Dear State Farm

May 7, 2012

I’m idly speculating about what it might be like to be a fly on the wall at at the Heartland Institute’s morning staff meeting, if there is such a thing.  Presumably lots of non-fair-trade, non-organic, coffee has been consumed over the weekend trying to come up with face savers after last week’s PR disaster – the “Unabomber” theme billboards comparing mainstream scientists to lunatic psycho killers and terrorists.

There have been at least one  defection among properly embarrassed donors and some  dropouts and expressions of dismay among scheduled speakers for Heartland’s upcoming “Denial-Palooza” freakshow, which is just weeks away. Apparently, the incident has now done more to associate Charles Manson and Ted (unabomber) Kaczynski with Heartland itself, than with climate science.

Corporations generally make donations in order that the magic of some perceived good cause can rub off a little bit. Try to imagine how a perceived association with the Unabomber tends to corrode that warm and fuzzy feeling.

The incident has also sparked renewed calls to Heartland donors to stop supporting the anti-science, pro-tobacco hate group. There are several listings of Heartland donors on the web, including this one. Some of their customers have begun to question the wisdom of supporting organizations that actively work to destroy our children and their future.

One notable example came from Scott Mandia of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team

S. L. Otto in the HuffPost  has more details.

Climate science professor Scott Mandia has been insured by State Farm Insurance for 21 years, but when he read that State Farm has apparent given hundreds of thousands of dollars (PDF) to climate denial propaganda outfit The Heartland Institute, he began to question his loyalty to the company.

Last week, Heartland rolled out a hate-oriented billboard campaign that compared scientists, science organizations, and federal agencies who acknowledge that science suggests human behavior is warming the planet to “murderers and madmen” like Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden.

After a nationwide public outcry, Heartland discontinued the offensive billboard campaign, but Heartland president Joe Bast refused to issue an apology.

The whole episode prompted Mandia to wonder why State Farm would support an apparent anti-science hate group like the Heartland Institute. He wrote State Farm the following letter, and gave me permission to publish it here.

What do you think? Should mainstream corporations give money to groups like Heartland that deny mainstream science?

May 7, 2012

State Farm Insurance
One State Farm Plaza
Bloomington, IL 61710

Dear State Farm,

As per a recent conversation with Tony Ardise, my State Farm agent, I provided him two weeks’ notice that I intend to cancel all of my policies with State Farm Insurance because of its support of Heartland Institute. I have been a loyal customer for over 21 years and currently send almost $4,500 per year to State Farm. I do not wish my money to be sent to Heartland Institute — a group that recently compared climate scientists and those concerned about climate change to “murderers, tyrants, and madmen” such as Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber), Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, and Osama bin Laden. Although Heartland stated that they will remove the public billboards, their official statement offers no apologies. It is obvious that the billboards represent Heartland’s true feelings.

This indefensible and un-American assault on climate science is just the latest attempt by Heartland to discourage action on climate change, but there is a long history. As has been widely reported in mainstream media, Heartland Institute has been leading the charge for years to confuse our policymakers, the general public, and our school children about well-understood climate change science.

The United States National Academy of Sciences tells us that the climate is warming, humans are responsible, and that this behavior is increasing risks across a broad spectrum of society. Every international academy of science agrees and recent studies show that 97-98% of publishing experts concur.

Who else is concerned? Military and intelligence experts warn that climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions and health officials warn us that climate change could be the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. These are experts who are warning us of a serious problem. We need to listen to these experts and not to Heartland Institute.

State Farm states: “We’re working with organizations all across the country — organizations like the Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and Protecting America – to help protect you and your family from the human injuries, property destruction, and financial impact that can result from natural disasters.” Climate change has been shown to have increased the frequency and intensity of droughts, fires, heat waves, and floods. Along with sea level rise, these types of disasters have already cost your industry many billions of dollars according to financial experts. I find it quite disturbing that State Farm would send money to a group that is clearly hurting its bottom line. Would the American Lung Association send money to Philip Morris?

General Motors and AT&T have publicly stated they will no longer fund Heartland Institute. State Farm should immediately do the same. If so, I will remain a loyal customer. Otherwise, I will take my business elsewhere.


