Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

[billapong]

Source. For fuck sake. Give me a source. Because you can say anything, and it means nothing without a source. If it's a small outlet trying to get attention and saying of this, then it absolutely means nothing.

I read a lot and don't keep bookmarks of the thousands of articles I've read throughout the last 40 some odd years. That's if they're online to begin with. Besides, if I did list sources you'd just nit pick and dismiss each one based on if it's coming from places you dislike. So it's basically a waste of time. I guess you'll just have to learn by yourself. It's how I did it. I've had this climate bullshit pushed on me one way or the other my entire life. I'm just annoying because I by default don't trust anyone and question everything.

As for the dire predictions, one popular example is the nonsense that flows out of Al Gore's facial orifice, but I already mentioned the entire acid rain issue or the various incarnations the same people have created since the 80's. I also don't keep track of the names of the people who predict this nonsense or videos that I've watched throughout my life that have said we'd all be dead by now.

How the hell am I supposed to pull up articles about something I was shown in the 3rd grade long before the notion of the Internet existed? I guess you could just read any recent publication that said certain places would be under water or how we'd run out of oil (and what would happen after that) but that would take effort and looking at things you don't like or disagree with. I don't put that past most people. Life is full of sources. I say once you're older you'll come to realize some thing about honesty and the government and if not then you'll probably end up a mindless Liberal.

Basically, I don't need sources and if you don't believe me I really don't care. The information is out there. Whether or not you look for it and when you find it are willing to open your mind is up to you, but when I look at what happens to actual scientists who buck the trend, that doesn't give me much hope in anyone or anything.

Edit: I also realize that every Liberal isn't the same, but most Liberals share common traits and beliefs. To assume I think every single voter is the same of thinks the same thing based on their party affiliation is juvenile. I don't need to literally specify exceptions for each case or use a case by case basis or change the way I state things based on the fact that someone should be able to logically deduct that when stating things about various large groups of people that not everyone is going to be the same (especially when it comes to personal values, beliefs or in the Liberals case the lack thereof). It's like saying Conservatives are Christians or Trump votes are White Supremacists. Sure, there's some Conservatives that happen to be Christians and there's some White Supremacists who voted for Trump, but it's not 100% of the case. One would require basic comprehension skills to deduct these sorts of things and not take generalizations (which, aren't inheritly good or bad) so literally.

So like, saying "I think strawberries taste good" doesn't automatically mean that every single strawberry in existence tastes good.

 

[Deleted User]

I read a lot and don't keep bookmarks of the thousands of articles I've read throughout the last 40 some odd years. That's if they're online to begin with. Besides, if I did list sources you'd just nit pick and dismiss each one based on if it's coming from places you dislike. So it's basically a waste of time. I guess you'll just have to learn by yourself. It's how I did it. I've had this climate bullshit pushed on me one way or the other my entire life. I'm just annoying because I by default don't trust anyone and question everything.

As for the dire predictions, one popular example is the nonsense that flows out of Al Gore's facial orifice, but I already mentioned the entire acid rain issue or the various incarnations the same people have created since the 80's. I also don't keep track of the names of the people who predict this nonsense or videos that I've watched throughout my life that have said we'd all be dead by now.

How the hell am I supposed to pull up articles about something I was shown in the 3rd grade long before the notion of the Internet existed? I guess you could just read any recent publication that said certain places would be under water or how we'd run out of oil (and what would happen after that) but that would take effort and looking at things you don't like or disagree with. I don't put that past most people. Life is full of sources. I say once you're older you'll come to realize some thing about honesty and the government and if not then you'll probably end up a mindless Liberal.

Basically, I don't need sources and if you don't believe me I really don't care. The information is out there. Whether or not you look for it and when you find it are willing to open your mind is up to you, but when I look at what happens to actual scientists who buck the trend, that doesn't give me much hope in anyone or anything.

Edit: I also realize that every Liberal isn't the same, but most Liberals share common traits and beliefs. To assume I think every single voter is the same of thinks the same thing based on their party affiliation is juvenile. I don't need to literally specify exceptions for each case or use a case by case basis or change the way I state things based on the fact that someone should be able to logically deduct that when stating things about various large groups of people that not everyone is going to be the same (especially when it comes to personal values, beliefs or in the Liberals case the lack thereof). It's like saying Conservatives are Christians or Trump votes are White Supremacists. Sure, there's some Conservatives that happen to be Christians and there's some White Supremacists who voted for Trump, but it's not 100% of the case. One would require basic comprehension skills to deduct these sorts of things and not take generalizations (which, aren't inheritly good or bad) so literally.

