That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if it is in fact real, it is the greatest threat to humanity by a long shot.
So, in order to make sure it is in fact real, we should rigorously review every bit of data about it.
If you have a gun pointed at your head and some people are saying it's real while others say it's fake, it behooves you to be very sure which it is before you make any decisions regarding it.
Anyone trying to convince you not to double check the findings isn't actually concerned about the gun, they're concerned about their own agenda.
It's not real though. Eugenicists in the mid 20th century went straight into environmentalism. It's a big scam. It's flat earther level bullshit. I used to think that too, that "we better get this right just in case" and what I have found is there is no evidence at all that there is even the slightest concern. If you look at people studying science that make money from grants, you'll notice their research is only funded if they come to the "right" conclusions. If you say anything against the narrative - despite whatever evidence you may have - you will be shut down. Want to get paid? Fudge the results that climate alarmism is necessary. You atheists all don't seem to realize, if you don't believe in God you will be gullible enough to "believe in science", to "trust the experts". I care about the truth, and if so-called scientists are telling lies I call their bullshit out.
Yeah, man, we pretty much all know it's not real. That's not the point.
The point is that if someone claims the sky is falling but then tells you not to check to see if the sky is actually falling, then they're not actually concerned about it and are only concerned with manipulating you.
I have checked to see if the "sky is falling". It's not. Once you know the truth - that this climate hysteria is a hoax - everything makes more sense. Believing in climate change hysteria is basically a religion - it is based on faith, not science.
You're right, it isn't real. But these shitbags are using the fear they can stir up to implement what appears to be their preferred solution to anything - feudalism masquerading as socialism. And they keep producing shit science to fan the flames ever-higher - so let's cut 'em off at the knees and discredit the unworthy science they're producing/
That's asinine. Of course humans are altering atmospheric chemical concentrations, and of course that effects the climate, because it relates to an energy equation.
The pandemic is also a real pandemic, I don't know what else to tell you on that. Debate the deaths all you want, that's perfectly reasonable. But the virus itself is not a fiction.
Frankly, the reason they are hysterical is 2 fold:
The environmentalist movement is founded by literal god damned Nazis who were obsessed with the "soil" part of "Blood & Soil" (long discussion on what that actually meant to the Nazis and how that pertains to conservationism), and believed in Malthusian predictions of population collapse. All of the internationalist organizations can be thrown directly in the garbage for that.
The largest corporations in the world, particularly within agriculture, finance, and trade are facing a disaster because they will not be able to easily respond to climate changes, in the same way they control the world's monetary system since they can't respond to price changes. Climate Change is going to completely alter the environments of many continents and will result in a large movement of people. Maybe even the construction of new major cities (Canada in particular comes to mind), this means that the agricultural order of the world and it's commodity trading are going to be changed rather violently in the coming decades, and companies like Cargil are going to have to figure out how to adapt to how food is not going to be grown when, where, and how they want it to be. Worse, they might not even be able to grow what they want to, which is want the largest agricultural corporations rely on.
(continued) Farmers are always going to be the first people effected by Climactic change and any change that happens to them is going to effect food distribution to the rest of the country and every single thing that implies from political stability, economic well-being, public healthcare, population density, and much much more. Thanks to FDR's farm system, farmers are effectively dependent on share-cropping for the major Agricultural firms, and on federal subsidies to survive in such a highly regulated market that admits its sole purpose is to keep food prices extremely low. Probably lower than they even should be.
However, Climate Change means that the only proper solution to the oncoming problems to agriculture would be to radically de-regulate, well past the point of ending subsidies. This is a lethal threat to the largest corporations that depend on controlling agricultural commodity trading, and it also threatens establishment political loyalty over these regions. Farmers being allowed to adapt to Climate Change means increased food price volatility, worse: it means deflationary pressure on the major agricultural firms that will either have to eat the cost, force the farmers to take the hit, or force the consumer to offset the deflation with taxation. This means that:
You have the firm eat the cost and go out of business for being unprofitable (the correct decision, but you lose political control over your cartel)
You have the local farmers eat the cost by having them go out of business, which threatens your political control over your food supply from angry farmers.
You make consumers pay a shitload more in taxes or inflation to offset the decreasing price of food, which will weaken political control over them and foment significant resentment against the government.
From their perspective, it's only bad news. Look at it like this, Climate Change causing deflation on agriculture is like Caronavirus causing deflation on the stock markets: they chose options 2 & 3, put 46 million people out of work and hyperinflate the currency. The is already a catastrophe, and their hoping to barely scrape by with rampant fraud, a highly agitated population, and they've already lost the capitol once. Climate Change will do the same thing, but for food. That is why they are scared. You think the Boomer Riot at the capitol was bad? Try a Bread Riot. Or worse: a Water Riot.
