groups before you start and you can always get the answer you want. It is not at all the same as polls on forthcoming elections, people have thought about that, have thought about it often during their lives, there is a history of polling tested by elections to guide pollsters.
Little attention should be paid to such surveys unless they are confronted by a reality test – an actual vote in the near future.
Whenever pollsters ring me up, which doesn’t happen often since I dropped my landline years ago, I always tell them the opposite just to try and screw their polls up as generally they are as useful as tits on a bull and generally only the brain dead take any notice of them
Millions of Americans, in their zeal to get rid of Trump, have enabled progressives to have free rein in outlawing fossil fuel. Evidence science be damned, no matter how loony the climate alarmist claims are, Biden/Harris are going to cripple the American economy with Green BS.
In reality, I doubt it. These modern Luddite democrats are too f-kin useless to actually do anything except think about the next election.
Let’s keep track of Kerry’s envoy-ness vs the Keeling Curve, combatting climate and global temperatures over the next four years.
From Grabbe’s Wikipedia entry she appears to have contributed absolutely nothing of value to the World in her fifty years.
“Climate Deniers are Holding Back Climate Action”
In the same way that a concerned citizen might hold back a person trying to throw someone off a cliff?
Yes, since climate action policies are, in my opinion so destructive, then the “den1ers” are saving the planet.
The one question to ask is “What percentage of your weekly income are you willing to commit from today onwards to reduce the temperature by a couple of degrees over the next 100 years?”
“The survey also attempted to gauge support for climate action, and noticed that climate action skepticism was strongly correlated with climate skepticism.”
Well! Who would have thought that? Did somebody get paid good money for this drivel?
Just perusing the Reports of the stink-tank :
https://dpart.org/reports/
how many mention “Open Society” – George Soros’s outfit? That “philanthropy” took its name from Sir Karl Popper’s “Open Society and its Enemies”.
In his 2010 lecture, Soros said “I started developing my philosophy as a student at the London School of Economics in the late 1950s… under the mentorship of Karl Popper” who argued that “empirical truth cannot be known with absolute certainty… Even scientific laws can’t be verified”.
These people have relieved themselves of the burden of truth.
“Large minorities – ranging from 17 per cent in Spain to 44 per cent in France -– still believe that climate change is caused equally by humans and natural processes.”
Then care to point us to the scientific consensus on the actual percentage breakdown if 50/50 is wrong?
Many people are willing, eager, even, to pay lip service to Climate Belief to make themselves look good, particularly when questioned by another Believer. Where the rubber meets the road, however, is how much they are willing to pay for said Beliefs. What many don’t realize, or don’t want to know, is how much they have already paid, and will be paying for it, including lost opportunity. But the highway robbery by the Climate Liars doesn’t stop there. They are actually causing much human misery, and even death, particularly among those in poor countries. This, while pretending to “care” about poor and oppressed people, which is an outrage. Even Climate Believer Bjorn Lomborg points this out, much to the Climate Liar’s dismay. It is actually a double whammy, because this is money that could have been spent on helping people, instead of hurting them.
When Climate Liars conduct “polls”, what they are actually attempting to do is to further lie in order to prop up their failing propaganda. Astonishingly, they try to point the blame for non-Belief and inaction based on lies on Truth-tellers, whom they like to call “Deniers”, which itself is a lie. The downfall of Climate Liars is in fact Truth, which they hate. But Truth doesn’t care. Much like the sun’s disinfecting properties, it eventually wipes out the sickening mold and bacteria spread by the Climate Liars. Despite all, the Climate Liars are losing, and this outrages them.
Tough Noogies, Climate Liars.
Well said.
The sad part is that the majority of people are having it forced on them by a corrupt and ignorant minority.
Put another way, they have failed to fool all the people all of the time. They blame people for not blindly accepting the faith-based beliefs instead of checking the facts regarding their assumptions. They will double their efforts to re-educate the masses & indoctrinate the children in schools. “All hail the IPCC & the AGW alarmists.” but not by me and many others whom check the details & check the facts.
I think you folks have missed that they are talking about the “political” science consensus about climate change.
The average punter in Euroop (or anywhere really) has no idea what a consensus is. They probably see it starts with con- and that rings a bell to warn streetwise people to play dumb.
“I know nothing” …
Some nasty & evil things have come out of German think-tanks.
I have been very skeptical anything issued by a German “Think Tank” since January 30, 1933.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/adolf-hitler-is-named-chancellor-of-germany
There is no scientific consensus regarding the validity of the AGW conjecture. The consensus is all just speculation. Scientists never registered and then voted on the validity of the AGW consensus. But even if they had, the results would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process or by some other form of a popularity contest.
The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. If CO2 really did affect climate then one would expect the the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. It is all a matter of science. Mankind just does not have the power to stop Mother Nature from slowly changing the climate as has been happening for eons. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue unabated because they are part of the current climate. Mankind does not even know what the optimum climate is let alone how to achieve it To better protect ourselves from the ravages of extreme weather events, the best we can do is to improve the global economy as mush as possible. Wasting time and money pursuing climate control over which mankind just does not have the power is very counter productive. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.
“Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process or by some other form of a popularity contest.”
Shame, mommy couldn’t afford you a Montessori education then? All Montessori kiddies know: Perception IS reality, and Truth IS determined by majority opinion.
You don’t know nuffin, you probably hate science and it’s because of you not wearing your mask while eating, that my 102-year old granma is busy dying with Covert. Just kidding. Drank herself to death, while back when she heard of the Think Tanks (CFR, Tavistock…) stealing thousands of ‘vulnerable’ children and putting them onto sex-change regimes.
Riddle: Calculate the exact size of the Arctic circle, today, 2020-9-26. Show your work. Points wil be awarded even if numbers are guesstimated. Tip for Montessori kids: Looking at any map older than a decade will be utterly useless, because you do not even understand where the seasons come from! Am I allowed to post a link here?
https://greenpets.co.za/index.php/en/2-greenpets-natural-happiness/136-climate-change
Dear Mr. Stone,
Again: Heather Grabbe has nothing to do with Germany. She does work for a US-citizen, for Mr. Soros in Brussel treating the EU as a US-colony. Looking to the post Second WW era, your statement should be corrected on the following way:
“I have been very skeptical anything issued by a US “Think Thank”.
For example, how many wars have been initiated only by Mr. Obama, and how many people have been killed in these wars? And before labelling me as an “antisemitist”, info only for you: Mr. Soros is persona non grata even in Israel.
Actually, for the most part, people are pretty stupid.
Translation: The aren’t enough poor people and not enough desperation compared to plan.