So like, saying "I think strawberries taste good" doesn't automatically mean that every single strawberry in existence tastes good.

So you're pretty much saying that there is nothing right now at all that you can just link to at all that paints this narrative that you claim is being told in the current time at all? None of it? Not a single source? It's one thing to link a source and find out it's bad. It's another if the source is known for being credible.

 

[billapong]

So you're pretty much saying that there is nothing right now at all that you can just link to at all that paints this narrative that you claim is being told in the current time at all? None of it? Not a single source? It's one thing to link a source and find out it's bad. It's another if the source is known for being credible.

Yeah, I have no actual list of sources to back up what I've learned over the years. Well, on hand. It's not the sort of stuff I care to bookmark or even track. A few searches that may assist would be;

al gore florida under water
1980's acid rain hoax
global warming hysteria
comic rays heating earth
current ice age
coal usage down
hottest year in recorded history criteria
end times predictions never came true climate
earth inner core volcanic activity global warming
y2k and the apocalypse
when is the world going to end

Look, if you search for these and read about them. Do yourself a favor and don't skip any articles that come from sources you dislike, that you do't agree with or don't align with whatever your political views are and don't just look at the first page of results. These are just some of the terms that I put into various search engines that turned up results relating to what I was referring to. It's a starting point at least. I rather not cherry pick results as they should speak for themselves.

 

[notimp]

al gore florida under water
1980's acid rain hoax

Those are not a hoax.

And I frankly havent heard of most of the others you are naming.

Acidic rain. Is a thing. https://sciencing.com/acid-rain-affect-buildings-statues-22062.html
It was never 'advertised' as being 'acid' harmful for humans - that just dumb people cant read syndrom. But its harmful for ecosystems (think ponds).

Florida under water is not a hoax either.

While sea levels rose by around 15 centimeters during the 20th century, "it is currently rising more than twice as fast — 3.6 mm per year — and accelerating."

UN report via: https://www.politico.eu/article/un-report-warns-of-accelerating-sea-level-rise-in-a-warming-world/

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_nourishment and maybe more interestingly https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-coastal-erosion-commission

Here is the deal for the US. For top metropoles - coastal erosion mitigation measures will be set up, are already currently being set up. Only some areas, that are highly impacted will be 'given up'. Also - this is a slow process, that follows roughly the steps of - no new building grants are allowed/given out. Public infrastructure funding is pulled. This takes interest away from people maybe wanting to settle in that area - and then you wait for a few desasters to happen, and slowly pull remaining folks from that area.

Its planned as a generational thing. So its slow moving, and you might think of it not happening, but it is.

In other parts of the world that don't have the money to build artificial 'sea barriers' or shores - different story. Less pleasant.

I mean, if you want to act ignorant - try a different place, maybe?

 

[Deleted User]

Yeah, I have no actual list of sources to back up what I've learned over the years. Well, on hand. It's not the sort of stuff I care to bookmark or even track. A few searches that may assist would be;

al gore florida under water
1980's acid rain hoax
global warming hysteria
comic rays heating earth
current ice age
coal usage down
hottest year in recorded history criteria
end times predictions never came true climate
earth inner core volcanic activity global warming
y2k and the apocalypse
when is the world going to end

Look, if you search for these and read about them. Do yourself a favor and don't skip any articles that come from sources you dislike, that you do't agree with or don't align with whatever your political views are and don't just look at the first page of results. These are just some of the terms that I put into various search engines that turned up results relating to what I was referring to. It's a starting point at least. I rather not cherry pick results as they should speak for themselves.

first off 4 of your searches are completely unrelated. I'm referring to y2k, end time predictions, when is the world going to end, and hottest year criteria.
y2k is involved a bug with computers not having enough memory or more accurately, being able properly roll over to the millennium, which caused a scare because the effects on programs made in the past were not fully known, all that was known is that we relied on technology, and having a issue that could severely break the way society ran was a big danger, which of course it didn't break anything important other than the date being wrong and a few select issues. Second of the part of the apocalypse is a religion thing. No part of climate change deals with religion. It deal with basic cause and effect on a massive scale.
Third off when is the world going to end search question is equally as stupid. Climate change doesn't predict the world ending. it's a study, a result of things that are happening at the moment, and then predictions are made based on that data, like even you just said it matters to is how the gun is used. The world isn't going to become a scorching volcano or become barren like mars in the next year. What will happen however is that living is going to get harder as each year goes on, more droughts, more wildfires and more storms due to basic cause effect. Wildfires occur more often due to the conditions being hotter and moisture being less pronounced.. Which leads into droughts as droughts have several factors, one of which is if it didn't snow all that well in the region or if there's a lack of moisture for that region if talking upstream or a large body of water like a river.
To the last point or conflict I have, which is the hottest year in recorder history criteria. It's not just the level of severity as I've already stated again previous, Averages mean more than a single blip of data. You can have outlier in data, but if there's a trend that's following with the data points,that more than one is following the same pattern, but does not follow the pattern of the rest then there means something anomalous or something important has changed.
moving on, I'll look them up. And I'll let you know if any of the above searches are correct or accurate, or wrong. Which a few of them are heavily politically skewed in my opinion but I'll search away.