The climate is a problem in the same way that this "pandemic" of a virus with a 99.99% survival rate is a problem. Climate exists, humans do contribute to some of the chemicals in the air, but climate change is about as lethal as the kung flu.
I'd say that that the pandemic has killed more people and is a much more serious problem in the short run. Climate Change will be a significant issue in the long run and it will have made significant alterations in our civilizaitonal systems.
False. Stop believing lies you hear on fox news or cnn. Most deaths listed as covid deaths were not covid deaths. Climate change will never be a significant issue.
I miss the days when the concern was focused on more generic pollution like companies dumping industrial waste in the rivers and such. Now no one gives a shit about rivers of plastic and chemicals freely flowing all over Asia, but somehow the first world where that's mostly been heavily punished is the biggest worstest threat to the environment.
Not quite. They have a smaller number because their economy is smaller. But population is not the relevant measurement there. It should be divided by GDP - because what you want is the greatest amount of production for the lowest amount of pollution. If you live in caves, you're not going to cause much pollution either.
The environmental cultists also never gave much of a damn about the extreme pollution taking place in the USSR. Funny how all these cultists never give a damn about what they purport to stand for, unless it's something they can burn down the west for.
I mean, 'We're doomed' has been repeated regularly over the last 50 years and has yet to manifest in any conceivable way, they just move to the next big lie. You can't blame some people for going 'It's a hoax, and will blow over the last six times.' when Chicken Little is still screaming his head off about it.
Yeah, we could stand to pollute less and conserve more, but I'll be damned if I ever take CC's data at face value.
What made me most skeptical about the AGW/CC narrative is that all the solutions offered were political, and really excellent solutions that work right now, like nuclear power, were actively suppressed by the same "recommendations".
It's a cult. If they actually believed that CC is an existential threat, they would be pushing nuclear power despite their misgivings. France mostly has nuclear power, and it is yet to blow up.
You can't blame some people for going 'It's a hoax, and will blow over the last six times.'
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
Yeah, we could stand to pollute less and conserve more
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
but I'll be damned if I ever take CC's data at face value.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about. I think 'the data', such as it is, is valid to the extent that such models can be, but the presentation often is not. In newspapers, it often takes the most alarmistic scenarions, presents it as a certainty, and then ends up with people dismissing the whole thing as a hoax when the predictions turn out to be false, as always.
I would recommend Michael Shellenberger's book to anyone interested in the thing. Though I don't know whether he can be trusted either. That is part of the problem, all of this stuff is so inscrutable, and the 'experts' so morally and intellectually bankrupt, that one is forced to either believe politicized anarcho-primitivist 'experts' on one side, or those 'experts' funded by Exon (as the saying goes) on the other side, or into agnosticism. The fanaticism with which people advocate positions of which they have no clue at all whether they are correct, on both sides, is something that bothers me. At least have the balls to acknowledge that you don't know. As I don't.
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
Remember how we were supposed to be underwater in 12 years? The hole in the o-zone layer to destroy us all? Melting polar ice caps? There may have been some nuggets of truth hidden away in them, but frankly, calling them a hoax is being gentle. 'Directed lies to seize assets' would be closer to the truth.
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
Few arguments there, I was thinking more along the lines of all these stupid masks getting put into recycle bins and pushing for more items to be made from locally recycled material instead of cheap plastic from China.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about.
Fair, I wasn't communicating clearly there. "Any information about CC published by mass media and/or that push for political control rather than targeted improvements" won't be taken at face value. If it shows up in a science magazine, it's a maybe. If it's a published paper, I'll at least humor the idea and see if it remains internally consistent. If it comes from a politician's or celebrity's lips, I would rather eat fresh vomit than accept it.
That said, I can't blame those that just go 'It's a hoax' still. Because after fifty years of Chicken Little screaming for attention, you either tune him out or you become the next Chicken Little.
Midwits take things at face value. The wise see everything the way it actually is; in terms of narrative. The climate is always changing and human development has negligible effects. The narrative behind it is like all other narratives propogated by the Globo Homo elites, to grab more power.
It is negligible. Whether it's wet or dry or hot or cold all weather conditions are always blamed on climate change. The weather channel freaks out if there's a below average hurricane season (climate change reducing hurricanes), an average hurricane season (climate change causes hurricanes) or an above average hurricane season (climate change is causing more hurricanes), and this is the narrative all the time from all institutions. The reason this is pushed, is so the globo homo elites can cripple the people by depriving them of the only cheap reliable source of energy - fossil fuels (how many times have you heard of goals of reaching "carbon nuetral?". Carbon Dioxide is not harmful to the environment at all. It is like saying water is harmful for fish... Look up the Club of Rome. This all is a bogus hoax and has been for a long time.
