What Is The Difference between Climate Activists And Terrorists?

Climate activists believe that schoolchildren should be murdered by their teachers, to protect them from global warming

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to What Is The Difference between Climate Activists And Terrorists?

  1. gator69 says:

    Climate activists don’t have the conviction to take themselves out as well.

  2. At the end of that movie it says that their program saved 500,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions in 6 months. What a joke. 500 thousand!!

    Humans generate 1,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 a year by breathing. One gigaton.

    • If 8 billion people burn 2000 calories a day, at 4 calories per gram of food, that’s 500 grams, which produces 350 grams of CO2 and 150 grams of H2O.

      350 grams x 365 days a year = 127 kilograms = 1/8 tonne (1/8 metric ton)

      x 8 billion people = one gigatonne

      By breathing!

      • Sparks says:

        8 billion people? are you for real lol?

        • Gail Combs says:

          The world population will peak at 8.7 billion people in 2055 and then decline to 8 billion by 2100, according to new research by Deutsche Bank. Present population is 7 billion.

        • Sparks says:

          I did some research into earths population a few years ago, I couldn’t find all these people.. there are 7 billion people on the planet at present based on a 1990’s model forecast and there were 6 billion people on the planet based on a model before that. I am being sceptical of UN population models. I’m just saying out of interest. Gail do you remember the old websites during the 90’s and 2000’s that used to have population counters on them? they were all based on this population logarithm and a lot of them were running at 8 billion by 2000.

        • Ernest Bush says:

          Gail, I have a hard time believing that 8 billion decline because it doesn’t jibe with the fertility rate charts produced by the World Bank, CIA, and the U.N, although the peak population number does. Most countries have fertility rates below that needed to sustain populations now. The exceptions are the African countries, but they will not be able to sustain the 4+ rate even with the help of Monsanto corn (sarc). The study I read based on those charts shows a drastic decline in population by 2100. It may be worse than that. The Europeans and the U.S. will have a much older population without young people to support the elderly social programs.. The same will be true for some other countries, I suspect. The average European fertility rate is 1.5. Assuming no great famines, devastating wars, or little ice ages, you need 2.1 births per female to sustain.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Sparks and Ernest,

          I would not be at all surprised that the population is not as high as said and that it is now declining. 4 live births/woman in Africa does not take into account the number who have died before puberty.
          deaths by age 5

          Remember the population Bomb’ was another one of the elites scare stories.

        • Ernest Bush says:

          Gail, you are right. I had forgotten how horrible infant and child mortality rates are in Africa. There are cheap alternatives that don’t interfere with tribal lifestyles that could do much to improve this. Solar Cookers to improve the health of women and children and stop deforestation, and simple water pasteurizers that could be manufactured in country. Instead Western governments insist on expensive technological solutions that are not sustainable by the low-tech populations.

        • Sparks says:

          You’re both paddling out of your depth on this subject.. I know for a fact a surgery in Africa had solar panels installed that could only run the lights or their fridge, they can either keep their medicine refrigerated or use the lights, disgusting!! What they need is a reliable power source and not some gimmick adapted as an anthropogenic “climate change” measure. The stupidity is borderline malice, it sickens me!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Sparks, You are correct, Africa needs decent reliable power. However one of the problems is trying to graft an advanced civilization on to a primitive one. You can build the stuff but they can not repair it and they will steal the projects blind. It is the same old, same old. If they do not work for it then it is not theirs. Worse you have those who ‘help’ with the goal of theft of resources.

          E.M. Smith mentions something that is doable that was worked out in the 1970s. link Once they are off the poverty treadmill then they have a shot at advancing.

        • gator69 says:

          Last I checked, the US is the only country on this planet that accurately records infant mortality, some countries do not record an infant death until that child is over the age of one.

          “… any infant born in the United States that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth, whereas in most of the European Union any baby born before 26 weeks’ gestation is not considered alive and therefore doesn’t “count” in reported infant mortality rates.”

    • au1corsair says:

      No pressure = vacuum! And we thought high explosives were involved! The threat of “no pressure” is being tossed out the air lock into the vacuum of space–splat!

  3. Robertv says:

    They are both State funded.

  4. nigelf says:

    Climate activists win the prize because their policies have killed more people than terrorists.

  5. SMS says:

    As the (very) old joke goes; What’s the difference between a climate activist and a bucket of Poo? Answer: The bucket.

  6. au1corsair says:

    How about this warning from 1973?
    “Executive Action” was a fictional account of a conspiracy that resulted in regime change.
    Though the first JFK assassination conspiracy movie in the mainstream, one segment is noteworthy: according to the dialog, Vietnam was a population control measure. Burt Lancaster was telling a co-conspirator that “within two decades” Earth’s population would be seven billion. By pulling an all-out effort, the conspirators hoped to reduce Earth’s human numbers to 550 million by the end of the century. The movie was set in 1962 and 1963.

    Remember, this was fiction. The “bad guys” were into population control.

    Want to reduce human carbon dioxide emissions? Reduce the number of humans.

    As carbon dioxide has little to do with climate change, the purpose of carbon emission reduction may very well be an excuse for genocide.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and founder of the UN Foundation and a major UN donor

      The Elite want a reduced population because 250-300 million people is much much easier to control. The USA has a population of 316.1 million.

      • au1corsair says:

        The Elite are incompetent! Do the math. 300 million people are inadequate to support the Elites in the manner that they are accustomed to. I’m going to steal Tony’s “try something smaller, like a bowling ball” and suggest that they don’t know what “control” means. The Elite doesn’t know economics, doesn’t know technology, doesn’t know force. How many of those 300 million genocide survivors will be police? What will be the fate of those carrying out the Elite’s genocide? Who will watch the watchers? How paranoid will the Elite become after murdering seven billion other human beings?

  7. Jason Calley says:

    What Is The Difference between Climate Activists And Terrorists?

    Terrorists tend to be emotionally more mature.

    Additionally, one can, in theory, negotiate with terrorists.

    • gator69 says:

      But only in theory, unless one wants more terrorism and less freedom.

      • Robertv says:

        It are not the terrorists who take away your freedom. It is government . That is why you fought the war against the British Empire.In that big country far away from the homeland people again learnt what freedom meant. They thought It was worth fighting for.

        • gator69 says:

          Giving in to terrorist demands means changing policy without the consent of the governed, taking away our freedom to make our own decisions. The colonists did not go around the globe demanding a caliphate.

          Strawman alert!

        • Robertv says:

          The colonists did not go around the globe demanding a caliphate.

          Yes they did.

        • Robertv says:

          Ones they had conquered all the other nations on the American continent they moved out to occupy the rest of the world. Today they think they rule the world and can bomb wherever and whoever they want.

        • gator69 says:

          No, they didn’t.

          The French, Spanish and English were the main oppressors of the world, we fought their oppression and won. We fought to free men, Islam fights to control men.

          Couldn’t find any cartoons to back your assertions?

      • Robertv says:

        So hard fighting to free men but losing your freedom at home. Congratulations.

        • gator69 says:

          Wow. I guess there are no free men in your world, and everyone is guilty.

          In my world it is not pass or fail. I see shades of grey, even color.

          Sorry you are so blind.

        • Robertv says:

          Just imagine what an evil dictator could do with all this information.


          gator69 says:
          January 6, 2015 at 6:14 pm

          Who needs to imagine?

      • Ernest Bush says:

        Wanted or not, that’s what we got.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      The current Muslim terrorists don’t seem to want to negotiate. Also, don’t be so quick to blame the U.S. for the status of the Mideast. The English and the French colluded to form a secret agreement to split the Mideast into nation states that guaranteed the inhabitants would be fighting each other rather than presenting a united front in World War I. See Sykes-Picot. We were attempting to stay out of that war at the time. The mess there today is a result of Sykes-Picot and the aftermath. The British were already after the oil.