 

[billapong]

first off 4 of your searches are completely unrelated. I'm referring to y2k, end time predictions, when is the world going to end, and hottest year criteria.
y2k is involved a bug with computers not having enough memory or more accurately, being able properly roll over to the millennium, which caused a scare because the effects on programs made in the past were not fully known, all that was known is that we relied on technology, and having a issue that could severely break the way society ran was a big danger, which of course it didn't break anything important other than the date being wrong and a few select issues. Second of the part of the apocalypse is a religion thing. No part of climate change deals with religion. It deal with basic cause and effect on a massive scale.
Third off when is the world going to end search question is equally as stupid. Climate change doesn't predict the world ending. it's a study, a result of things that are happening at the moment, and then predictions are made based on that data, like even you just said it matters to is how the gun is used. The world isn't going to become a scorching volcano or become barren like mars in the next year. What will happen however is that living is going to get harder as each year goes on, more droughts, more wildfires and more storms due to basic cause effect. Wildfires occur more often due to the conditions being hotter and moisture being less pronounced.. Which leads into droughts as droughts have several factors, one of which is if it didn't snow all that well in the region or if there's a lack of moisture for that region if talking upstream or a large body of water like a river.
To the last point or conflict I have, which is the hottest year in recorder history criteria. It's not just the level of severity as I've already stated again previous, Averages mean more than a single blip of data. You can have outlier in data, but if there's a trend that's following with the data points,that more than one is following the same pattern, but does not follow the pattern of the rest then there means something anomalous or something important has changed.
moving on, I'll look them up. And I'll let you know if any of the above searches are correct or accurate, or wrong. Which a few of them are heavily politically skewed in my opinion but I'll search away.

What you state are predictions of what might happen and you'll find results with those search terms that will bring up predictions of stuff that was supposed to have already happened. I'm not claiming that acid rain doesn't exist or that it's not harmful to the environment, but it didn't kill off life on earth as some predicted. I fully understood the y2k bug before all the predicted horrible stuff was supposed to happen because of it, yet on NYE 1999 I wasn't the slightest bit worried and didn't need to invest in years worth of supplies before hand (some local agencies were trying to push the "be prepared" agenda, which meant investing money in a very long term supply of goods, costing tens of thousands of dollars).

I know a that a changing climate isn't going to end the world, but there's been many people in various instances that have said our civilization would collapse, cities would be crumbling, we'd be living in a barren wasteland, that Florida would already be under water or that generally we'd be in some post apocalyptic state. The various search terms I brought up will give results showcasing these predictions.

Another example would be this Cortez (AOC) who claimed Miami is going to be under water in "a few years". So you have an elected Government official saying that is going to happen. Maybe, you'll remember that in 5 years when Miami is still there. I personally know some people who live around Miami, Florida that state the ocean in their area has been recently receding.

I don't think any of my search terms include any sort of political bias, but like I said some of them might not be popular in various scientific circles, because it goes against the popular consensus, but history has shown the popular consensus to be wrong about various important truths on a reoccurring basis.

What I personally believe is that all of the factors I've listed plus ones that I don't know about contribute to the Earth's climate (including man's influence). I think it's pretty narrow minded to think that co2 is the sole cause of some of these changes we're seeing or that we can fix or otherwise control the climate.

Can you not see the correlation between the past and the present thus why someone would then be skeptical of the modern day predictions? (Answer that question once you dig up the actual predictions, or just wait 5 years and see if Miami is still habitable).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Those are not a hoax.

And I frankly havent heard of most of the others you are naming.

Acidic rain. Is a thing. https://sciencing.com/acid-rain-affect-buildings-statues-22062.html
It was never 'advertised' as being 'acid' harmful for humans - that just dumb people cant read syndrom. But its harmful for ecosystems (think ponds).

Florida under water is not a hoax either.