No, it's not. Never was. Complete lie, just like the plandemic.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if it is in fact real, it is the greatest threat to humanity by a long shot.
So, in order to make sure it is in fact real, we should rigorously review every bit of data about it.
If you have a gun pointed at your head and some people are saying it's real while others say it's fake, it behooves you to be very sure which it is before you make any decisions regarding it.
Anyone trying to convince you not to double check the findings isn't actually concerned about the gun, they're concerned about their own agenda.
It's not real though. Eugenicists in the mid 20th century went straight into environmentalism. It's a big scam. It's flat earther level bullshit. I used to think that too, that "we better get this right just in case" and what I have found is there is no evidence at all that there is even the slightest concern. If you look at people studying science that make money from grants, you'll notice their research is only funded if they come to the "right" conclusions. If you say anything against the narrative - despite whatever evidence you may have - you will be shut down. Want to get paid? Fudge the results that climate alarmism is necessary. You atheists all don't seem to realize, if you don't believe in God you will be gullible enough to "believe in science", to "trust the experts". I care about the truth, and if so-called scientists are telling lies I call their bullshit out.
Yeah, man, we pretty much all know it's not real. That's not the point.
The point is that if someone claims the sky is falling but then tells you not to check to see if the sky is actually falling, then they're not actually concerned about it and are only concerned with manipulating you.
I have checked to see if the "sky is falling". It's not. Once you know the truth - that this climate hysteria is a hoax - everything makes more sense. Believing in climate change hysteria is basically a religion - it is based on faith, not science.
You're right, it isn't real. But these shitbags are using the fear they can stir up to implement what appears to be their preferred solution to anything - feudalism masquerading as socialism. And they keep producing shit science to fan the flames ever-higher - so let's cut 'em off at the knees and discredit the unworthy science they're producing/
Then a proper scientific analysis will bear that out.
That's asinine. Of course humans are altering atmospheric chemical concentrations, and of course that effects the climate, because it relates to an energy equation.
The pandemic is also a real pandemic, I don't know what else to tell you on that. Debate the deaths all you want, that's perfectly reasonable. But the virus itself is not a fiction.
Frankly, the reason they are hysterical is 2 fold:
The environmentalist movement is founded by literal god damned Nazis who were obsessed with the "soil" part of "Blood & Soil" (long discussion on what that actually meant to the Nazis and how that pertains to conservationism), and believed in Malthusian predictions of population collapse. All of the internationalist organizations can be thrown directly in the garbage for that.
The largest corporations in the world, particularly within agriculture, finance, and trade are facing a disaster because they will not be able to easily respond to climate changes, in the same way they control the world's monetary system since they can't respond to price changes. Climate Change is going to completely alter the environments of many continents and will result in a large movement of people. Maybe even the construction of new major cities (Canada in particular comes to mind), this means that the agricultural order of the world and it's commodity trading are going to be changed rather violently in the coming decades, and companies like Cargil are going to have to figure out how to adapt to how food is not going to be grown when, where, and how they want it to be. Worse, they might not even be able to grow what they want to, which is want the largest agricultural corporations rely on.
(continued) Farmers are always going to be the first people effected by Climactic change and any change that happens to them is going to effect food distribution to the rest of the country and every single thing that implies from political stability, economic well-being, public healthcare, population density, and much much more. Thanks to FDR's farm system, farmers are effectively dependent on share-cropping for the major Agricultural firms, and on federal subsidies to survive in such a highly regulated market that admits its sole purpose is to keep food prices extremely low. Probably lower than they even should be.
However, Climate Change means that the only proper solution to the oncoming problems to agriculture would be to radically de-regulate, well past the point of ending subsidies. This is a lethal threat to the largest corporations that depend on controlling agricultural commodity trading, and it also threatens establishment political loyalty over these regions. Farmers being allowed to adapt to Climate Change means increased food price volatility, worse: it means deflationary pressure on the major agricultural firms that will either have to eat the cost, force the farmers to take the hit, or force the consumer to offset the deflation with taxation. This means that:
From their perspective, it's only bad news. Look at it like this, Climate Change causing deflation on agriculture is like Caronavirus causing deflation on the stock markets: they chose options 2 & 3, put 46 million people out of work and hyperinflate the currency. The is already a catastrophe, and their hoping to barely scrape by with rampant fraud, a highly agitated population, and they've already lost the capitol once. Climate Change will do the same thing, but for food. That is why they are scared. You think the Boomer Riot at the capitol was bad? Try a Bread Riot. Or worse: a Water Riot.
The climate is a problem in the same way that this "pandemic" of a virus with a 99.99% survival rate is a problem. Climate exists, humans do contribute to some of the chemicals in the air, but climate change is about as lethal as the kung flu.
