Well, he’s right about that one. The First Amendment of the US constitution is indeed a standing in the way of people like him who would like to control speech on the internet and in all corners of social live from becoming reality. The amendment was passed to stop wanna-be autocrats like him from ever imposing parental control on the media landscape of adult citizens.
This piece is archived in WUWT Climate TV, a collection of over six hundred videos, featuring new interviews and analysis, and covering dozens of media sources discussing, debating and analyzing the latest in climate science, climate politics, and energy policy, including topics concerning temperature, sea level, polar bears, ocean acidification, extreme weather, censorship, wild fires, and more.
“The source you go to is SICK and HAS AN AGENDA, and is PUTTING OUT MISINFORMATION….”
John Kerry must be looking in a mirror and/or totally lack any introspection.
He has described the climate scam to a “t”.
Democracy everywhere is challenged by low-lifes like Kerry.
The Iron Law of Progressive Projection never fails.
Sounds like he is describing a large portion of the “Main Stream Media” on a number of topics.
He’s extremely arrogant. I detest that attitude. Similar to Hillary who thinks most Americans are deplorables. These idiots ought to read the history of early America and how Americans have always hated such elitism. They should read Alexis de Tocqueville. They should appreciate why freedom of speech is THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Our Constitutional Republic
Democracyeverywhere is challenged by low-lifes like Kerry.Fixed it for you.
John Kerry exemplifies what typically happens to high-level Democrat bureaucrats (aka poseurs) when they realize they’ve actually reached the end of their careers . . . they go full retard.
See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q
John Kerry, the template for “doing Jack”.
See, Kerry couldn’t GO full retard.
He was always there from the get-go.
And it showed.
A lot of credible people started questioning John Kerry’s veracity about Vietnam starting in 1971. After over 50 years of the Democratic Party he probably believes his BS.
Kerry was / is an embarrassment to his brothers who wore the green in the Vietnam years.
Nobody wanted to be there, but he saw it as a performance art opportunity.
Even filmed his contrived and rehearsed “MacArthur” type landings from a PBR (Patrol Boat, River).
John Kerry is a traitor to his country.
He has been undermining the United States for decades.
It’s not a surprise that he does not like the First Amendment. Radical Democrats don’t like it when others have a different view of things. Their first impulse is to try to shut down any dissent.
John Kerry thinks it is “sick” to question whether CO2 is causing the climate to change.
John Kerry is the one who is sick. He is still lying and trying to undermine the United States, this time, over a fake climate crisis..
Kerry is a true human turd.
I reported your comment for insulting turds.
Can not tolerate shitophobia.
Btw – at the same time Kerry was talking about this censorship,Blinken and two other politicians from 5eyes countries tried to urge countries worldwide = outside the western hemisphere they control, to ban RT after they already did successfully in the west and recently banned RT from social Media.
Though it was not RT that lied and pushed for all these wars or protected a demented puppet president or successfully shut down 2015s Amy Rohbachs exposure of Jeffrey Epsteins blackmail island which is by any metric the biggest threat to US democracy.
But for some reason neither Karry nor Blinken have any issues with those TV stations spreading like cancer globally.
Both also do not have any problems that right now, foreign agent George Soros bought 200 US radio stations – and this coup was even fast tracked by the Blinken – Kerry administration, to monopolize unispeach from the Uniparty.
And yesterday Blinken cancelled AfricanStream(Noone screaming racism) from all social media on basis of false accusations.
And on top of that Australia is pushing for massive censorship laws.
What’s RT?!
Je ne comprend pas acronym.
But very rich.
WEF group think and a “Lurch Lecture”, whew what a mix.
We sure dodged a bullet when the nation rejected him as presidential material 20 years ago. Iran probably would have rendered concerns about climate change moot by now.
We’ve (the nation) dodged a few bullets over the years, but have also taken a large number of direct hits. Given a rapidly increasing Federal debt burden, an unaccountable bureaucracy seeking to control every facet of our lives and a wide open Southern border, our ability to remain a free and prosperous people is becoming increasingly tenuous.
This ^
GW Bush and Kerry were both skull & bones members in Yale at the same time,
which means it absolutely did not matter who won the presidential race.
At least not for those who do not believe in coincidences and the impossibility that thosemet again in a presidential race or share different values.