UN report via: https://www.politico.eu/article/un-report-warns-of-accelerating-sea-level-rise-in-a-warming-world/

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_nourishment and maybe more interestingly https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-coastal-erosion-commission

Here is the deal for the US. For top metropoles - coastal erosion mitigation measures will be set up, are already currently being set up. Only some areas, that are highly impacted will be 'given up'. Also - this is a slow process, that follows roughly the steps of - no new building grants are allowed/given out. Public infrastructure funding is pulled. This takes interest away from people maybe wanting to settle in that area - and then you wait for a few desasters to happen, and slowly pull remaining folks from that area.

Its planned as a generational thing. So its slow moving, and you might think of it not happening, but it is.

In other parts of the world that don't have the money to build artificial 'sea barriers' or shores - different story. Less pleasant.

I mean, if you want to act ignorant - try a different place, maybe?

I never stated that acid rain was a hoax, but using the search term I provided will bring up all sorts of results of the dire predictions that acid rain was supposed to have caused that never came to pass. The predictions were hoax's as they were used for political purposes (mainly, for people to get into power and profit financially). "Climate Change" is the last decades "Global Warming" is the same as the 1980's "acid rain". Barely any of these dire predictions have come to pass and the people who were elected have not stopped anything, but they sure as hell got into positions of power and became filthy rich (while they do nothing in their own personal lives to offset this supposed crisis).

 

[notimp]

On the 'someone claimed that' part first, because its easier. Predictions are hard. People picking up part of it and going with what they've heard - is hard as well. When they then are wrong, it might have just been them. Or the entire prediction. Predictions are hard.

What you state are predictions of what might happen and you'll find results with those search terms that will bring up predictions of stuff that was supposed to have already happened.

I can add to that. Club of Rome predicted end of growth way before we hit end of growth in the past. They then went back, rechecked their models and found f.e. that population growth slowed down in cities, way above their expectations. For instance.

Also, you have my sympathies for being a sceptic. Its a character trait very close to my own view/outlook on many things.

Trends are easier though. So you can roughly say - we see whats going to happen, because some stuff is likely to keep on progressing.

And stuff like - if we don't mitigate now, impact will be tougher in the future (humans think in linear progression), sounds very, very likely to me - if I look at societies like India and China, and the amounts of people entering 'world stage' and continuing western patterns. Its just a numbers thing. Its almost obvious.

And we can look at western societies, look at demographic curves and growth trends ('no one is investing, because we become smaller populations (short term)' - reason: If populations grow, you get new customers 'for free')), and say - yes, we will 'degrow' (made up word, but not by me ), while other civilizations will continue to outgrow us. Also a numbers thing, and also pretty obvious.
(And we almost cant continue rising productivity, to keep outperforming.)

So, the action path to make sure to reduce harm in that setup is to try to get people accustom to 'wanting less' - its just an obvious thing.

If it werent for the human psyche - because if we take that into account, it will never work. (Personal opinion.)

So we meet basically at the same level, its just that I'd like to insist, that no - those predictions arent all bull. Its just, that stuff, tends to work out differently...

Taking away systemic risk (f.e. making transitions easier) - is probably still a good thing.

But again, I couldnt be made to do it either. Not by convicing others. Not by convincing myself.

So those activism movements to me seem 'nobel' (and in parts 'religious'), but nobel only works as part of a stable outlook, and clear power structures. Which is the opposite of how the world looks like today.

This is not a factual argument, its just me saying, that I don't see it working either.

But planning needs to be done now. And technological innovation has to be started now. Currently its maybe not economically viable, but its necessary. And one more thing. We think we know, that technological innovation will not be fast enough alone (to keep the current standard).

And then you'll need to keep research arms of corporations stable, and do what about the rest?

 

[smf]

The problem is that no one is sure exactly to what extent our influence is and no one is agrees on what will change or reverse it (if anything).

It's difficult to get people to agree when oil, coal & gas money is buying people to disagree. Some people figure that within their life time the money will make up for the disadvantages caused by the environmental damage.

Instead of having a trade war with China over Tariffs, it would be better if they tried to force China to sort out their environmental policy. Of course Trump can't do that, because he's in the pocket of the US firms that want to relax environmental controls.

But planning needs to be done now. And technological innovation has to be started now. Currently its maybe not economically viable, but its necessary. And one more thing. We think we know, that technological innovation will not be fast enough alone.

Yeah, the same type of people complained about the money being spent on y2k & then complained afterwards that we spent all that money and there weren't any issues. Which kinda misses the point. There are a couple of sequels coming up https://y2038.com/

The recent GPS week rollover fortunately just seemed to knock out a load of satnavs, some of which received official updates and others received unofficial hacks. There are probably some useless ones, but they don't seem to be mission critical. Hopefully in the next 19 years we won't start relying on something that has an issue at the next one.