      I would not say that terrorists who seem to enjoy beheading captives and shooting their own people in the back are emotionally mature. I would say they are inhumanly perverted and should not be allowed to stand among the nations of the world.

      As far as the Indian nations went, they were all in decline before the colonists showed up. A contributing factor was probably the constant warring among them for territory and slaves. Climate didn’t help. If we have shame here, it is that the Democrat led governments of the first half of the 1800s didn’t understand that when you signed a treaty, you agreed to abide by it.

  8. The difference is that terrorists are not in positions of power.

  9. Stargazer says:

    That must be some sort of a sadistic spoof. That cannot possibly be a real advertisement. Please, someone tell me that that is some sort of disgusting joke.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      It was for real. The organization produced it to try to bring more awareness about how horrible global warming was becoming (sarc) . They apparently were too stupid to realize what a negative backlash it was going to cause. Google “splattergate.”

      • Gail Combs says:


        ….How could “supposedly PR savvy people” with “red carpet careers” have considered this video to be in any way appropriate? Remember, the plan was to show the 4-minute flick in cinemas prior to the main attraction…..

        ….the video attracted “negative press all around the world.” This is true. But it’s also true that, like Climategate a year earlier, much of the media studiously ignored this story – not to mention the public outcry it generated.

        In many media markets, the 10:10 video doesn’t exist. The controversy never happened. Even with the help of Google’s impressive news search tools, I’ve managed to locate only two Canadian references to this video…..

        When you read Nova’s essay about what this video tells us about the psychology of some high-profile environmentalists, I implore you to think about this fact. As far as 99% of Canada’s media is concerned, a spectacular own-goal on the part of the green movement didn’t even happen. Canadians who know about this video likely heard about it via other information sources – blogs such as this one, non-Canadian news outlets, and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

        Gee, I wonder why newspaper readership keeps shrinking.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “That must be some sort of a sadistic spoof.”

      Hard to believe, but no, that is real. When it came out I really did wonder whether it was a spoof — but when I checked, I found out that it was not. It is still stunning; how on earth could the producers have thought that it would generate support? “Gee! How’s this for an idea? Child murder! You know, graphic, gory, blood-in-your-face child murder! I mean, nothing says compassion for our planet like child murder! Who’s with me?!”

  10. Thomas Englert says:

    Look on the bright side: the removed 10% won’t be subject to a life “nasty, brutish and short”.

  11. gregole says:

    Just keep in mind that the creators of this horrible video (which I have never watched – I had someone watch it and describe it to me – I refuse to watch snuff fiction) thought it was “funny”.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Yes, they were actually quoted as saying that (I paraphrase), “some people did not understand our sense of humor.”

      • Gail Combs says:

        “Remember, the plan was to show the 4-minute flick in cinemas prior to the main attraction…..”

        It had nothing to do with humor.

        The warmists made this flick to be shown to all movie goers (read children and teens) as a subtle threat. Yet these same warmist who see nothing wrong with showing kids being blown-up had a complete hissy fit when the Heartland Institute had a global warming billboard starring Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber whose manifesto expressed his belief in catastrophic man-caused global warming.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Gail! “It had nothing to do with humor.”

          I would respectfully disagree. Here is part of the 10:10 press release in the immediate aftermath:
          Begin quote:
          Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.
          With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
          End quote.

          On the other hand, I think you are right to say: “The warmists made this flick to be shown to all movie goers (read children and teens) as a subtle threat.”

          These are not normal people. They have no problem with issuing a threat AND seeing it as funny at the same time. I used to work in the motion picture business (decades ago) and having sat in on numerous bits of script writing, and advertising and promotional sessions, I assure you — there is no bottom to the pit of what they see as funny. They really do believe that they are so deeply sophisticated that they understand matters in a way the public is too dull to see.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s