According to Jonathan Turley “we are living in the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history” and that applies not only to the United States; the Australian Government is preparing legislation “combating misinformation and disinformation” to be administered by government appointed ‘fact-checkers’ aka The Ministry of Truth.
The only thing Orwell got wrong was the date
Had Orwell envisioned the internet, he would have gotten a better date.
Jonathan Turley is correct. Free Speech is under attack from the Radical Left because the Radical Left can’t stand the truth.
And John Kerry is corrct: The First Amendment does stand in the way of censors, and John Kerry will just have to get used to it.
Unfortunately, other Western nations don’t have a First Amendment, so the people in those nations are in danger of losing their Free Speech.
This from the man that really understands the “greenhouse effect”..
There’s only one thing that’s grown thicker and it’s not the ‘blanket’.
It’s probably too late for Kerry to learn anything about the Green House Effect
Physicists: Non-Greenhouse Gases (O2 and N2) Are Mainly Responsible For The 33°C Greenhouse Effect (notrickszone.com)
Actually, I think most atmospheric physicists and true climatologists would claim that water vapor (H2O) is the gas primarily responsible for the so-called greenhouse effect.
O2 and N2 are not scientifically considered to be greenhouse gases since they are not IR-active gases . . . that is, they do not absorb LWIR emitted from Earth’s surface because they do not have a permanent, or even inducible, dipole in their molecular structure.
“Climatologists” have no authoritative opinions on this topic because they do not know their physics. “Greenhouse” is the wrong term, to begin with, and no one who uses it to describe the atmosphere can call themselves a physicist. Actual glass greenhouses increase their internal temperature compared to their surroundings by inhibiting convection. But nothing inhibits convection in the open atmosphere.
Are you not aware that most greenhouses at commercial scale use fans to force air circulation (i.e., convection) within the enclosures? That’s done, partly, to prevent thermal stratification of the inside air (i.e., cool, denser air toward ground level versus warm, less-dense air toward the roof).
And greenhouses that use “transparent” glass for their enclosures do, in fact, allow incoming solar energy (as short wavelength, visible light) while at the same time inhibiting long wavelength IR energy loss from the interior . . . most glass being opaque across of broad range of the LWIR spectrum.
Finally, I do think you’ll find an incredibly large number of peer-reviewed, scientific, published papers/articles/books by well-respected physicists/scientists (e.g., W. Happer) that not only use, but discuss extensively, the “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gases”.
But thank you for your authoritative opinions, nonetheless.
Circulating air inside a greenhouse has nothing to do with preventing heat loss from the interior to the exterior via convection.
Yes, radiant energy enters the greenhouse. No one said it didn’t. But without the glass walls, most of the heat of that part of the atmosphere would be carried away by convection, not radiation. Try making a greenhouse out of sheets of potassium bromide, transparent to both shortwave and longwave infrared radiation, and I guarantee it will still be a lot hotter inside than outside. By contrast, if you arrange the panels in your glass greenhouse such that air is allowed to move freely but there is no direct radiant path from the interior to the exterior (something like this: _-_-_- but with more overlap) then the interior will rapidly reach the same temperature as the exterior, as the warm air leaves and is replaced by incoming cooler air.
Thermal stratification of the atmosphere (the mislabeled “greenhouse effect”) has (almost) nothing to do with the presence or absence of IR-interactive gases, regardless of what Happer says. He can discuss this hypothetical “radiant greenhouse” effect, yes, but he certainly can’t prove it. Can you? Can anyone?
1) “Circulating air inside a greenhouse has nothing to do with preventing heat loss from the interior to the exterior via convection.” I never said or implied that it did; instead I implied that it increased convection inside a hothouse, which it does, with the implication that it increases, not decreases, heat loss from the hothouse interior, which it does.
2) “By contrast, if you arrange the panels in your glass greenhouse such that air is allowed to move freely but there is no direct radiant path from the interior to the exterior . . . then the interior will rapidly reach the same temperature as the exterior.” That statement is clearly falsified by the experience of anyone who has ever stood under a glass-roofed bus stop or under a glass-roofed patio or glass-roofed outdoor mall area, each without surrounding vertical walls. Also, “sun rooms” in homes, hotels, and hospitals are known for being much warmer (when the sun is shining) than rooms with opaque ceilings even though they may have the same degree of pass-through of outside air.