 

[Alexander1970]

Hello.

I found this very nice Arcticle (in German).
I will try translate it as good as possile:


Greta and climate protection

I am born in 1950 and have to listen to today, we ruined the life of the youth, we are responsible for the climate change.

I have to disappoint you: in my youth there was a sustainable life and there was the word "renunciation" in our vocabulary.

We went to school by foot or by bike, we wore the clothes of our older siblings, holes in various garments were stuffed, all usable items (buttons, zippers and so on) were separated and recycled, we got to eat, what could be offered in the special season, we still talked face to face, we lived and played in nature and valued them and so on.

And what are you doing ? You drive to school, do every fashion trend, buy new clothes all the time, always have the latest equipment, use rare earths and produce waste without end. You want strawberries in December and fresh bread just before closing time.

And you want to tell us something about environmental protection?
On your demos, you will have your rubbish cleared up by adults and on the weekends, the next event will take place.
If you live as sustainably as we have lived, then you are welcome to strike. But it would be more sensible to invest all your strength in knowledge and education, because you have big problems that you have contributed to and you have to find solutions.

Thank you.

 

[notimp]

Thats a sidetrack discussion for moral supremacy. Moral supremacy in the end is worth nothing.

There are about ten problems with it I'll try to tackle some of them in short.

1. Globalization. So the deal was - we all basically become serves to an economic destiny that cant be influenced by us anymore, because we remain at stagnant wages, while a few elites get rich. But then you get cheap chinese crap.

The deal already doesnt work for my generation. We have basically no old age retirement, cant plan, cant live in houses, are heavily dependent on credit, that even at low interest rates we cant pay back as easily - because we simply never enjoyed economic growth. We couldnt save, we got cheap crap from china.

2. What Boomers experienced in their youth, doesnt matter. You have to validate generations politically from the point they held legal voting majorites. Or don't do that at all, because ageism isn't the best lens to look at things.

3. As soon as boomers got into 'productive age' they reaped all the benefits of growth, interest rates, capitalism, social equality, later the early stages of globalization (think 'Osterweiterung' (althought hat wasnt very successful.). And left every system broken or worse.

4. Around 2000 they got confronted with the global warming messaging for the second/third time, and this time it got through to the mainstream - and everybody decided, that while still on their growth path, and in their active working life - they wanted to do nothing about it.

5. Then they blessed us with the financial crisis. And leaveraged that against everyones savings equally, hurting lower middle class most. And in my life it has been miniscule growth, or recessions - troughout my entire worklife. Cant afford room to live in cities (because of speculation). Cant decide my political future until I'm 50, because of the demographic curve. Had nothing but crisises growing up. Don't know how my life growing old will go. Can look forward to social systems functioning worse in my old age, because they are scaled back.

In the US - it was slightly different, because they produced growth for Millenials, but had them spend it for consumption entirely - to keep the economy going. So they 'consumed' themselves and everyone out of recession. And then had nothing left to safe or invest. In Europe we didn't get the consumption phase, we went straight into more impactful recessions.


So whenever you hear a boomer start to use terms like 'real values' or 'children littering'.Think fuck em - really, do. They don't know what they've had - and the following generations will never enjoy anymore.

Also until this day, they are only motivated by 'keeping the capital they have aquired' private, and not distributed, because it gives them the highest benefits in molding the lives of their children until death. And the highest capital gains, if invested in funds that are so diversified, they buy entire verticals of industries outright, and then profit from economic growth in places anywhere in the world.
-

Can millenials still acquire capital? Yes. In the following fields:
Digitalization (cutting jobs of others), Medicaltech (pampering boomers), Biotech (lets say genuinely innovation), Mathematics (algorithms), Statistics (algorithms), Onlinemarketing (selling cheap crap and services to idiots). Not my opinion, I'm quoting that guy: https://www.derstandard.at/story/20...aretten-sollten-15-euro-kosten-bier-ebenfalls
Also - Investment currently is partly parked in green tech as well, but its... 'ethical investing' - not a huge growth market in europe.

To keep this short, this factors out as splitting societies even more, with a very small class of affluent elites (running international brands in 'the uber for something' market segments, selling services), and a larger and larger group of people that are simply useless and you don't need.

They can now ask their alexa for a mac job ( https://patch.com/florida/miami/hey-alexa-i-need-job-big-mac-mcdonalds ), gigworking, get a some fake job in services - and more essentially, never consume a real product in their lives (at least preferably), or own anything of value anymore - because overall the economy simply isn't there in europe for forseable future. For anything that isnt a mirage (virtual something).

Then of course its great, when an 'environmentally consciousness movement' comes along, because it detracts from that we've been fucked.

I buy a new laptop once every 5 years, and a new phone every 3 years. And I got sick and tired of telling old folks how the world works. I talk to vending machines, get my packages from nameless storage racks, and should online bank, while talking to a videofeed, because its more efficient.

But to me it still beats talking to Boomers on how they messed up.

Also - I was in Alpbach. I saw how they selected. I saw how they encouraged the feeble minded to build their next gig economy business. I saw how receptive they were for BS hypes and surface level stuff, as long as they were first, and there still was a sucker, that could buy into it. I saw - that they had no idea about any of the social issues facebook had produced. About any of the growth markets that were still left in the app space. Or about how my generation starts to view Europe, mainly as a safety anker, and not an exciting concept for the future.

Sorry for being so open.

But an old guy that tells you 'they litter' and buy phones, serves no purpose, and no intellectual value. Its simply them projecting a self image onto others that wouldnt know what to do with it anymore.

Should I now savor my chinese zipper more, and use it for three years, because of the water consumption impact the sweater attached to it has in production? It doesnt even benefit my economy.

It is purely and unaltered - Verzicht (roughly translates to abstinence). For no other purpose but to keep societies stable by doing it voluntarily.

That radical enough for you folks? (Disclaimer: This is a radical opinion. Not wrong. But radical. I dont recommend, that you copy it without thinking about it on your own. )

 

[billapong]

Hello.

I found this very nice Arcticle (in German).
I will try translate it as good as possile:
View attachment 180835

Greta and climate protection

I am born in 1950 and have to listen to today, we ruined the life of the youth, we are responsible for the climate change.

I have to disappoint you: in my youth there was a sustainable life and there was the word "renunciation" in our vocabulary.

We went to school by foot or by bike, we wore the clothes of our older siblings, holes in various garments were stuffed, all usable items (buttons, zippers and so on) were separated and recycled, we got to eat, what could be offered in the special season, we still talked face to face, we lived and played in nature and valued them and so on.

And what are you doing ? You drive to school, do every fashion trend, buy new clothes all the time, always have the latest equipment, use rare earths and produce waste without end. You want strawberries in December and fresh bread just before closing time.

And you want to tell us something about environmental protection?
On your demos, you will have your rubbish cleared up by adults and on the weekends, the next event will take place.
If you live as sustainably as we have lived, then you are welcome to strike. But it would be more sensible to invest all your strength in knowledge and education, because you have big problems that you have contributed to and you have to find solutions.

Thank you.

This older person brings up good points, but this happens after every generation ages. The kids these days will be looking back at the 2010's the same way these older people do and will be being mistreated the same way by the then current generation. Yes, things will have gotten worse too, but that's no reason not to take personal responsibility and do what you can in your own life to address polluting the environment. Just don't try to use the Government to try to control me and we're all good. Look at what YOU can do in YOUR OWN LIFE and do it. Leave me the fuck alone.

 

[Joom]

Things are happening NOW. Right now, real issues that need to be solved, not some far off crisis in the future.

Except climate change is an immediate problem. I'm sure you've heard about all of the flesh eating bacteria infections this year. The reason for the increase is due to warmer waters supporting a more favorable environment for their growth. We're getting hurricanes larger than any in recorded history because of warmer waters. Why does this need to be a world ending problem before we start to care about this?

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Except climate change is an immediate problem.

Resources are an immediate problem. Once we run out of oil there will chaos, civil war and wars between countries. When that day comes we better not have any country on earth possess nuclear weapons.

The term climate change denier is misleading because I don't think anyone believes climate (i.e. worldwide average temperature?) is stable.

The question how much humans have contributed to climate change is a difficult one. However, it's a fact that we are going to run out of oil. Therefore the fact that we still use up oil for sports, excessive military exercises etc should be much more shocking.

 

[billapong]

We're getting hurricanes larger than any in recorded history because of warmer waters.

I've been dealing with hurricanes for over 40 years. This statement is false. Additionally, the impact results from hurricanes in recent years pales in comparison to the past. It's just like how Florida is supposed to be under water, yet the water at various ocean inlets in Florida hasn't risen in almost a half a decade and some areas in Florida the water level has overall decreased. Fuck what the media is reporting I know the truth because I've lived it.

AOC says in 5 years Miami will be under water. Anyone want to put their money where their mouth is and make a rather large bet that this is going to happen? I wouldn't mind getting rich over your stupidity. I would assume not, but you're still going to follow AOC and the other Liberals and try to push your bullshit on me, make more laws and taxes, but you won't do a damned thing yourself to change. Typical hypocritical Liberal toilet scum.

