Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google search will find you thousands of links
of course there are the climate change deniers
and there are those who say what little we can do won't be nearly enough
just one link:
from the article:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "
couldn't resist one more link - story about Siberia, one of the coldest places on earth where there is human habitation - they now face 100 degree days and multiple wildfires caused by them
https://eos.org/articles/siberian-heat-w....
.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
I couldn't of said it any better
Finally clicked on a link ou yours, googled 2 of the signatories and laughed.
1st name on the list NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR JOHN F. CLAUSER / USA :
dude is expert in quantum mechanics and nobel in physics.
Apparently knows nothing about climate and calls himself a climate denier.
Highly criticized by his peers and never published anything about climate.
2nd guy:NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
specialist in superconductor.
Giaever is currently a science advisor with American conservative and libertarian think tank The Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian 501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.
Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.
Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.
Really inspiring stuff indeed
not only that, lets say he find 2k scientist ?
if i could find 100k scientist (with the same background as he does) holding the counter argument, i wonder if it was still ok to hold the 2% side...
I remember years ago a sweep of many of the scientists working in climate-related areas and 97% said that climate change is largely anthropogenic and the other 3% were funded by the oil and gas industry.
I remember years ago a sweep of many of the scientists working in climate-related areas and 97% said that climate change is largely anthropogenic and the other 3% were funded by the oil and gas industry.
Yes problem is when that overwhelming consensus about the causes is used to claim that there is a consensus about a lot of other far less obvious and far less agreed upon stuff (like how much the warm would get warmer depending on future emissions, how much seas will raise, and how bad or good the sum of ALL the effects would be for human beings).
Montrealcorp for example keeps going with the 97% if i disagree with claims like "there are more hurricanes now because of climate change". And that's the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty (even though in montrealcorp case i fear he simply doesn't understand there isn't a consensus on attribution like he claims there is)
Finally clicked on a link ou yours, googled 2 of the signatories and laughed.
1st name on the list NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR JOHN F. CLAUSER / USA :
dude is expert in quantum mechanics and nobel in physics.
Apparently knows nothing about climate and calls himself a climate denier.
Highly criticized by his peers and never published anything about climate.
2nd guy:NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
specialist in superconductor.
Giaever is currently a science advisor with American conservativ
Your first mistake was thinking this would change NickelDime2000’s mind in any way
Your second mistake was thinking this would change the mind of anyone who stans NickelDime2000
We now live in an era where if you can find a single source that backs you up what you say is the truth that can’t be disproven. No sense fighting it
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
I couldn't of said it any better
Also considering the expression and the literal correct English is ‘I couldn’t have said it any better’ I definitely believe you
The Defiant L's page posted it because it will be seen as an absurd self-own to bring gender into the climate discussion. "Look how ridiculous this woman is for saying climate change has anything to do with gender." It just plays on the emotions of low-resolution thinkers and gives them someone to mock because she's being kind of dramatic. I have no clue what evidence she offered because they only showed an 18 second clip.
And they achieved exactly what they wanted: a hole reposts it as if it is significant here.
Almost 2,000 highly vetted professional scientists (not bureaucrats) signed their names claiming the "climate change" narrative is just a hoax (these ppl are much more qualified to say this than Trump).
Everyone here that understands evidence and opinions is more qualified than Trump. Guess where you are in the heirachy.
Yes problem is when that overwhelming consensus about the causes is used to claim that there is a consensus about a lot of other far less obvious and far less agreed upon stuff (like how much the warm would get warmer depending on future emissions, how much seas will raise, and how bad or good the sum of ALL the effects would be for human beings).
Montrealcorp for example keeps going with the 97% if i disagree with claims like "there are more hurricanes now because of climate change". And that's
And we should ignore the 97% of highly qualified and experienced scientists in the field and go instead with some random online fascist who doesn’t give a **** about people? Gotcha.
“97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing climate change” is a lie. It’s nothing like that proportion, but instead closer to a third. Two thirds don’t agree.
Scientific handheld tricks
Now we come to the core of the publicly widespread denier hatred: the belief in man-made climate change through the industrial use of fossil energy sources. After a Cook study publication et al. (2013) 97 percent of all climate scientists are said to be attached to the thesis of man-made climate change. On closer inspection, however, you have to find out that this ominous 97 percent was conjured up by a manipulative shift in the 100 percent reference size from the original amount of data (12,000 publications) to a subset of only 32 percent.