Scott A. Mandia

Mandia is Professor of Physical Sciences at Suffolk County Community College, Long Island, NY, and has been teaching weather and climate course for 25 years. Mandia is a co-founder of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team whose mission is to connect journalists and lawmakers with climate scientists. Mandia also co-founded the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund to protect climate scientists from politically-motivated legal challenges.


101 Responses to “Dear State Farm”

  1. daveburton Says:

    I think the Unabomber connection with irrational climate hysteria is a very valid point. Nor is it the only example in which people have died due to the Climate Movement’s anti-scientific alarmism. Here’s another:

    • Keep it up daveburton, and keep saying “Heartland Unabomber” loud and clear. Hitler too, “Heartland, Hitler, Unibomber…. Bleat your valid point from the rooftops, the internet, call in shows, over and over again…Heartland, Unibomber,

      • greenman3610 Says:

        sounds like you get how this game works. ;^)

        • bobchewie Says:

          @peter no doubt i will be called a communist..its become parlence of stick that label on anyone you dont agree that poor chap who was ill the teaparty maniacs threw money at..
          all the same i get the impression that big business (not all) do things which affect the environment…not only that but the power they have is quite alarming..not so long ago tesco wanted to build a huge superstore on ancient meadow land..instead of them relocating the site. they got their way to site their store,, and the meadow land had to be dug up and replanted..
          are there other examples of this?

    • daryan12 Says:

      Okay, one guy goes on a bombing rampage and some crazies commit suicde and now all environmentalists are tarred with the same brush?

      ….By that same token I could claim that all Christians are terrorists because a couple of them went and blew up a few abortion clinics & federal buildings a few years ago….

      ….And all global warming deniers are baby killers, as that Brevik guy in Norway was a GW denier…

      ….And all republicans are theives because a couple of politicans from that party stole public money….

      ….and all muslim’s are also terrorists because a couple of them like to crash planes into buildings….

      ….do I need to go on?

  2. bobinchiclana Says:

    @daveburton Now climate scientists are responsible for trying to kill babies!! Heartland will be proud of you for your unstinting support!

    • daveburton Says:

      Actually, now that you mention it, most of the climate alarmists I know are “pro-choice”[sic] on abortion.

      How about you, Bob? Are you for or against allowing unborn babies to be killed?

      • You go daveburton: Heartland Unibomber, Hitler, Abortionist, mad dog commie. Great meme. How about adding “Heartland Babyraper”?

      • daryan12 Says:

        And are you aware of how many in the US die each year due to a lack of medical coverage?

        Opposition to stem cell research has put back many medical advances by several years, meaning ultimately people have died!

        Climate change will inevitably lead to a rise in extreme weather which will kill quite a few people (how many is difficult to say, but I’ve seen various estimates in the millions to hundreds of millions).

        So daveburton, how many people (living ones mind, and many of them kids or babies) are you prepared to kill?

      • bobchewie Says:

        smoking related illnesses also kill people, heartland support for tobacco lobby is is denial about this matter…

      • greenman3610 Says:

        I think we can assume that Dburton believes not enough people die of smoking related illnesses, right dave?

        • bobchewie Says:

          peter i did mention the tobacco thing..i thought it was ironic

        • bobchewie Says:

          oh dear..the climate science deniers are now connected to holocaust deniers…

          5. Global Warming is caused by carbon emissions. CO2 is a trace gas that can not cause anything, atmospheric CO2 levels result from ocean temperatures. Water vapor is 96% of the greenhouse gas, man made CO2 is 0.117%. The earth is cooling, the real threat is another ice age, anthropocentric caused CO2 is so minor that it is having absolutely no effect. Because of this myth, real environmental issues are ignored, corporations promote global warming while they pollute. Habitat is destroyed while people’s focus is diverted to a non issue. With global warming no real environmental issue will be addressed, the real purpose of the global warming hoax is to enslave mankind based on carbon emissions and use the monies to create a worldwide Jew World Order.”

      • daveburton Says:

        Everybody here wants to change the subject. Why am I not surprised?

        Over a million unborn babies die every year in the United States by “choice.” Is there anyone here in the Climate Movement who is bothered by that?

        • bobchewie Says:

          well if woman gets raped..does she want to bring up a child on welfare…(and get criticised for that) which was result of a criminal act?…so dave you still think and industry producing lethal products it ok? next you’ll be saying the EPA is a commie plot and make yourself look ridiculous..

