I simply make the point that the pure volume of science directly...

First 6 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Sidonicus1

7,415 Posts.

20

15/10/19

20:46

Post #: 40896568
Share

Originally posted by jopo: ↑

The Science Editors name is clear.
Leonard Metz

Like all good Science editors of the day they only produced articles from reliable sources. was there really a need for him to manufacture such a claim.

I understand that today our media is so far corrupted on many fronts we dont know which way to look.

In regards to accepting the views of a science editor from the 70s just going about his job and quoting from NASA or having someone from alarmist central telling us that people were able to put man on the moon did not know anything about measuremnts and weather is really a massive insult to those NASA guys from yesteryear who are openly LIVID at NASA for allowing themselves to be sold out..

So the science has been settled. emissions are maxing out.

Now what will happen is a ad hom attack on Leonard Metz.

The poor guy has probably passed away but that wont stop the machine from squashing any dissent or nailing the already dead.

Expand

I simply make the point that the pure volume of science directly from the source- being ALL the top scientists in the field renders a clipping from a 1972 small newspaper fairly impotent. Why is one line without context from a 1972 tiny newspaper to be taken over the current opinions of NASA? Because it is all a con and a hoax and a communist conspiracy.... sorry I forgot. This is what NASA thinks in 2019:

https://climate.nasa.gov/
7 Upvote

Reply