And this is how it works (all numbers are rounded): The summaries of 12,000 scientific treatises have been examined to determine the cause of the authors there that they assigned to climate change. As a result, 68 percent of the authors had made no statement and of the remaining 32 percent, 30 percent had made people responsible for climate change. Exactly this 32 percent then flowed into the ominous 97 percent statement as a new 100 percent base – and the silent majority of 68 percent was simply dropped under the table. In reality, only 97 percent of 32 percent = 30 percent of all scientific papers examined had supported the model of man-made climate change.
And here's the study that the fraudulent 97% consensus figure came from.
not only that, lets say he find 2k scientist ?
if i could find 100k scientist (with the same background as he does) holding the counter argument, i wonder if it was still ok to hold the 2% side...
I showed you 2,000 scientists who say it's fraud.
I'll make it more easy for you, please show me only 100 scientists with similar background and accomplishments in science as in the letter that say we're about ready to burn up soon in global warming ... You're listening to politicians saying this. They're not scientist, they bureaucrats (frauds).
Are people really still parroting the 97% nonsense? What next? The 70 cent wage gap?
Anyways, chalk up another W for team science
Are people really still parroting the 97% nonsense? What next? The 70 cent wage gap?
Anyways, chalk up another W for team science
I have no idea what is their goal here but I find them idiotic and undeserving of the cause they supposedely defend.
That just shows there are a lot of idiots in every group there is, climate change theory supporters included.
I have no idea what is their goal here but I find them idiotic and undeserving of the cause they supposedely defend.
That just shows there are a lot of idiots in every group there is, climate change theory supporters included.
Their prime motivation is to desecrate sacred things. Stopping oil is a distant second. They just don't know it.
Their prime motivation is to desecrate sacred things. Stopping oil is a distant second. They just don't know it.
Their motivation is to destroy western culture because they think that's what will allow to dismantle capitalism as the dominant system and insert socialism instead.
Stopping oil is part of that but they know it's a distant, hard to reach target, meanwhile they attack everything that made western culture great (and superior to alternatives in allowing material prosperity to flourish) hoping this will decrease support for the set of ideas that allow capitalism to exist.
"the climate" is obviously an excuse, not necessarily in the sense that they don't believe warming is problematic, but in the sense that they have 0 interest in trying to avoid climate change unless that comes with dismantling capitalism.
That's why close to 100% of them, of radical climate change activists, are against nuclear. They completly refuse any solution that would be feasible within capitalism, that wouldn't require significant deterioration of quality of life. They want to use this "crisis" (which isn't a crisis to begin with, but they believe it is) to install socialism.
Keep also in mind these marxists 2.0 are much worse than previous marxists. Previous marxists were "only" preoccupied with equality, and willing to use totalitarian violence to try to guarantee equality.
These people are as preoccupied by equality and as willing to use totalitarian violence as their predecessors, but they are also deeply misanthropists that hate human nature and want 1) degrowth 2) are happy with low fertility rates so "the virus of humanity stops polluting mother earth" 3) want to destroy the best set of cultural ideas the world has ever devised .
These people basically represent the worst possible combination of bad ideas, they are worse than the worst people on the right could ever be, because their ideas are more genocidal than any racism can be, they want a much smaller human footprint on the planet and would be glad if billions died tomorrow because that reduces CO2 emissions.
Their motivation is to destroy western culture because they think that's what will allow to dismantle capitalism as the dominant system and insert socialism instead.
Stopping oil is part of that but they know it's a distant, hard to reach target, meanwhile they attack everything that made western culture great (and superior to alternatives in allowing material prosperity to flourish) hoping this will decrease support for the set of ideas that allow capitalism to exist.
"the climate" is obviously a
What's funny is even from your high horse with your supposed high IQ , you are their exact equivalent in your 'camp', and are doing as much damage for your cause than they are for theirs, with your constant ramblings.
Also, I've been thinking more and more lately there is a decent chance either you're a bot or are using some kind of chatgpt like.