I'd say that that the pandemic has killed more people and is a much more serious problem in the short run. Climate Change will be a significant issue in the long run and it will have made significant alterations in our civilizaitonal systems.
False. Stop believing lies you hear on fox news or cnn. Most deaths listed as covid deaths were not covid deaths. Climate change will never be a significant issue.
I love that the "debate" on CC goes on between two sides that have the IQ of a tadpole: "we're doomed" vs. "it's a hoax".
I miss the days when the concern was focused on more generic pollution like companies dumping industrial waste in the rivers and such. Now no one gives a shit about rivers of plastic and chemicals freely flowing all over Asia, but somehow the first world where that's mostly been heavily punished is the biggest worstest threat to the environment.
MUH PER CAPITA
never mind the fact that of course they're going to have a smaller number when you divide by 2 billion
Not quite. They have a smaller number because their economy is smaller. But population is not the relevant measurement there. It should be divided by GDP - because what you want is the greatest amount of production for the lowest amount of pollution. If you live in caves, you're not going to cause much pollution either.
The environmental cultists also never gave much of a damn about the extreme pollution taking place in the USSR. Funny how all these cultists never give a damn about what they purport to stand for, unless it's something they can burn down the west for.
I mean, 'We're doomed' has been repeated regularly over the last 50 years and has yet to manifest in any conceivable way, they just move to the next big lie. You can't blame some people for going 'It's a hoax, and will blow over the last six times.' when Chicken Little is still screaming his head off about it.
Yeah, we could stand to pollute less and conserve more, but I'll be damned if I ever take CC's data at face value.
It's a cult. If they actually believed that CC is an existential threat, they would be pushing nuclear power despite their misgivings. France mostly has nuclear power, and it is yet to blow up.
Doomsayers has been the most powerful tool to control people. From religious prophecies to global warming. Power, control and wealth.
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about. I think 'the data', such as it is, is valid to the extent that such models can be, but the presentation often is not. In newspapers, it often takes the most alarmistic scenarions, presents it as a certainty, and then ends up with people dismissing the whole thing as a hoax when the predictions turn out to be false, as always.
I would recommend Michael Shellenberger's book to anyone interested in the thing. Though I don't know whether he can be trusted either. That is part of the problem, all of this stuff is so inscrutable, and the 'experts' so morally and intellectually bankrupt, that one is forced to either believe politicized anarcho-primitivist 'experts' on one side, or those 'experts' funded by Exon (as the saying goes) on the other side, or into agnosticism. The fanaticism with which people advocate positions of which they have no clue at all whether they are correct, on both sides, is something that bothers me. At least have the balls to acknowledge that you don't know. As I don't.
Remember how we were supposed to be underwater in 12 years? The hole in the o-zone layer to destroy us all? Melting polar ice caps? There may have been some nuggets of truth hidden away in them, but frankly, calling them a hoax is being gentle. 'Directed lies to seize assets' would be closer to the truth.
Few arguments there, I was thinking more along the lines of all these stupid masks getting put into recycle bins and pushing for more items to be made from locally recycled material instead of cheap plastic from China.
Fair, I wasn't communicating clearly there. "Any information about CC published by mass media and/or that push for political control rather than targeted improvements" won't be taken at face value. If it shows up in a science magazine, it's a maybe. If it's a published paper, I'll at least humor the idea and see if it remains internally consistent. If it comes from a politician's or celebrity's lips, I would rather eat fresh vomit than accept it.
That said, I can't blame those that just go 'It's a hoax' still. Because after fifty years of Chicken Little screaming for attention, you either tune him out or you become the next Chicken Little.
You can deny that it's caused by humans.
Midwits take things at face value. The wise see everything the way it actually is; in terms of narrative. The climate is always changing and human development has negligible effects. The narrative behind it is like all other narratives propogated by the Globo Homo elites, to grab more power.
Do tell me by what standard one can tell if someone belongs to 'the wise'.
[weasel words enter the conversation]
What is 'negligible'? I don't agree that CC is existential, but it's definitely not negligible either.
It is negligible. Whether it's wet or dry or hot or cold all weather conditions are always blamed on climate change. The weather channel freaks out if there's a below average hurricane season (climate change reducing hurricanes), an average hurricane season (climate change causes hurricanes) or an above average hurricane season (climate change is causing more hurricanes), and this is the narrative all the time from all institutions. The reason this is pushed, is so the globo homo elites can cripple the people by depriving them of the only cheap reliable source of energy - fossil fuels (how many times have you heard of goals of reaching "carbon nuetral?". Carbon Dioxide is not harmful to the environment at all. It is like saying water is harmful for fish... Look up the Club of Rome. This all is a bogus hoax and has been for a long time.
And you're the enlightened cuck right?