Personally, I enjoy when the person who cuts my hair talks little, but, especially not about the climate scam
Wash, blow dry and 1.5 degrees please: hairdressers trained to talk about climate action
Inside this chic Sydney hair salon, the chat between stylists and clients could be much the same as in any other hairdressers around the world. Some small talk. The ubiquitous and occasionally mundane chat about holidays and traffic. For regulars, the conversation can move to the deeply personal before you can say semi-tint or shag cut.
In fact, there is only one easily missable clue in the front window that conversations inside Paloma might, when the occasion arises, be a bit different. A poster reads: “This salon chats about love, life & climate action.”
“The weather is the hook. You can take a cue from that,” says Prof Lesley Hughes, one of two climate scientists who have helped run workshops to give hairdressers the tools for times when the conversation turns to the existential.
“You can show the science until you’re blue in the face but what can be more effective are people who you trust talking about it. It’s important to show it’s not a subject to be afraid of.”
More than 400 hairdressers have attended workshops as part of a project called A Brush With Climate being driven by Paloma’s owner, Paloma Rose Garcia.
Remember when we were told to only listen to climate scientists? Pretty sure the workshops do not make them scientists. It really is a cult.
https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1642164987220176899
Hey, it’s a small sacrifice to Gaia, right?
No, no, this isn't a doomsday cult at all #ClimateCrisisScam https://t.co/wshNCxCsE9
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) April 1, 2023
Nope, not a cult
Did Climate Change Make Gwyneth Paltrow’s Ski Crash Worse?
The trial of the century came to a thrilling end yesterday. I’m talking, of course, about the Gwyneth Paltrow ski accident trial. Terry Sanderson, a doctor, sued Paltrow for $300,000 in damages after he says she ran into him at a Utah ski slope in 2016; the actor and lifestyle influencer countersued for $1 in a widely televised trial, claiming that Sanderson ran into her that day.
On Thursday, a Utah jury ruled in favor of Paltrow, deciding after just two hours of deliberation that Sanderson was at fault for the accident. But could other, more nefarious factors have been at play—say, climate change?
FFS. Who sits around and thinks “say, how does anthropogenic climate change play into the Paltrow lawsuit?” Only someone in a cult would think this.
So now these brainwashed psychopaths are actually recruiting barbers to push their climate fear? I guess the schools, news, big business, sports at al just isn’t enough propaganda to convince people this bullshit isn’t bullshit.
These leftists make people like Goebbels look like rookies. They never sleep. Evil never sleeps.
Australian hair-stylists who talk about climate change are rookies compared to the Nazi Goebbels who helped murder millions of children, women and men? Hyperbolize much?
You characterize some as brainwashed ‘psychopaths’, which psychiatrists place under ‘antisocial personality disorder’ in DSM-5. The symptoms include:
behavior that conflicts with social norms
disregarding or violating the rights of others
inability to distinguish between right and wrong
difficulty with showing remorse or empathy
tendency to lie often
manipulating and hurting others
recurring problems with the law
general disregard toward safety and responsibility
expressing anger and arrogance on a regular basis
Describes many MAGAts/trumpists/nuCons, doesn’t it?
We understand how frustrated, angry and arrogant you become when people disagree with you.
The Earth is warming, most likely a result of humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The continued warming has and will continue to have negative impacts on human activities.
St. Louis KiddieDiddlers who comment about climate change and compare others to Nazis are brainwashed psychopaths suffering from an antisocial personality disorder.
Maybe we should give them more guns.
#TranniesAreWarmists
#PedosPervs&KiddieDiddlers
Bwaha! Lolgf
Good, J-now come up with proof of the negative impacts, and evidence that said impacts are solely from warming
Jill,
Sorry child, but I don’t accept homework assignments.
Of course you don’t when one hasn’t any answers….shocking..
Dear Elwood:
Congratulators. You just described the Left
Dear Elwood:
“The Earth is warming, most likely a result of humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere.”
Nice qualifier.
And glad to see that you know you folks are betting western civilization on a “maybe.”
Science is based on probabilities. Only 10-20% of smokers get lung cancer while some 0.05% of non-smokers DO GET lung cancer! Smokers have an 80-90% chance of NOT GETTING lung cancer, yet we invest billions to keep people from smoking!