Nice read, luciom. These two look like nuns and you think they are “out to destroy western culture and dismantle capitalism” with a can of spray chalk.
You sure have massive insight into their true motives based on that two minute video.
if i could find 100k scientist (with the same background as he does) holding the counter argument, i wonder if it was still ok to hold the 2% side...
but you can't even find 10.
ps politician like AOC, Al Gore, and even a scientist who works for NASA or other agencies shouldn't be considered because of a possible bias. So to make it more legit, only include main stream independent from gov't scientists
Spoiler
What's funny is even from your high horse with your supposed high IQ , you are their exact equivalent in your 'camp', and are doing as much damage for your cause than they are for theirs, with your constant ramblings.
Also, I've been thinking more and more lately there is a decent chance either you're a bot or are using some kind of chatgpt like.
I destroy nothing, propose to destroy nothing, and i am willing to compromise on a zillion of things with actual moderates if the direction of the compromise improves things (ie reduces leftism), yet i am the exact equivalent of people committing vandalic acts to monuments and who go against of the countries that has the strictest laws regarding CO2 emissions in the world.
You have luciom derangment syndrome at this point
Nice read, luciom. These two look like nuns and you think they are “out to destroy western culture and dismantle capitalism” with a can of spray chalk.
You sure have massive insight into their true motives based on that two minute video.
Roger Hallam is the founder of "just stop oil".
This is his take on capitalism
/There is no hope that capitalism can be constrained from destroying civilisation./
This is his take on western culture
Roger Hallam: I think it’s a vitally important question. This comes back to my previous analysis, which is that, historically, the rebel personality is rooted in virtue ethics. Virtue ethics has been more or less destroyed by neoliberalism, both on the left and the right, and one of the central reasons in my mind, why movements are so fractious: it is because of individualisation and utilitarianism. In other words, all strategy has become rooted in utilitarianism, i.e., if you do that, will that happen? But in the historical experience, rebel uprisings initiating movements are all motivated by virtue ethics, which is: it’s my duty to God to rebound and achieve immortality. If I die, you know, they can come and do what they like because I’m over this ****. This is the central explanation for the inability of Western societies to mobilise: they’ve got a philosophy of life which is completely dysfunctional at a time of annihilation and will
Am i exaggerating, or it's you who walk around with a blindfold not noticing the terrorist mentality of people on your left?
According to weeez these were just "idiots", i might translate with "comrades who made a mistake" am i right? can't even comprehend they are representative of the worst possible ideology the world has ever seen
///
Just stop oil is a terrorist organization which we (rightwing europeans) have been monitoring since it's inception given the extent of their acts of terror. Several of their members (including the terrorist ringleader) have been found guilty of "conspiracy to cause public nuisance" in the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...
Ofc the guardians call it "non-violent", even if there is hardly anything more violent against public property and infrastructure than completly blocking a crucial highway.
It's not a 2 min video, they are well known domestic enemies.
Roger Hallam is the founder of "just stop oil".
This is his take on capitalism
/There is no hope that capitalism can be constrained from destroying civilisation./
This is his take on western culture
Roger Hallam: I think it’s a vitally important question. This comes back to my previous analysis, which is that, historically, the rebel personality is rooted in virtue ethics. Virtue ethics has been more or less destroyed by neoliberalism, both on the left and the r
This is exactly what I meant by you were both alike.
You both have the same kind of language and both think of the other as an aberration and abomination.
This is exactly what I meant by you were both alike.
You both have the same kind of language and both think of the other as an aberration and abomination.
Well sometimes some people are actually aberrations and abominations though, or is your idea that no people are? is the idea that i cannot describe any group of people as a threat to society because otherwise "i am like them"?
Take a hint though, which group uses extralegal violence to push their agenda? them, not me. That's what makes us completly opposite. I ask for the state to defend itself from domestic aggression within the rule of law, they ask for other people to join in the illegal use of violence to "change the world". We are not the same.
but you can't even find 10.
ps politician like AOC, Al Gore, and even a scientist who works for NASA or other agencies shouldn't be considered because of a possible bias. So to make it more legit, only include main stream independent from gov't scientists
Spoiler
The most important scientific mind Great Thunberg told me the world would end last year . How Dare You ?