 

[Joom]

I've been dealing with hurricanes for over 40 years. This statement is false. Additionally, the impact results from hurricanes in recent years pales in comparison to the past.

Sauce needed. I also don't give a shit about what politicians say. They're not scientists. Louisiana is a better state to look at, and rising sea levels are the least of the concern. With 40 years on this earth, I'd expect some wisdom, but you have your head in the sand along with the libfags that you so hate. Both sides are candyassed snowflakes. Get the fuck over yourselves and realize that you are a cancer. The two party system is broken beyond repair, and needs to be done away with, like religion. Then maybe we can get on as a species and stop worrying about retarded shit. Or, maybe social Darwinism will take over, and entire social collapse will take place because people like you can't hang up your personal bullshit, so you literally die in your own filth as someone murders you. I'm actually hoping for this. Miniature civil war will be hilarious, because let's be honest, this country doesn't have the balls for total civil war anymore.

 

[osaka35]

Yeah, I have no actual list of sources to back up what I've learned over the years. Well, on hand. It's not the sort of stuff I care to bookmark or even track. A few searches that may assist would be;

al gore florida under water
1980's acid rain hoax
global warming hysteria
comic rays heating earth
current ice age
coal usage down
hottest year in recorded history criteria
end times predictions never came true climate
earth inner core volcanic activity global warming
y2k and the apocalypse
when is the world going to end

Look, if you search for these and read about them. Do yourself a favor and don't skip any articles that come from sources you dislike, that you do't agree with or don't align with whatever your political views are and don't just look at the first page of results. These are just some of the terms that I put into various search engines that turned up results relating to what I was referring to. It's a starting point at least. I rather not cherry pick results as they should speak for themselves.

Not all sites are equally valid, though. You have to look at how they arrive at their information. "wattsupwiththat.com", for example, is a site that just makes the important stuff up, so you can safely ignore search results from that site. There are some site which attempt to explain climate change, but get it wrong, even though they agree it's happening. Those sites should also be ignored.

If you have person A saying "I think this movie has problem because of pacing" and person B saying "I think the pacing is fine given the nature of the story line" and you have person C saying "this movie is terrible because it was made by the illuminati", you're not going to want to weigh them all 3 as being equally valid.

So while it's good advice to google each topic to look at a variety of opinions and voices, it's important to know how to weight them for merit and validity. To be honest, it's just one more thing we need to improve about education and teaching our kids STEM properly.

I'd also suggest those are search terms which are geared towards finding a particular answer, but they're a good start.
- Instead of "1980's acid rain hoax", which is a biased way to phrase it, phrase it as "whatever happened to 1980s acid rain".
- "current ice age", "end times...climate", "earth inner core...global warming", "coal usage down", these are a talking point of climate change deniers, so it's probably best to phrase them in a more general way. "current climate vs previous climate" for example. Remove the conclusion from the question, or else you're only going to get that answer repeated back at you.
- As a rule of thumb, we want to phrase the question as pro-science and as pro-research as possible.
- "global warming research" or "cosmic rays research", for example, are better key words to add.

But it does boil down to how to tell which sites are quality sites? Usually by the sources and how they cite how they know what they know, but even then they could just be misunderstanding what they're reading. It's a skill which is developed, and it's important to dig deep to understand the core mechanics of what is being discussed, assessing and building from the base assumptions.

 

[billapong]

Sauce needed. I also don't give a shit about what politicians say. They're not scientists. Louisiana is a better state to look at, and rising sea levels are the least of the concern. With 40 years on this earth, I'd expect some wisdom, but you have your head in the sand along with the libfags that you so hate. Both sides are candyassed snowflakes. Get the fuck over yourselves and realize that you are a cancer. The two party system is broken beyond repair, and needs to be done away with, like religion. Then maybe we can get on as a species and stop worrying about retarded shit. Or, maybe social Darwinism will take over, and entire social collapse will take place because people like you can't hang up your personal bullshit, so you literally die in your own filth as someone murders you. I'm actually hoping for this. Miniature civil war will be hilarious, because let's be honest, this country doesn't have the balls for total civil war anymore.

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that your statement about hurricanes is made up bullshit. I'll take the word of honest people over the candy ass sensationalist Liberal media any day of the year. You can't trust dishonest people. Period.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Not all sites are equally valid, though. You have to look at how they arrive at their information. "wattsupwiththat.com", for example, is a site that just makes the important stuff up, so you can safely ignore search results from that site. There are some site which attempt to explain climate change, but get it wrong, even though they agree it's happening. Those sites should also be ignored.