3) “Thermal stratification of the atmosphere (the mislabeled “greenhouse effect”) has (almost) nothing to do with . . .” I never mentioned thermal stratification of the atmosphere, only the prevention of thermal stratification of the air inside commercial-scale greenhouses. Also, I never made any reference to Prof. William Happer saying anything about thermal stratification.
Reading comprehension 101.
BTW, the Scientific Method does not refer to “proving” or to “proof”.
If you weren’t talking about thermal stratification of the atmosphere, what do you think “atmospheric [radiant] greenhouse effect” means? Has anyone ever measured this effect?
(I don’t think I’ve ever noticed feeling warmer standing under a glass roof with no walls that would serve to reduce heat loss from wind-induced convection… I’m not even sure I’ve ever seen such a structure. It would be largely pointless where I live, serving only to keep the rain off your head, but most people use umbrellas or hats for that here. And I’m pretty sure I never said sun rooms wouldn’t be warmer than opaque-walled rooms, solar energy is definitely a real thing)
If I misread your original post and you were merely pointing out what climatologists falsely claim, rather than actually endorsing their nonsense yourself, then I have no argument with that, of course. It’s a little hard to tell from the way you worded it.
For sure “atmospheric [radiant] greenhouse” does NOT mean, or even relate to, thermal stratification of the atmosphere.
Hopeless.
Ooops . . . in my post immediately above, the comment period timed-out before I finished my full post. Here it is in entirety:
Actually, most atmospheric physicists and true climatologists would assert that water vapor (H2O) is the gas primarily responsible for the so-called greenhouse effect.
O2 and N2 are not considered scientifically to be greenhouse gases since they are not IR-active gases . . . that is, they do not absorb LWIR emitted from Earth’s surface because they do not have a permanent, or even inducible, dipole in their symmetrical molecular structure.
As for the article you cited with reference to the notricks.com website, the people at that website have totally mischaracterized that paper by giving the title “Physicists: Non-Greenhouse Gases (O2 and N2) Are Mainly Responsible For The 33°C Greenhouse Effect” in their article describing the paper . . . in reality, as is clearly revealed, the title of the paper as assigned by the authors Ullmann and Bülow is “The role of greenhouse gases in radiative equilibrium – Thermodynamic equilibrium”.
Those titles are quite different.
Furthermore, the cited Ullmann and Bülow [2024] paper makes no statement to the effect that O2 and N2 are mainly responsible for the greenhouse effect, only that they are the main components for heat storage in the atmosphere!
Here, verbatim from the third paragraph of their paper:
“Therefore, the polyatomic gases are considered the drivers of the GH effect and are referred to as GH gases. Among the GH gases, the atmospheric part of the water cycle provides the largest contribution to the GH effect because of the high concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere.”
And here, verbatim from the seventh paragraph of their paper:
“The basic constituents of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, are the main contributors to heat storage in the Earth’s GH. The gases known as GH gases – water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, mainly – act with their molecular vibrational degrees of freedom as transmitters and emitters that regulate the energy flow between Earth and Universe, thanks to their property of converting heat into IR photons and vice versa.”
(my bold emphasis added)
IMHO, the folks at notrickszone.com are still playing some tricks on those that are gullible to such.
Yes, N2 and O2, which make up most of the atmospheric mass, are the largest contributors to the 33 degrees that people call the greenhouse effect. What do you think would happen is all N2 was stripped from the atmosphere? The earth’s surface would be colder as the surface air pressure would drop. I don’t think Notrickszone is trying to fool anyone. The gullible ones believe N2 and O2 play no role in setting the Earth’s surface temperature.
“Yes, N2 and O2, which make up most of the atmospheric mass, are the largest contributors to the 33 degrees that people call the greenhouse effect.”
Sorry, but let’s be clear: the so-called “greenhouse effect” is not defined as a temperature difference (e.g., 33 degrees) . . . instead it is a physical interaction or process.
The “greenhouse effect” can lead to different atmospheric temperatures depending on a variety of independent parameters. For example, the “greenhouse effect” stated to be occurring on Venus leads to vastly higher equilibrium atmospheric temperatures there than the “greenhouse effect” has on Earth’s equilibrium atmospheric temperatures.
And there’s relatively little N2 and O2 in the atmosphere of Venus.
I think you are confused. Venus is hot because of the density of the atmosphere. The air pressure on the surface of Venus is like 90X that of the Earth. Even though the atmosphere of Venus is almost all CO2, if you rise in the atmosphere until the air pressure matches that of the Earth’s surface, the temperature difference is 100% explained by the increased solar radiation. There is no enhanced greenhouse effect because of the much larger CO2 concentration.
No, I’m not at all confused.
On my side, this from https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effects_also_on_other_planets :
“For a really strong greenhouse effect, we should look at Venus. Venus is similar to Earth in terms of size and mass, but its surface temperature is about 460 degrees Celsius. This is hot enough to melt lead! The Venusian atmosphere is mainly made up of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. On Earth, carbon dioxide makes up only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere.”
And also on my side, this from https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable/ :
“Scientists long have theorized that Venus formed out of ingredients similar to Earth’s, but followed a different evolutionary path. Measurements by NASA’s Pioneer mission to Venus in the 1980s first suggested Venus originally may have had an ocean. However, Venus is closer to the sun than Earth and receives far more sunlight. As a result, the planet’s early ocean evaporated, water-vapor molecules were broken apart by ultraviolet radiation, and hydrogen escaped to space. With no water left on the surface, carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere, leading to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect that created present conditions.”
I need not cite the large number of similar Web sites discussing the greenhouse effect on Venus.
But please feel free to contact both ESA and NASA to correct their misunderstandings about the physical reasons that Venus has such a hot atmosphere.
“The Venusian atmosphere is mainly made up of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.”
And is about 50 times thicker than Earth’s, as well as being 30 million miles closer to the sun. Do you think those factors might have an effect on its characterization as a still-mislabeled “greenhouse”? If so, by how much?
As I previously suggested, please contact ESA or NASA, preferably both, since I never once mentioned the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus.
BTW, the answer to your first question is given in the quotes I previously posted from cited websites, the relevant sentences repeated here for you convenience:
From the ESA website:
“The Venusian atmosphere is mainly made up of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.”
From the NASA website:
“However, Venus is closer to the sun than Earth and receives far more sunlight.”
Again, reading comprehension 101.
BTW, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus :
“The mesosphere of Venus extends from 65 km to 120 km in height, and the thermosphere begins at approximately 120 km, eventually reaching the upper limit of the atmosphere (exosphere) at about 220 to 350 km.”
(my bold emphasis added)
Whereas, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth :
“The exosphere is the outermost layer of Earth’s atmosphere (though it is so tenuous that some scientists consider it to be part of interplanetary space rather than part of the atmosphere). It extends from the thermopause (also known as the “exobase”) at the top of the thermosphere to a poorly defined boundary with the solar wind and interplanetary medium. The altitude of the exobase varies from about 500 kilometres (310 mi; 1,600,000 ft) to about 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) in times of higher incoming solar radiation . . . The upper limit varies depending on the definition. Various authorities consider it to end at about 10,000 kilometres (6,200 mi) or about 190,000 kilometres (120,000 mi)—about halfway to the moon, where the influence of Earth’s gravity is about the same as radiation pressure from sunlight.”
(my bold emphasis added)
So, comparing the maximum altitude of the Venusian exosphere (350 km) to the minimum altitude of Earth’s exosphere (500 km), one sees that your claim of the atmosphere of Venus being “about 50 times thicker” than Earth’s atmosphere is clearly false.
“atmosphere of Venus being “about 50 times thicker” than Earth’s atmosphere is clearly false.”
Ah, perhaps I didn’t use the correct word to get my meaning across. I didn’t mean thickness as in vertical depth, I meant thickness as in density. Poor communication on my part. Venus’s atmosphere at its surface is about 50 times denser than Earth’s. (“Thick” can be interpreted several ways, including as either depth or density, as in “the thick of battle” or “a thick head of hair”)
Anyway, ambiguous words aside, that density is the part that results in the extreme temperatures at the surface, along with Venus being 30 million miles closer to the sun. Not a “greenhouse effect”.
Well, if density alone determined temperature, shouldn’t Earth’s liquid water oceans be boiling?
Humor aside (well, maybe not!), I again suggest that you contact ESA and NASA so that they can correct their statements about the cause of Venus atmospheric temperatures based on your science.