We humans have to make decisions based on incomplete information all the time! Climate scientists give a 0.95 probability (95%) that the warming of the past century results from CO2 that we humans are adding to the atmosphere. If they are correct, cutting CO2 emissions may delay catastrophic warming. In the unlikely event they are wrong we have cleaner air and trade fossil fuel pollution for battery mining pollution.
You want the proof? You can’t handle the proof!!
Why do you claim that folks are “betting western civilization”? What is your ‘proof’ that transitioning to non-CO2 emitting sources with destroy western civilization?
In any event, the American right is getting their wish! The Earth will likely break the 1.5C barrier before 2050 on its way to 3C by the end of the century! Perhaps our great grandkids will develop time travel by then and come back to 2000 and kick our asses for destroying human societies!
You’ve been schooled on qualifiers before, remember?
So chubby, since you’re so confident in your arguments, why don’t you tell us what the mean temperature of the Earth is NOW?
C’mon chubby, we’ll wait.
#TheScienceIsSettled
#PervsPedos&WarmistKiddieDiddlers
Bwaha! Lolgf
15°C
Now, go and suck no more.
Well since you didn’t post a citation for where you got that figure from guess we’ll just have to believe you.
Guess “the science is settled”, hey chubby?
#PedosPervs&KiddieDiddlers
Bwaha! Lolgf
Dear Elwood:
You have outdone yourself.
“Science is based on probabilities.” That is the dumb statement of the century.
Scientific theories must be capable of being tested. If they fail one time they are not true and are just theories.
“We humans have to make decisions based on incomplete information all the time!”
Uh, that is known as gambling and just living day to day. But hot objects, if left alone, will become cooler. Hammers dropped will fall.
Lefties lie. Proven daily.
Here we go again- “catastrophic warming”. What catastrophic warming?
If the cult had to come up with evidence instead of fear-porn, they’d have nothing to say..
CarolAnn is under attack by evil!!
Carbon boy is under attack by CO2!
We are all under attack by evil. Some of us fight it and some like yourself join it.
Dear Elwood:
You have outdone yourself.
“Science is based on probabilities.” That is the dumb statement of the century.
Scientific theories must be capable of being tested. If they fail one time they are not true and are just theories.
“We humans have to make decisions based on incomplete information all the time!”
Uh, that is known as gambling and just living day to day. But hot objects, if left alone, will become cooler. Hammers dropped will fall.
Lefties lie. Proven daily.
James,
You are incorrect.
Science is absolutely based on probabilities. You know, statistics.
The dumb statement of the century is, “The 2020 election was stolen from Trump”.
Theories are not proven but CAN be falsified. While it’s a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming in the lower atmosphere, greenhouse gases are not the only variable determining temperature. El Ninos (warming) and La Ninas (cooling) in the Pacific Ocean cause fluctuations in the the average temperature. Volcanic eruptions can decrease the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. A major asteroid strike like the one 66 million years can cause years of cooling.
Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by land, structures, plants, water, etc. Some of that light reflects off ice and the water surface. The absorbed light is re-emitted from matter at a longer (infrared) wavelength. Gases in the atmosphere are NOT transparent to infrared radiation. Water vapor and other heterogeneous gases (CO2, methane, NO2) absorb infrared and re-emit it in all directions slowing the journey of infrared from the Earth to space. If you could show that even one of these steps is false you could invalidate the theory. That you can invalidate the theory with new information is why we say “it’s likely the Earth will warm by to over 1.5C by 2050.”
The probability that the Earth will be struck by blue whale-sized asteroid this century is low but not zero. It’s between zero and 1.
Dear Elwood:
“Science is absolutely based on probabilities. You know, statistics.”
No. You are confusing methods with results.
I am a poker player. Statistics show that in Texas Holdem that if you are dealt a pair it’s 9 to 1 that you will flop a third matching card 1 time out of 10. However, this is based on thousands of hands so it is highly probable that you will not receive the third card every 10th time.
Probabilities and statistics are not the same.
BTW – I play Texas Holdem in the Horseshoe Casino in Robinsonville, MS (Tunica) on a regular basis. If you do not understand the above I invite you to come down and join the game. We’d love to have you.
“That you can validate the theory..”. Except the gw theory has never been validated. One would think a simple physics experiment to validate the hypothesis would have been offered by now. Through out earth’s history, temp and CO2 have gone in opposite directions many times.. https://twitter.com/werone777/status/1615800497642016768?s=12