If you have person A saying "I think this movie has problem because of pacing" and person B saying "I think the pacing is fine given the nature of the story line" and you have person C saying "this movie is terrible because it was made by the illuminati", you're not going to want to weigh them all 3 as being equally valid.

So while it's good advice to google each topic to look at a variety of opinions and voices, it's important to know how to weight them for merit and validity. To be honest, it's just one more thing we need to improve about education and teaching our kids STEM properly.

I'd also suggest those are search terms which are geared towards finding a particular answer, but they're a good start.
- Instead of "1980's acid rain hoax", which is a biased way to phrase it, phrase it as "whatever happened to 1980s acid rain".
- "current ice age", "end times...climate", "earth inner core...global warming", "coal usage down", these are a talking point of climate change deniers, so it's probably best to phrase them in a more general way. "current climate vs previous climate" for example. Remove the conclusion from the question, or else you're only going to get that answer repeated back at you.
- As a rule of thumb, we want to phrase the question as pro-science and as pro-research as possible.
- "global warming research" or "cosmic rays research", for example, are better key words to add.

But it does boil down to how to tell which sites are quality sites? Usually by the sources and how they cite how they know what they know, but even then they could just be misunderstanding what they're reading. It's a skill which is developed, and it's important to dig deep to understand the core mechanics of what is being discussed, assessing and building from the base assumptions.

I was never implying that every result of the terms I used that go along with my own views would be valid, but there's thousands of them so maybe just maybe I'm not making any of this up? Of course there's going to be sites that produce junk results, but that's why like you said you read into them. I've spent decades reading material that goes against the current popular opinion and trends.

I agree that the terms I used give results based on the fact that I'm against the entire global warming con and rightfully so. I'm not going to support fake people (Liberals) trying to profit off of and control the general population using this hoax. I mean, science is always changing. It's okay now to eat eggs again, water isn't the #1 best way to hydrate yourself and there was nothing ever wrong with ingesting healthy fats (you see, science was *wrong* about these things for decades). I'm not going to put my trust into something that's constantly changing and thus results in everything in the past being invalid or wrong.

I've made choices in my own life to reduce my personal effects on the climate, but I'm not going to use the Government to push my views on others or force them to comply. If I did all of the Liberal leaders wouldn't be flying around in jets, driving cars or living in houses that use enough energy to power small towns with. Actually, in a real society based on socialism (according to theory) no one would be rich. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't fly with the Liberal leaders. They would simply be our lords and everyone else would be poor. No thanks and I'm not falling for "the world is ending" garbage any longer and I also don't believe that trying to implement a proven to fail old ass backwards system like socialism makes any sense.

It sounds nice on paper, but the system doesn't take into account the fact that we have sinners in the world who lie, cheat, steal, rape, kill, etc ... and right now the group of people trying to use the Government to force this system on us are all sinning, lying, cheating, stealing, child killing scum.

So it's not going to work. Socialism isn't the answer to fixing something like the climate that isn't even broken and that you can't fix no matter what you tried to do. Nor is creating more laws and making new taxes. It comes down to personal responsibility to clean up your own local environment. If everyone did that then the Earth would be clean, but then of course there's no guarantee that the climate wouldn't stop changing, well, because the climate is always changing.

See the Liberals think they've won by trying to mix in their global warming end of the world garbage with climate change. Well, renaming their agenda over and over again hasn't fooled me one bit. The climate has always been changing, yeah, but the Liberal agenda is now to try to conflate the terms to push their ways on others and it's not going to work. I see right through it. So I won't be voting for any Liberal policies, agendas and I'm sure as hell not going to vote for any Liberal candidates. I'll also point out every chance I get that the Liberals are full of shit.

If the world is really going to end in 10 years then what are you doing sitting on your computer using electricity, carrying around something that you replace every year that's made out of rare earth metals or driving around in the #1 cause of pollution? If it's such a big emergency then what are you personally going to do in your life to change? That's the question you should be asking yourself, not "what can I force other people to do".

 

[xstre pwnsx]

Sink the birthrate, that'll showem!

 

[cots]

Sink the birthrate, that'll showem!

Leftist: We need to depopulate the planet.

Me: Why?

Leftist: To stop climate change.

Me: What will happen if we don't stop climate change?

Leftist: Millions will die.

Me: So we need to depopulate the planet to stop climate change from depopulating the planet?

 

[spotanjo3]

Hahahaha.. you can't fix it. It is irreversible. It can be slow down with solar and no more gas/oil and etc. However, to reversible it ? No, Scientists already say that it is irreversible change.