Message from @Citizen Z
Discord ID: 661307614034001920
Nothing grows. They r terrible
This is literally just “it snowed outside, therefor it can’t be warmer”
1 week left until the world ends
It was nice knowing you
😂
They hype up this bullshit.
To try and scare people.
Most of our world runs off of fear FYI.
Ah shit, the Earth is gonna end again.
It ended throughout the decade. I'd figure they'd take a break by now.
@🎃Oakheart🎃 you must provide evidence that we are significant
It is possible that we are significant
It is possible that we are insignificant
But I can't believe either untill I see evidence
Also I don't see how us lacking a sense of cosmic significance gives "them" power over us
When they get you to affirm to yourself that you are guilty for destroying the earth and they can save you, they have gained power over you.
Who is “they”
The people trying to push guilt down your throat. Politicians, entertainment industry, science community, education system and the mainstream media.
Why a train? Was it a coal car or something?
Bc trains are the most efficient nethod of transportation besides walking or biking
Coal train
“Clean” coal
That’s only a term used relative to unprocessed coal. It still is far worse than oil, natural gas, and especially wind or nuclear
Seems fine to me when i turn my lights on
1960's - Oil gone in 10 years
1970's - another ice age in 10 years
1980's - acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years
1990's - The ozone layer will be destroyed in 10 years
2000's - The icecaps will be gone in 10 years
None happened, but all resulted in more taxes.
India is a superpower
Brace for nuclear war, they’re coming
@Citizen Z are any of these claims from a published, peer reviewed paper?
peer review doesnt mean anything
nuclear war threat is just more power they have over you. they arent going to nuke you. nukes dont exist.
This does not say peer review is meaningless in any possible understanding
In fact, the paper explicitly states that it’s useful
Scientists are human. Scientists have a vested interest in promoting their work, often for status and further research funding, although sometimes for direct financial gain. This can lead to selective reporting of results and occasionally, exaggeration. Peer review is not infallible: journal editors might favor positive findings and newsworthiness. Multiple, independent sources of evidence and replication are much more convincing.
Nobody ever said peer review is infallible, it is merely another barrier to weed out as many false conclusions and mistakes to an arbitrarily decided threshold deemed acceptable
The article you put up is literally just a single dude, and it can’t even be verified if any of this happened