        • daryan12 Says:

          …And every time you wash you’re hands millions of living things (called bacteria) are killed “by choice”…murderer! 😉

          And what about the “leftovers” when you and the missus have a roll in they hay, I hope you scoop it all up and take it to the priest for baptism ;0

          If you want start shedding crocodile tears for children, think of the children suffering in the developing world, whose plight will be made much worse by the effects of global warming.

          And for the record, I’m pro-choice. In an ideal world women won’t get pregnant at inconvenient times, or after being raped. But then again, in an ideal world “abstinence only” family planning would work….whereas I understand it, such policies have led to a rash of unwanted pregnancies and inevitably abortions….

        • greenman3610 Says:

          this is a blog about climate change. You are discussing abortion, and accusing others of changing the subject.
          Does that pretty much sum up the situation here?

      • daveburton Says:

        It is an interesting correlation of seemingly unrelated topics, don’t you think?

        The vast majority of climate alarmists are untroubled by millions of unborn babies dying by choice.

        Why is that?

        • bobchewie Says:

          because they are unborn maybe..

          • daveburton Says:

            Indeed. President Reagan noticed the same thing:

            “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

          • daveburton Says:

            Yet, of the American population as a whole, most are troubled by the large number of unborn babies who die by “choice.” Gallup finds that only 20% think abortion should be legal in all circumstances, and very large majorities support measures to reduce the number of abortions, such as waiting periods, informed consent laws, parental consent laws, etc.:


            So why does that not seem to also be true within the Climate Movement? Within the Climate Movement, there seems to be very little empathy for the plight of the unborn.

          • daryan12 Says:

            Yet, of the American population as a whole, most are troubled by the large number of unborn babies who die by “choice.” Gallup finds that only 20%

            Sigh! And you then go and prove that you can’t read a graph! The poll you posted too (link below) shows that only 20% of Americans think Abortion should be ILLEGAL. The other 80% go for a stronger term of support (26%) or a weaker form (51%), the later group corresponding to the position of current legislation.

            Do they teach English in you’re school? Clearly reading is not one of you’re strongest points!

          • daveburton Says:

            Oops, you’re right. 26% of the public think abortion should be legal in all circumstances, not 20%. (I.e., current law in most of the U.S.)

            20% think that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, without even an exception for life-threatening complications to pregnancy. (That’s amazing to me; I’m a pro-life activist, and I would not agree with that.)

            51% think abortion should be legal only in certain circumstances.

            But within the Climate movement, almost everyone seems to think that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Why is that?

        • daryan12 Says:

          It is an interesting correlation of seemingly unrelated topics, don’t you think?

          The vast majority of Republicans are untroubled by millions of (unborn and born) babies dying by choice, as a result of smoking related illness…or lack of medical care…poverty…climate change…

          Why is that?

          Change the record will you! R we going to have to go all Jeremy Paxman on you?

          • daveburton Says:

            Yet another example of my previous observation: “I’ve noticed that tendency among most (not all) Climate Movement types: a really cavalier attitude toward truth and falsehood.”

          • daryan12 Says:

            a really cavalier attitude toward truth and falsehood.”

            And see my comments regarding the “falsehoods” you’ve been perpetuating regarding Gallop polls…

          • daveburton Says:

            daryan12, when I make a mistake (e.g., saying “20%” instead of “”26%” of Americans think abortion should be legal in all circumstances), I admit it and correct it. What do you do?

  3. bobchewie Says:

    i see a major drinks company has also pulled out of the heartland deal,,oh and by the way dave burton..heartland is connected to tobacco industries , you know those guys who denied tobacco caused lung cancer..and people died…and you want to condemn abortion..? good luck with that..

    • Heartland Joe Camel, you go Heartland!

    • daveburton Says:

      bobchewie, surely you know that Heartland never denied that tobacco causes lung cancer. Right? Then why do you say such things?

      I’ve noticed that tendency among most (not all) Climate Movement types: a really cavalier attitude toward truth and falsehood.

      Prove me wrong, show me that you care about truth. Look at this graph, of CO2 vs. sea level. What do you think it shows about the relationship between the two?

      • daryan12 Says:

        “What do you think it shows about the relationship between the two?”

        That people like you have no idea how to interpret a graph!

        • daveburton Says:

          Did you even look at it?

