climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[SaulOhio]

"learn to write better if you want to persuade anyone"......I don't want to persuade anyone or argue with anyone, you believe what you wanna believe

my time is precious , and I am not prepared to waste it arguing or in conflict with anyone

If you aren't trying to persuade anyone, why are you posting on an internet forum? You fooled me. It looks to me like you are trying to persuade.

Sorry to hear about the tumor, but how the heck am I supposed to be thinking about others concerning what I do not know about them? How was I supposed to know about your tumor till you told me?

And of course, that makes no difference on the issue of climate change. Are you using your illness to protect yourself from criticism, just like other global warming alarmists use Greta Thunberg as a human shield to deflect criticism from skeptics? Anyone criticizing her is "attacking a child", which is intended to silence debate, rather than persuade.

No. You don't want to persuade. What the global warming scaremonger movement wants to do is shout down skeptics, and shame or scare everyone else into following their big government, Luddite proposals for abandoning technological civilization and letting a huge fraction of our population die off. You aren't using persuasion.

[Pemba]

What the global warming scaremonger movement wants to do is shout down skeptics, and shame or scare everyone else into following their big government, Luddite proposals for abandoning technological civilization and letting a huge fraction of our population die off. You aren't using persuasion.

You feel that the "global warming movement" wants to "Abandon technological civilization and let a huge fraction of our population die off" ? Could you clarify that ?

[SaulOhio]

You feel that the "global warming movement" wants to "Abandon technological civilization and let a huge fraction of our population die off" ? Could you clarify that ?

You haven't heard any of them saying that we need to reduce our population? There are some people who seriously say that the total carrying capacity of Earth is one billion people, six billion fewer that there are now.

We’re Beyond Earth’s Carrying Capacity Now. Will Accelerating Climate Change Turn the Population Boom into a Bust?

This guy says 2 billion:

David Attenborough: The planet can’t cope with overpopulation

The idea of cannibalism has even been proposed.

Scientist suggests eating human flesh to fight climate change

[foilholio]

You really need your blinkers on to not see the social slant of this so called "climate" movement. It should really be called communism 2.0 and is actually quite scary.

There is quite valid reasons to talk about population reduction, but they should not be masked under some climate guise. The level you want the population at purely depends on how you want the natural state of the world to exist. It is a simple fact that the more humans you have on earth the less of other things can exist. We could probably go to 20-30 billion people at the expense of most other life that has no or little direct benefit to us. With geoengineering like involving CO2 levels higher than 1000ppm and also genetic engineering and other advancements, we could probably support 20-30 billion people while increasing other life and maybe even 100billion or more without. Alternatively we can have trillions of humans and a entire planet called Earth untouched by humans at all, it's called growing up and moving out of home. Space is big and is where the future is, the communists can even have their own space too.

[downunder]

Why?

Why would that be "social slant of this so called "climate" movement. "?

When nuclear tests (*) were at the highest point, probably the same statement was "social slant of this so called "nuclear" movement." wasn't it? The result was the tests were mostly abandoned. Mostly.

Without the movement who knows what would happen, do you? I hope you guys know about "no go" zones around the Pacific, specially French Polynesia.

Same with slaughtering whales. The movement did not exist in Japan, Norway and Kanada, who still hunt for it.
The rest of the World abandoned hunting whales.

Same with a number of other things someone could call social slants...

It is impossible to support zillion people. C'mon. Try living in Australia, central part.

What David Attenborough showed yesterday was that we will make everything extinct. Now back to (*), if there was no movement perhaps we would not be here at all.

So, what's the problem? Communism? Ha ha, even Putin promised a block of land for every Russian to be able to grow food. Now, from the biggest commie to the God ears. Or better, the US created strong China, which is a communist country, and enjoyed every second of it when they profited.

But yeah, blame others, particularly commies...

[Pemba]

You really need your blinkers on to not see the social slant of this so called "climate" movement. It should really be called communism 2.0 and is actually quite scary.

There is quite valid reasons to talk about population reduction, but they should not be masked under some climate guise. The level you want the population at purely depends on how you want the natural state of the world to exist. It is a simple fact that the more humans you have on earth the less of other things can exist. We could probably go to 20-30 billion people at the expense of most other life that has no or little direct benefit to us. With geoengineering like involving CO2 levels higher than 1000ppm and also genetic engineering and other advancements, we could probably support 20-30 billion people while increasing other life and maybe even 100billion or more without. Alternatively we can have trillions of humans and a entire planet called Earth untouched by humans at all, it's called growing up and moving out of home. Space is big and is where the future is, the communists can even have their own space too.

What are you saying here ? I understand the bit about the number of humans but the rest I don't. Are you saying that if we do have global warming it's not a problem because we'll be able to move trillions of humans out of the way to space in time. We have lots of time to figure out a way to do that because we'll still be able to support them here for a long time because of advances in geo and genetic engineering. But actually there isn't any issue in the first place because man made global warming is just a scary communist plot. Is that a reasonable interpretation ? Although you're coming up with concrete numbers, suggesting you know something about this, I'm struggling to take this all seriously. If global warming is an issue, do you really want to make the assumption you state above (no problem, we'll all just move out to space), rather than doing something about it, which is really a lot easier than moving out to space ? With regards to communism 2.0, do you think then that it's China, maybe Russia that's behind the climate movement and if so why ? Whats in it for them ? Or are you just calling everybody in the "climate movement" a communist ? If so then I don't think you know what communist means. It would find it ridiculous,

[Havre]

Communism isn't whatever kind of government they got in China or Russia.

It is quite obvious that most "green parties" got similarities with communism in the sense that they advocate strong social and financial control of the population (could just as well have said fascism 2.0 I guess).

Nevermind co2 and climate change - also quite obvious that liberalism (the original meaning of the word - not the strange american version) have never been able to solve the issue of limited resources without themselves ending up with strong "control" of some sort (usually argued to the legal system rather than by taxes etc.).

[Pemba]

You feel that the "global warming movement" wants to "Abandon technological civilization and let a huge fraction of our population die off" ? Could you clarify that ?

You haven't heard any of them saying that we need to reduce our population? There are some people who seriously say that the total carrying capacity of Earth is one billion people, six billion fewer that there are now.

We’re Beyond Earth’s Carrying Capacity Now. Will Accelerating Climate Change Turn the Population Boom into a Bust?

This guy says 2 billion:

David Attenborough: The planet can’t cope with overpopulation

The idea of cannibalism has even been proposed.

Scientist suggests eating human flesh to fight climate change

I think you're getting carried away a bit here, I don't think the global warming movement is for killing off people and possibly eating them. But freaks exist. Probably also in the global warming denier movement. It could easily be argued that the global warming movement is all for, not against advancing technological civilization, in the area of "alternative" energy and energy storage for instance.

[marlboroughman]

[Matteo V]

....Personally I am not supporting any view "religiously". I am a "believer" in that I'm just going along with what the majority of scientists believes. If they can't come up with proof either way, I can save myself the trouble of trying....

You fit a near "textbook definition" of a follower of an organized religion.

1. You cede the imperative to think for yourself and question outside of what you are told to believe

2. The purveyor(s) of the narrative to which you vow your allegiance can provide no proof of validity, so you are expected to take their word on "faith"

3. If you do question the narrative directed by the purveyors of your religion, you are excommunicated, other members are required to denounce you, and those other member cannot have dealings with you without facing excommunication themselves.


All three of the above are the exact opposite of science. I would suggest you 'think for your self, and question authority'.