Climate Change

Alarmist propaganda

 

Agendas will make people lie.

 

https://climatechange.environment.harvard.edu/home#section3

Harvard University or YouTube channel with 23k followers?

Which might be the more reliable source?

Or Yale University?

https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/building-an-immunity-to-fake-news/

Or MIT?

http://news.mit.edu/2019/first-climate-symposium-gobal-warming-1003

or Caltech?

https://www.latimes.com/california/...-750-million-climate-change-research-cal-tech

or Stanford?

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/09/10/science-of-climate-change/

 

The single provided example was clearly a lie and proof of an agenda though, right?

 

Yeah most of these climate alarmist drivel came from those leftist universities. I won't be fooled again by people like Gore and now AOC giving extinction limits just to do it again after their doomsday prophecy passes. I've been taught in the 80s that man made global warming/climate change will bring the end of the World, nearly 40 years has passed, now I have to wait another 12 years for AOCs deadline?

 

https://today.citadel.edu/climate-change-citadel-research-south-carolina-ocean-health/

Is The Citadel a leftist university?

https://libarts.olemiss.edu/scientist-concludes-climate-change-is-real/

Ole Miss?

https://www.redandblack.com/uganews...cle_b6267c54-526a-11e9-81c5-d3294a4b3efc.html

University of Georgia?

https://www.deseret.com/2017/9/5/20...is-necessary-and-can-be-had-by-diverse-groups

BYU?

https://www.newson6.com/story/22904...ntists-urge-congress-to-act-on-climate-change

Oral Roberts University?

Come on man... if you are older and just don't care about the future... then fine. If you are younger and just don't care... then fine

But almost every reputable university has professors who believe climate change is an issue. Both liberal and conservative unless they are total hack money making institutions just out to take people's money.

 

that wasn't even a slight attempt at addressing my question, so I have my answer

 

Ron, you make so many one sentence replies, half which are tongue and cheek that most of the time I don't know whom or what you are addressing.

Ask me specifically what you are referring to and I'll try to answer if I can.

Since most other people on these political threads have no intention of changing their minds, I usually just post a counter point when I disagree with something I read.

I have no illusion of changing anyone's mind, but I feel an obligation to at least post a rebuttal.

 

the thought the part where I quoted it made it obvious



And you are right, I'm light hearted/non serious about most topics. Life is too short to let things bother you. do the best you can to be positive change in the world, but choosing to use a dying Polar Bear to falsely push your agenda is not a good look whether one believes the data indicates an issue or not.

 

Oh that's why I'm confused. I didn't post the polar bear. The polar bear story was debunked when the David Attenborough documentary came out.

But people love to do that. Point out one lie and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The melting of the arctic region still isn't good for the area. Except for maybe the Russians.

Pretty soon Siberia will become beachfront Arctic Ocean property.

JK, but only just.

 

As usual everyone digs in with their own ways of looking at major issues. Am disappointed there is no serious discussion on this person's plan to save the planet. Seems promising.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/why...isis-solution-rankling-twitter-155305526.html



Or at least one good joke?

 

The problem with that strategy is that more socially conscious intelligent people will stop having children, yet stupid people will continue to have them.

Making the world even more dangerous and headed towards disaster.

So although I agree with the overall principle... it's better to spend money on education trying to aid or convince the poor to stop procreating along with limiting one's own families. Giving the poor education, also increases the chance of raising a productive citizen as opposed to another potential criminal.

But Democrat or Republican, we will continue to give money for more war (calling it defense) instead of spending it on someone who might find solutions one day.

"Those lazy poor... we'll fix them by cutting off money... driving them to a life of crime and building more for profit prisons"

This is the thing that irks me the most about Republicans.

They want to force poor women to have children... yet want little to do with paying to educate them or raise them.

It's a recipe for a crime wave in twenty years imo.

 

I read every link you posted in its entirety, and I've changed my stance on global warming. I can hardly believe we're still alive tbh.

 

well said

 

Wait. What? I only posted it because of this synopsis at the beginning, copied below. Not that having less children in general is a good idea. It's a problem and of course we all get it that rising population is a problem. With no practical solution. But she, or at least this synopsis, sounds looney tunes.

"An academic is adding her voice to the rising chorus of climate-crisis alarm bells with a newly published manifesto that has been attracting widespread attention for its radical ideas — particularly “antinatalism,” or the end of reproduction as a way of phasing out of the human race."

 

As a human of course I'm biased in favor of our continued existence... however, it does seem like only a matter of time before we destroy ourselves and perhaps the planet. It's a miracle we are still here in some ways.

So no I wouldn't sterilize humans but if you are purely speaking from the planet's point of view, we have a good chance of blowing it up at some point.

This is why I keep saying less money into war and more into education.

We can already blow it up hundreds of times over. Learning how to blow things up even faster might put us at some competitive advantage but it ultimately puts the planet more in jeopardy. We also have to worry about artificial intelligence running amok as Stephen Hawking and others have warned us.

 

My question is: When will Sentient Meat understand that military funding does not mean war?

 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/09/donald-trump-is-dropping-bombs-at-unprecedented-levels/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...-afghanistan-2019-report-200128142958633.html

And so you don't think I'm being partisan

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

Do you ever hear of these attacks on the nightly news?

Nope. Because we learned from Vietnam and Rolling Thunder is that actually admitting that you are perpetually bombing people makes the public feel unhappy about what we are doing.

Money for defense is fine... but bombing people over and over for nearly two decades is just making a generation pissed off and radicalizing more and more people against you.

Sure spend money to upgrade and research new weapons and defenses... stay up to date especially in cyber war capability.

But stop the perpetual bombing.

 

That’s old and selectively manipulative data, but getting out of other countrys’ business should be a priority. However, the responsibility of becoming the World’s protector comes with a price.

who knows how many conflicts have been averted because we are helping police the world’s bad guys vs trying to conquer the globe.