If you are being serious about your water question, well, of course density is not enough by itself to result in high temperatures. The energy to do that has to come from somewhere, and in the case of Solar System planets, most of that comes from the Sun, combined with the gravitational compression and thermal stratification due to planetary gravity. (A little bit comes from left-over internal energy of planetary formation too, along with a bit of radioactive decay energy)
I’ll agree with your previous point that the radiant greenhouse effect is not proven. You are correct that this status does not, by itself, disqualify the effect from being considered “science”. At this stage, it is a hypothesis with no experimental evidence to support it. As such, it could indeed be considered part of the scientific process. However, it is not heading in the direction of becoming a validated theory, so I would recommend paying it no attention until some experimental evidence starts to support it.
Now, if you think NASA and ESA are going to pay attention to anyone who isn’t paying their salaries, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you…
The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, so there are clearly other things affecting the temperatures on Venus, Earth, and Mars other than the CO2 concentration.
Thanks for sharing this. It’s a great example of “not even wrong.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong#:~:text=2%20See%20also-,Origin%20of%20the%20expression,to%20incorrect%20or%20careless%20thinking.
Isn’t CO2 a heavy gas? Even with convection there shouldn’t be very much of it high in the atmosphere. Maybe the CO2 molecule is big for its mass? I dunno.
Independent of convection, the physic’s principle of diffusion of gases due to concentration gradients will insure that CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere.
Referencing your embedded video, here are the things that Kerry got wrong in the span of less than 1 minute:
1) “This is simple.” — No, the physics of the greenhouse effect is quite complex and is hotly debated among senior scientists as regards its net effect on atmospheric temperature.
2) “Kids at the earliest stage can understand this.” — No, there are many scientists today that don’t understand the greenhouse effect, let alone what are the primary drivers of “climate change”.
3) “. . . a very thin layer of gases . . . quarter inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity . . . that’s how thick it is, it’s in our atmosphere . . . it’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere” — No, Kerry is blindly, and incorrectly, parroting the scientific observation that if one reduced the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 from surface to top-of atmosphere to a layer of pure CO2 at STP conditions, it would be equivalent to a layer thickness of less than one inch . . . and that’s only for CO2, it doesn’t include the equivalent thickness for water vapor, the predominant greenhouse gas! Such hypothetical “layer” does not exist in reality, since CO2 is distributed throughout the vertical height of the atmosphere.
4) “And for million of years, literally millions of years, we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket” — No, CO2—indeed all greenhouse gases—DO NOT act as a thermal blanket, which just reduces heat loss via reducing convection and evaporation. Instead, greenhouse gases intercept LWIR radiation and quickly redistribute that energy across the full composition of gases in the atmosphere, which then thermally-radiate energy to space and back toward Earth’s surface due to their temperatures being above absolute zero. There is no such thing as that claimed “thermal blanket” trapping heat.
5) “. . . and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature.” — No, one can only smile in amusement as to how the greenhouse effect of the claimed “thin blanket” knew what the ideal, life-sustaining temperature of Earth should be.
The error rate coming from a single poseur: just INCREDIBLE!
John Kerry is a prime example of why the first amendment is so important.
Well, I’ll just observe that the First Amendment to the US Constitution does allow John Kerry to spout forth misinformation of the highest order.
One of the recurring facile arguments against the First Amendment and free speech in general is that it allows anything including ‘shouting “fire!”‘ in a crowded theatre without cause but as Alan Dershowitz points out that is not a matter of free speech but is the same as activating a fire alarm without cause like Democratic Party politician Jamaal Bowman who was charged and pled guilty.
Back in the sane days, we understood “community standards” applied to free speech. Profanity was not allowed, as an example. We also understood that “we do not use such language in polite company” and “there is a time and place for such discussions.”
Free speech under the 1st Amendment does not give you the right to impose your point of view whenever and wherever you choose, contrary to recent judicial rulings.
Free speech primarily forbids the government from dictating what you say (or media prints).
So now it is a civil crime is one “misgenders?”
More correctly:
Profanity was discouraged and perhaps criticized. To say “not allowed” suggests a non-existent “authority” would show up to “enforce” what is more a “social norm” than a “rule.”
Free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to IMPOSE anything; just to speak their mind.
The police regularly arrested the comedian Lenny Bruce for his profanity – so yes the thought police do show up (now it’s for pronouns ?).
The Australian government has a “misinformation” bill aimed at suppressing free speech and giving the government a monopoly on misinformation. I received an email from my (Coalition ie.opposition) MP today, saying:
“The Coalition will strongly oppose Labor’s latest Misinformation Bill, which is an attack on free speech.
