1
-1

[–] ardvarcus 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Guy made some good points. He hurt his credibility by using bad language needlessly.

What amazes me is that that anyone even needs to make the points he raised, they are so obvious. But the media continues to defend the global warming fraud, and people are sheep.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] ardvarcus ago 

I agree, some of the points he made are a little weak on facts, but in general he was in the right about what he said. Florida would be fucked by a ten-foot rise in water level, but England, less so.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] ardvarcus 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I remember learning about Greenland in around the second or third grade, and the teacher emphasized the point that it was called "Greenland" because Erik the Red, who discovered it, wanted to market it to other Vikings so that they would go there to settle. Even as a young child, this didn't quite ring true to me. Were the Vikings really that stupid? Well, as it turns out, no, they were not. Greenland was called "Greenland" because it was green when the Vikings discovered it -- it was covered in green grass.

0
0

[–] parrygrin ago 

...just like the bankers saw the housing bubble?

Nerds are fallible. Centralization is bad. Hedging is good.

0
0

[–] TheFool ago 

Just to be clear most people surely know that 10 feet wouldn't drown europe and the world is not 13,8 billion years old ( he was mixing up the time since the big bang).

0
1

[–] BitChuteArchive 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago