Comments by "SIMON TAHITI" (@positivepawpaw7564) on "Penny Wong's explanation of net zero is 'circular logic'" video.

@simonharris4873 and just what is so wrong about the hanson policies you just mentioned ??
6
hahaa !! net zero what ? net zero what coming from where ? net zero added to an existing amount ? or net zero at all in existence ? wongs answer was evasive at best. she was caught out. wong is another fraud banging the climate scam drum. the csiro cant prove climate change is driven by human activity. wong cant explain the so called solution to climate change supposedly driven by human activity
3
CCP WONG IS A SMUG GRIFTER & BORN LIAR. Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N. s IPCC Working Group III, affirmed the scheme: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy… We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.”
2
ccp spy, wong wants to cash in on the luciferian left's worship of the "divine adrogyne"
1
CHINESE DEFECTOR, PROFESSOR LI-MENG YAN, RECENTLY NAMED WONG AS A CCP SPY
1
BAM !
1
@robn2497 repeating the question isnt giving an answer.
1
@simonharris4873 "evidence" ? the CSIRO has no evidence that shows man made co2 changes the climate .. you have evidence that humans induce climate change ? evidence that the csiro doesnt have ? DO TELL ! 😅🤣😂
1
milankovitch - DEBUNKED. Milankovitch predicts that ice ages would occur at opposite times in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. When one hemisphere was having cold summers, and heading towards an ice age, the other would be having warm summers, heading away from an ice age. Hall and Lowell’s new research from the Falkland Islands corroborates recent research in New Zealand by showing that the two hemispheres experienced the last major ice age, which peaked about 20,000 years ago, at the same time.
1
@Sly News HAHA ! you what ?? net zero co2 ? net zero addition to 'natural' co2 ? net zero WHAT ? YOU MAKE LESS SENSE THAN THAT IDIOT WONG
1
explain net zero then ? net zero WHAT ? co2 ? from where ? humans ? nature ? net zero of something added to current amount in atmosphere ? or net zero anywhere at all, ever ? "net zero" could apply to anything
1
Climate alarmism is much like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. People may not see any evidence of catastrophic climate change or sea level rise, but their opinion is irrelevant because ''97% of scientists'' believe we are doomed due to global warming. Only a small handful of people whom the press and politicians quote over and over again are allowed to state an opinion, and they are claimed to represent 97% of the world’s millions of scientists. The 97 per cent figure derives from a survey sent to 10,257 people with a self-interest in human-induced global warming who published “science” supported by taxpayer-funded research grants. Replies from 3146 respondents were whittled down to 77 self-appointed climate “scientists” of whom 75 were judged to agree that human-induced warming was taking place. The 97 per cent figure derives from a tribe with only 75 members. What were the criteria for rejecting 3069 respondents? There was no mention that 75 out of 3146 is 2.38 per cent. We did not hear that 2.38 per cent of climate scientists with a self-interest agreed that humans have played a significant role in changing climate and that they are recipients of some of the billions spent annually on climate research.
1
pelle - you couldnt answer hansons question either. such evasiveness is a sure sign of bullshittery. net zero what ? coming from where ? net zero to be added to an existing amount ? or net zero at all in existence ? etc. 'net zero' is the first 2 words in a sentence. what is the rest of the sentence, pelle ?
1