          • daryan12 Says:

            yes, and I see a graph of sea levels rising with temperature, i.e. you’re graph SUPPORTS AGW not the argument that you propose. Also, its not really appropriate to put both such trends on the same graph…..but its late and as I’m clearly dealing with someone who has little idea of what he’s talking about, so I suspect that I’d get further going next door and explaining it all to the neighbour’s cat.

          • daveburton Says:

            Actually, what it shows is that the rate of sea level rise has been unaffected by 2/3 century of rising CO2 levels.

          • daveburton Says:

            It also shows that sea level is rising no faster now that it was rising before there was any significant anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels.

          • bobchewie Says:

            damn those movie special effects..

          • daveburton Says:

            That’s the hype.

            Here are the facts.

          • daveburton Says:

            Or, if you prefer, the BBC:

          • bobchewie Says:

            according to conservapedia the BBC has:

            Liberal bias

            Details of the BBC’s alleged bias were further tabled in an official report – in preparation since 2005 – which found that the BBC:

            has an “institutional Left-wing bias” (its ‘Play for Today’ series in the 1960s/70s was known as the ‘Trot Slot’)
            has “a tendency to ‘group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”
            promotes anti-Christian sentiment
            promotes anti-American sentiment
            allows schedules to be “hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues”
            over-represents homosexuals
            over-represents ethnic minorities
            fails to reflect the views of the British public on issues such as capital punishment
            fails to reflect the broader views of British people
            fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner Mary Whitehouse and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)
            allows itself to be used by “sinister” campaign groups
            finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

            oh and a mouthpiece and the front for Al Quaeda..

            “Pauline Neville Jones, who is a member of Britain’s Conservative party, a former spy chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of “parroting” Al Qaeda propaganda to children”

      • bobchewie Says:

        the tobacco bosses knew about lung cancer for ages and denied all knowledge..even in front of a commitee..its even documented….all i hear from deniers is a spew off deranged bullshit..
        (1) its a hoax
        (2) its communist plot
        (3) its a movement
        (4) its controlled by jews
        (5) its satan worship
        (6) its run by millionaire scientists to attract funding (why do they need funding if they have money??)

        so daveburton..what is it? is it any of the above or have you a new theory..( NWO?? oh that one zzzzzzz)

        • bobchewie Says:

          oh wait i just found another motive behind the hoax/plot/movement/theory/cult/religion….

          8. Global Warming-Jesse Ventura and his team of investigators interview an MIT scientist, businessmen, and others and follow the man thought to be the mastermind behind the global warming phenomenon to China to uncover the truth. Jesse also uncovers what might be a plot to force the world to conform to businesses that are coercing us to consume their green products, which are ran by powerful businessmen bent on controlling the world through a centralized government.


      • bobchewie Says:


        perjury its called…you know DENIERS…

      • daveburton Says:

        Fact: Heartland never denied that tobacco causes lung cancer.

        • greenman3610 Says:

          I think it rather amuses them.

          • daveburton Says:

            What a bizarre thing for you to think.

            Tell me, Peter, what do you think this graph shows about the relationship between the atmospheric CO2 level and the rate of sea level rise?

          • greenman3610 Says:

            uhmmm…that sea level rises at different rates in different places, and that if you cherry pick your sources, you can convince yourself of anything, and that if you want to find out the best science, you go to the best scientists….

            did you go to, like, Bob Jones University or something?

          • bobchewie Says:

            i’m still waiting for dave to tell us who is behind this evil conspiracy…were they on the grassy knoll?

          • daveburton Says:

            Wrong, Peter. There’s nothing atypical about that tide gauge, other than the length and high quality of the measurement record.

            If you look at other long, high-quality tide gauge records of sea level you’ll see the same thing: not the same rate of rise, but the same lack of acceleration in rate of sea level rise in response to the continuing post-WWII increases in atmospheric CO2.

            Of course, some tide gauges are affected by local factors, such as groundwater extraction, but the great majority of tide gauges show the same thing: no acceleration at all in rate of sea level rise over the last 2/3 century.

            Some of the tide gauges do show a slight increase in rate sea level rise about (100 +/- 30) years ago, but that was before there was a significant anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2. Since humans started pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, the rate of sea level rise hasn’t increased at all.