Last year, the Government released its first Misinformation Bill. The Bill drew more than 20,000 submissions and comments in opposition to it and was withdrawn in disgrace last November.
With its latest attempt, Labor has again demonstrated that it does not respect the fundamental right of Australians to free speech. This is a Bill which has no place in Australia.
The provisions of the Bill are extremely broad and would capture many things said by Australians every day. Under the Bill, the honestly held opinions of Australians can be deemed to be “misinformation”. Digital platforms are required to identify whether or not pieces of content are “misinformation”. The process of identifying this “misinformation” is highly subjective and will lead to the suppression of the free speech of Australians.
Everyday Australians are captured by the Bill, but some groups are excluded from its operation. For instance, any “reasonable dissemination” of material for an academic, scientific, or artistic purpose is excluded from the Bill. But if an everyday Australian disagrees with an academic, that can be “misinformation”.
This is outrageous and creates two classes of speech in Australia – one for favoured groups, and one for everybody else.
The Coalition will strongly oppose this dangerous legislation and will always stand up to protect the free speech of Australians.”
Let’s hope they can stop the bill from becoming law, otherwise this could get very nasty.
and weren’t all government communications also exempted from scrutiny for mis / disinformation?
How would “safe and effective” be treated?
How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
That 2-minute Kerry clip should be exploited by Trump, Vance, Kennedy, Gabbard, etc. to say, “Look, I’m not making this up. Listen to Kerry and believe him, because he says exactly how the elites in control of the Democratic Party feel about the most important protection of individual liberties in our Constitution.” Something along those lines.
One more point. If it were not the “climate” agenda that provided a narrative for totalitarian control, some new crisis-level claims would be substituted. The climate system will take care of itself and more folks will grasp that incremental CO2 should never have been thought capable of driving any of the climate trends. What then? Some new “emergency.”
BTW, this longer video with the analysis by the “Neutrality Studies” guy is pretty good.
One answer. How do the people challenge the absolutely provable disinformation promoted by government? Carl Sagan covers this best in 90s here. The most succinct explanation of the threat Kerry and his ilk represent to technological society that depends on understanding that technology to question power and progress as a society.
Ahhhh . . . if only we had a Carl Sagan or a Richard Feynman to comment today on matters such as climate change™ and “artificial intelligence” and the push for “Net Zero”.
No surprises here. That Kerry is anti-constitutional and is stupid enough to publicly admit it should shock no one.
The Constitution and SCOTUS are the current thorns in Progressives/Marxists sides and they’re doing everything to neutralize both. Controlling the courts is only the beginning.
the US constitution is garbage from day 1
literally a ‘conspiracy’ of the first order
my hero lysander spooner will give you and anyone else the skinny
He’s a product of Wokeachusetts. Believe me, in this state there is virtually NO open debate about the climate and net zero policies.
The slimy left never give up with their re-education gulag meme-
Labor’s misinformation bill a ‘clear and present danger’ to democracy (msn.com)
wow
“It’s really hard to govern today”
“The referees we used to have to determining what’s a fact and what isn’t a fact”
“people self-select where they go for their news and information”
“major block to the ability to just hammer it out of existence”
“democracies…have not proven they can move fast enough”
You want authoritarian, there it is. “That is a pathway to a very dark place” indeed.
Dear John Kerry.
Please go away.
Thank you.
I have been advised by NOAA that I am on their newly created “Access not allowed list” when I attempt to access their Climate at a Glance website. It appears the attack on the 1st amendment is underway.
“Zealots, ideologues, and tyrants are usually the people who feel that free speech is dangerous because it challenges their power.” – C.A.A. Savastano
I’m totally convinced that when Kerry says “building consensus” he actually means establishing a lie as “the truth”. So dishonest!
Kerry spews nonsense but at least he isn’t a scientist. Alleged scientist David Suzuki went “full retard” in his explanation of the greenhouse effect in this article. Canadians take no back seat in arrogant stupidity to Americans when it comes to alarmist climate change advocacy.
The sad part is that a majority of Democrat voters would follow him without a second thought. That is pitiful and scary.
Maintain the faith as talk is cheap whereas dollar votes count-
VFACTS September 2024: Sales slump but hybrids, PHEVs continue to grow | CarExpert