          • daveburton Says:

            Here you go. I downloaded this list of GLOSS-LTT tide gauges from NOAA, then added additional columns of data and links, and made the place names into links to NOAA’s own graphs of sea level. Go ahead and click on some of them, and see how many sites show any post-WWII acceleration in rate of SLR, vs. how many show deceleration:


  4. Martin Lack Says:

    It was interesting to see how quickly Dave Burton changed the subject being discussed to abortion. Why was that again, Dave?

    Even if one or two psychotic killers believe in global warming (they must clearly not be completely insane), this idiotic PR campaign must be the worst-ever case of using specific cherry-picked data to reach an absurd general conclusion.

    • bobchewie Says:

      @Martin i think dave thinks its no ones business if companies want to pollute, but thinks its his business if a woman who agonises over whether to abort..he will be the first to complain about feral kids on welfare filling up the place…..

    • daryan12 Says:

      This is one of the thing’s I don’t get about Right winger’s. They’ll argue against “big government” one minute and make imposing some reasonable measures to prevent companies polluting as “an attack on freedom”….then they’ll argue for banning aborton & gay rights, and thus they are in favour of a “big government” that is so big, so intrusive, that it comes into your home and bedroom and dictates what you’re allowed to do.

      Or how they can be “pro-life” and in favour of the death penalty.

      They want to get tough on crime, but don’t want anyone taking their guns away.

      To Republicans understand the concept of Irony?

      • bobchewie Says:

        @daryan12 the other one is ‘we gotta build more prisons’ but not near where i live..

      • daveburton Says:

        Do you understand the difference between executing the guilty and executing the innocent?

        • daryan12 Says:

          And how do you prove them innocent, I posted on this sometime ago, here’s the blog

          But I think Charlie Brooker blows you’re argument right out of the water here….be warned before you read, its a bit dark!

          • daveburton Says:

            Well, the second article’s ghoulish, and the first article’s wrong. It says, “The second falsehood of capital punishment is that it acts as a deterrent and prevents murders. There is no evidence to support this…”

            The evidence is compelling. Here in the USA, when we phased out capital punishment in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the murder rate doubled. When we reinstated capital punishment on a small scale, the murder rate fell by 25%, even though the overall violent crime rate hardly budged.

            Now, ask yourself, what would bring down the rate of capital crimes, without affecting the rate of other violent crimes? What would deter only capital crimes?

            Isn’t the answer to that obvious?

            BTW, I’ve not done a systematic state-by-state survey, but I noticed the same effect in New York. When New York reinstated capital punishment, their murder rate fell dramatically, even though they hadn’t actually executed anyone. Just the threat of capital punishment was apparently sufficient to help lower the murder rate.

          • daryan12 Says:

            “Well, the second article’s ghoulish”

            That’s Charlie Brooker!

          • daveburton Says:

            And, in reply to your question, “how do you prove them innocent,” I think it’s pretty obvious that unborn babies are innocent.

            As for murderers, the standard of evidence does not require proof of innocence to acquit, it requires proof of guilt to convict. But you know that, right?

        • daryan12 Says:

          …or what you seem to be saying is, to put it in Monty Python language, “every sperm is sacred….”

          Sorry, Greenman, but I find when dealing with these times, rational argument quickly runs its course and you’re forced to rely on sarcasm to get the message across!

        • daryan12 Says:

          The evidence is compelling. …

          The EU outlawed capital punishment sometime ago, as did you’re neighbours to the North (they’re called Canada btw), and the murder rate in both nations is a fraction of what it is in the US.

          • daveburton Says:

            Ah, but their frostbite rate is higher. (You do realize that you’re comparing apples to oranges, right?)

            Here in the USA, over a relatively short period of time (a couple of decades), we did the test: we first phased out capital punishment, then we reinstated it. When we phased it out, the murder rate went dramatically up. When we reinstated it, the murder rate went dramatically down.

            You might not find that evidence compelling (I do!), but it certainly is evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment. The claim that there is “no evidence” at all of a deterrent effect is absolutely false, and no reasonable person could claim otherwise.

          • daryan12 Says:

            Dare I ask for a reference?

          • daveburton Says:

            I looked up the murder rates and violent crime rates in almanacs, years ago, when I was anti-capital-punishment. It was the striking numbers I found that caused me to change my position on capital punishment.

            Somewhere around here I might have the specific almanac issues and page numbers.

            However, google quickly finds some murder stats:


            Notice what happened as capital punishment was phased out in the 1960s. Then notice what happened as it resumed in the early 1980s (other than Gary Gilmore, of course).

          • daryan12 Says:

            daveburton….I looked up the murder rates and violent crime…..

            Sigh! and all you demonstrate (again!) is a complete inability to perform data analysis. There are several things that could be linked to a drop in murder rates. The death penalty is one. A rise in US population is another (more people = more bad guys = more murders), a rise in gun ownership (more guns = more corpses), the economic downturn of that era (caused by the oil shock and an over reliance on fossil fuels…as if global warming wasn’t a good enough reason to move away from them!) would also produce an upsurge in crime.

            However, probably the most obvious reason for such a rise would be rise in cocaine and heroin sales within the US over the 70’s and early 80’s. Ill conceived US foreign policy in South America and East Asia led to an explosion in both the availability of drugs and the trafficking of it into the US. Drug gangs fighting turf wars with each other would certainly push up the murder rate. A similar trend was I believe observed during the prohibition era in the 1930’s.

            Of course that leaves the question as to why it started to drop? Again, improving economic fortunes seems like one explanation, but a crack down on organised crime seems another. Starting in the late 70’s (under Carter) and carrying on into 2000’s the FBI began a serious push against criminal gangs, notably the Italian Mafia, which saw many leading gang members (and ultimately murderers) banged up.

          • daryan12 Says:

            Oh, and since the abolution of the death penalty in the UK, the murder rate has I believe dropped, and it is but a fraction of the US rate, although this may be linked to the UK’s strict gun laws.

        • bobchewie Says:

          yes, the y hung timothy evans knowing full well he didnt shoot the police officer…the real culprit was under age..they wanted revenge so used a warning that evans gave to hand over the weapon..and distorted it so as to make it look like encourage the murder..even though evans never held the weapon or fired it…

          • daveburton Says:

            Actually, Timothy Evans was hung for murdering his baby daughter (his 1st child), which he did not do. However, he was no angel: he was apparently guilty of conspiracy to murder his unborn 2nd child.

          • bobchewie Says:

            dave..sorry derek bently i was thinking of..
            anyway john christie was the real culprit in the evans case

          • bobchewie Says:

            yes i mixed up the two contraversial cases…the situation i live at is often difficult….

            however you havent responded as to who is behind the great climate alarmist ‘conspiracy’..

            is it ‘zionists’ (cant find zion on a map somehow) or
            jews, or communists, or satanists, or green industrialists,or mad scientists,or NWO ,or aliens,or terrorists, or demons, or a giant out of control computer gone mad, or stockmarket , or what? come on dave , tell us…we’re all dying to hear..

  5. bobchewie Says:

    whackos go on about ‘whackos’

    The Green Bible”

    for Global Warming Whackos!

    Now the Devil has a Bible for environmental whackos!

    so lets see now..GW is a hoax its cooked up by atheist communist satan worshipping jews..who are backed by rich people who use use scientists to create a myth to get funding…

    so thats clear…or not…

  6. bobchewie Says:

    “Since they don’t have any real science to support their false claims, they have to turn it into a religion instead, propagating their lies repeatedly until people believe them. Global Warming advocates have created a cult following through fear-mongering, preying upon fools who don’t think for themselves. The globalist elite plan to kill off 90% of the population. ”

    yeah, where is that real science? where is it? it dont exist..thats why….(er theres quite a lot of it actually)

  7. bobchewie Says:

    a lot of denier ‘evidence ‘ comes from tada! Faux Snooze that bastion of truth oh and alex (im bloody mad) jones..

  8. bobchewie Says:

    I just looked at Conservapedia…their item on BBC..according to CP…apparently its the mouthpiece and front for Al Quaeda.

    well I never…..

  9. bobchewie Says:

    Symbol of Earth Day
    The symbol of the first Earth Day is a circle with a broken cross, with the bars pointing downward. It is a New Age symbol meaning the rejection of Christianity. The goal was to replace the worship of the Christian religion with the worship of Mother Earth. Communist ideology demand you worship the state and not a Christian god, and so communists frequently also attack the church. Earth Day then fits very nicely with the goals of communists. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?


Leave a Reply to bobchewie Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: