The people of the Renaissance were far more educated and smarter than we are.
Ermm what now?! Presumably you mean within much narrower limits of knowledge and only a relatively tiny portion of society?
General Discussion: Politics thread
Show original post
30 Aug 2019 12:43
No need, you humiliate yourself in most of your own posts.
You believe in screenshots as evidence. Call everyone else gullible.
You think you can declare the rain forest safe with some quick basic math. A thing of pure ignorance.
You think left-wing violence is a more serious threat than Right-wing. Ignoring facts.
You think identity politics is a "leftist"-thing. No grasp of history.
…
..
.
“The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.”
posted 30 Aug 2019 23:33, edited 30 Aug 2019 23:33
1 of these things is not like the others.
Hating someone based on skin colour is a completely different proposition to hating someone for their actions and beliefs.
That's whats wrong with you mindless zombies of the left, you don't THINK, you just parrot.
Just go back and listen to Dr Martin Luthor King's I have a dream speech and you might start to realise you don't use common sense.
The earlier comment that the ridiculous is being normalised.
How about this+ "The World will end in 12 years due to the effects of humans." a mainstream US politician is saying this (Guess which one) and a lot of people are accepting it. IE extreme leftist enviro-ganda is becoming normalised. Conservatives are actually just the same as ever. Nothing Trump does is extreme in any way but you are conditioned by the voice in your head and the MSM to think everything he does is extreme and dangerous and mentally unhinged.
31 Aug 2019 09:09
31 Aug 2019 11:51
posted 1 Sep 2019 01:43, edited 1 Sep 2019 01:43
posted 1 Sep 2019 08:25, edited 1 Sep 2019 08:25
1 Sep 2019 11:52
possibly, but that's not my point - this is what's known as a strawman argument
the point is that you've been conditioned to hate specific groups of people even though in socio-economic terms you have way more in common with them than the people that own the company you work for, or who own your apartment building, or whatever - i.e the people that hold power over you. they benefit from society being divided as it's easier to do what they want to get richer if we're all fighting amongst ourselves.
it's so deeply ingrained by now that even considering the possibility would mean completely changing your personality and worldview, which would be traumatic, so you'll dismiss the idea as lefty bullshit and go about your business.
yep just keep calling me dumb instead of engaging, classic tactics of mentally weak leftist drones. Try to humiliate and mock to make the other sides arguments seem illegitimate. Fact is you can't argue with my facts. You're lost, you're weak, you're wrong and you will never admit it because you're too far invested. I feel sorry for you.
No need, you humiliate yourself in most of your own posts.
You believe in screenshots as evidence. Call everyone else gullible.
You think you can declare the rain forest safe with some quick basic math. A thing of pure ignorance.
You think left-wing violence is a more serious threat than Right-wing. Ignoring facts.
You think identity politics is a "leftist"-thing. No grasp of history.
…
..
.
“The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.”
remainers, SJWs, black or brown people, feminists, the european union, the left wing, and so on.
1 of these things is not like the others.
Hating someone based on skin colour is a completely different proposition to hating someone for their actions and beliefs.
That's whats wrong with you mindless zombies of the left, you don't THINK, you just parrot.
Just go back and listen to Dr Martin Luthor King's I have a dream speech and you might start to realise you don't use common sense.
The earlier comment that the ridiculous is being normalised.
How about this+ "The World will end in 12 years due to the effects of humans." a mainstream US politician is saying this (Guess which one) and a lot of people are accepting it. IE extreme leftist enviro-ganda is becoming normalised. Conservatives are actually just the same as ever. Nothing Trump does is extreme in any way but you are conditioned by the voice in your head and the MSM to think everything he does is extreme and dangerous and mentally unhinged.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-great-barrier-reef-is-not-dead-long-live-the-reef-20190830-p52mg0.html
You missed this MLI?
But it also faces enormous challenges if we do not take action. Reducing threats from rising sea temperatures, poor water quality and crown of thorns outbreaks are critical in protecting its future.
I trust the scientists who tell me that climate change is the biggest single threat to the reef, just as I trust those who tell me of the things we can do, and are doing, to make the reef more resilient.
Yea, healthier than ever.I trust the scientists who tell me that climate change is the biggest single threat to the reef, just as I trust those who tell me of the things we can do, and are doing, to make the reef more resilient.
Have you actually listened to Trump speak? Have you read transcripts of what he says, word for word? I can't speak for others but for me it's not that what he's doing is extreme it's that he's in over his head meddling in things he doesn't understand the complexities of and with little understanding of the consequences of his (often spur of the moment) actions.
I realise I'm on a hiding to nothing with this, but here it goes anyway.
You (and others are very good at railing against the "mainstream media" but not actually providing credible sources to back up your arguments. I also suspect that you are parroting some of your facts without questioning the way they are presented, or if they are even still relevant.
Some Pacific islands are growing, that is true. The majority of those for which survey data is available, in fact. However it has to be noted that the data set is relatively small.
One of the most referenced studies by climate change deniers is A global assessment of atoll island planform changes over the past decades by Virginie Duvat of the University of La Rochelle. This data set covers 35 atolls and 852 islands. As specific examples of the limited nature of the data set, it includes 245 islands of the Marshall Islands and 6 islands of the Federated States of Micronesia. The Marshall Islands actually comprises 1,156 islands and Micronesia of 607 islands.
Duvat's study analyses the available data and states that 88.6% of the islands "were either stable, or increased in size". This of course means 11.4% decreased in size, which is a not insignificant proportion.
When this study is cited by climate change sceptics it it ignores the fact that the data only covers atolls, that is islands formed from coral. As the sea level rises, which it is doing, the coral adapts and grows. However coral growth is slowing as a result of sea temperature increases so cannot be relied upon to continue at a rate that will stay ahead of the rises in sea level.
The same sceptical sources using this study as evidence often make an argument along the lines of that if Pacific islands are getting bigger then potential future island depopulation is a myth. However this conveniently ignores the fact that loss of habitable lands is much less of a concern than the compromising of freshwater sources. That is what will make islands uninhabitable, not loss of land area.
Indeed, another oft-cited study by Paul Kench focuses on the growth of Pacific atolls but also states that "Changes expected include the ongoing erosion of smaller sand islands in the archipelago (10 ha), stability of reef platform islands and increased mobility of atoll reef rim islands. Such changes suggest that the existing footprint of islands on reef surfaces will continue to change, although the physical foundation of islands will persist as potential pedestals for habitation over the coming century. Consequently, while we recognise habitability rests on an additional set of factors loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of islands or the entire nation. However, changes in land resources may still stress population sustainability in the absence of appropriate adaptive initiatives."
In other words, the natural shape-shifting of the size and shape of coral islands does not account for the fixed location of human-made infrastructure (buildings, roads, electricity distribution, sewage systems, etc). Damage and destruction to this is not balanced out by new coral growth elsewhere.
It should also be pointed out that these incomplete data sets exclusively cover atolls, i.e. coral-formed islands, and not volcanic islands which do not have the same power to regenerate and so are more susceptible to sea level rises.
The argument "Pacific Islands growing, not sinking" is also something of a distraction (whataboutism, if you like) since it ignores other oceans and their islands, and continents too. It also ignores the effect of higher king tides, droughts and increased unpredictability in weather patterns, all of which are linked to climate change and can have a devastating impact on island life.
Paul Kench and Virginie Duvat are held up by some climate sceptic sources as a poster boy and girl for the lack of climate change. However both are carrying out tightly targeted research on a specific subject and neither deny that climate change is occurring.
Duvat works for an organisation which offers advice on "climate change adaptation and mitigation".
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2018640643/climate-change-in-the-pacific-what-s-really-going-on
This is a good, balanced article on the subject (in my opinion, of course):
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/
I really don't know where to begin with this. All I can think is that you've misunderstood the "global warming hiatus" that occurred between 1998 and to 2012 when the rate of increase in global temperature slowed down (but kept increasing) which is sometimes cited by climate change deniers as evidence that global warming is happening.
Using Wikipedia as a source is notoriously risky but in this instance the article is properly and extensively referenced with links to peer-based academic research and hard data.
Again, a fact which doesn't account for the subtleties of what is actually occurring and which is intended to deflect from the fact that the Arctic is shrinking. It is also based on outdated data but conveniently the argument hasn't changed.
The area of ice coverage in the Antarctic was thought to be growing in simple terms, that is (or was) a fact, but the reasons for which are still not fully understood. Several scientists have suggested that it may conversely be due to increasing sea temperatures and changes in weather patterns affecting where the new ice is formed.
Also from 2014 there was a dramatic decline in the ice coverage.
In addition to this a new study has in fact concluded that "Using revised inventories, improved thickness mapping, and time series of velocity and SMB, we present four decades of mass balance in Antarctica that reveal a mass loss during the entire period and a rapid increase over the last two decades in parts of Antarctica closest to known or suspected sources of CDW from observations of high ice-shelf melt rates, ocean temperature, or based on ocean model output products."
(SMB is surface mass balance, CDW is circumpolar deep water)
This is a rather simplistic argument which is generally true but again conveniently ignores multiple factors. I will assume for the purposes of this discussion that we're ignoring that the global temperature is stable and accept that the temperature is warming….
In developed countries with good irrigation systems and access to water yields are indeed up. Increasing efficiency and technological developments in agriculture will no doubt continue this trend for some time. So your fact is correct, if we ignore developing countries.
In developing countries where irrigation systems tend to be less advanced and in particular in warmer countries where access to water can be problematic crop yields are expected to go down as annual rainfall decreases (eighty percent of the World's crops are rain-fed), temperatures increase and pest numbers increase.
Desertification, land degradation and soil erosion are all exacerbated by temperature increases and will lead to reduced yields in the tropics in particular.
The IPCC's report on Climate Change and Land is a good starting point for anyone wanting to learn more.
This is true, although the study that this is based on comes with an awful lot of caveats (in particular the fact that their study collated data from previous studies where "the variation in study designs and modelling approaches and the use of alternative definitions of attributable risk measures" can affect the way deaths are categorised).
Did you quote this fact to suggest that global warming is not a problem?
In comparison to what? All carbon emissions? Then this is a fact. What relevance does it have though? You seem to fundamentally miss the point here.
The problem is not only the increase in carbon dioxide as a result of the fires it is the destruction of the trees themselves. Removing the trees reduces the Amazon's ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turn it into oxygen. The more trees that are destroyed the higher the levels of carbon dioxide that is left in the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect and the rise in temperatures.
This is an attempt at a fact that is inaccurate and therefore false.
Not all "natural" carbon is produced by decomposition, so that part is inaccurate in that form. I'll assume that you're referring to all carbon released naturally (i.e. without interaction from humans). That is to say carbon released from the land (including animals and vegetation) and oceans.
"Nature" has a more or less balanced cycle (sometimes referred to as the global carbon cycle) where the amount of carbon released naturally is approximately equal to the amount of carbon reabsorbed (for example by the aforementioned trees). Obviously this varies from region to region, year to year, but by and large it approximately balances out.
Human-made carbon emissions however are not in balance, they are not reabsorbed so are a net contributor to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is the crux of the issue.
To take some recent numbers, natural processes are estimated to emit around 770 Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide each year, while human-engineered processes are estimated to be around 26 Gigatonnes a year. This is a multiple of just under 30 times.
Decomposition is estimated to contribute around 220 Gigatonnes a year which is around 8.5 times human-made emissions (no sniggering at the back).
Again, this fact is just deflecting from the main issue which is humans are net contributors to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This IPCC report covers the global carbon cycle amongst other subjects. This page has lots of nice charts and data about carbon dioxide release.
I don't even know where to begin with this. Tell me you're not taking the word of an Australian Government minister for this.
There is plenty of peer-reviewed academic research which points to a long-term decline in the health (and coral cover) of the Great Barrier Reef.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497744/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00411/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/80
This is and has always been true. What's your point?
Looking forward to your properly-referenced response.
I realise I'm on a hiding to nothing with this, but here it goes anyway.
You (and others are very good at railing against the "mainstream media" but not actually providing credible sources to back up your arguments. I also suspect that you are parroting some of your facts without questioning the way they are presented, or if they are even still relevant.
FACT: Pacific Islands growing, not sinking.
Some Pacific islands are growing, that is true. The majority of those for which survey data is available, in fact. However it has to be noted that the data set is relatively small.
One of the most referenced studies by climate change deniers is A global assessment of atoll island planform changes over the past decades by Virginie Duvat of the University of La Rochelle. This data set covers 35 atolls and 852 islands. As specific examples of the limited nature of the data set, it includes 245 islands of the Marshall Islands and 6 islands of the Federated States of Micronesia. The Marshall Islands actually comprises 1,156 islands and Micronesia of 607 islands.
Duvat's study analyses the available data and states that 88.6% of the islands "were either stable, or increased in size". This of course means 11.4% decreased in size, which is a not insignificant proportion.
When this study is cited by climate change sceptics it it ignores the fact that the data only covers atolls, that is islands formed from coral. As the sea level rises, which it is doing, the coral adapts and grows. However coral growth is slowing as a result of sea temperature increases so cannot be relied upon to continue at a rate that will stay ahead of the rises in sea level.
The same sceptical sources using this study as evidence often make an argument along the lines of that if Pacific islands are getting bigger then potential future island depopulation is a myth. However this conveniently ignores the fact that loss of habitable lands is much less of a concern than the compromising of freshwater sources. That is what will make islands uninhabitable, not loss of land area.
Indeed, another oft-cited study by Paul Kench focuses on the growth of Pacific atolls but also states that "Changes expected include the ongoing erosion of smaller sand islands in the archipelago (10 ha), stability of reef platform islands and increased mobility of atoll reef rim islands. Such changes suggest that the existing footprint of islands on reef surfaces will continue to change, although the physical foundation of islands will persist as potential pedestals for habitation over the coming century. Consequently, while we recognise habitability rests on an additional set of factors loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of islands or the entire nation. However, changes in land resources may still stress population sustainability in the absence of appropriate adaptive initiatives."
In other words, the natural shape-shifting of the size and shape of coral islands does not account for the fixed location of human-made infrastructure (buildings, roads, electricity distribution, sewage systems, etc). Damage and destruction to this is not balanced out by new coral growth elsewhere.
It should also be pointed out that these incomplete data sets exclusively cover atolls, i.e. coral-formed islands, and not volcanic islands which do not have the same power to regenerate and so are more susceptible to sea level rises.
The argument "Pacific Islands growing, not sinking" is also something of a distraction (whataboutism, if you like) since it ignores other oceans and their islands, and continents too. It also ignores the effect of higher king tides, droughts and increased unpredictability in weather patterns, all of which are linked to climate change and can have a devastating impact on island life.
Paul Kench and Virginie Duvat are held up by some climate sceptic sources as a poster boy and girl for the lack of climate change. However both are carrying out tightly targeted research on a specific subject and neither deny that climate change is occurring.
While his work confronts the “ingrained” view that islands will be lost, Kench says he’s disappointed it has been used to fuel the arguments of climate change deniers.
“We can’t see, really, if people read what we write, how people can take that message.
“What we believe our work shows is a more nuanced understanding of what is actually happening in the islands.”
“We can’t see, really, if people read what we write, how people can take that message.
“What we believe our work shows is a more nuanced understanding of what is actually happening in the islands.”
Duvat works for an organisation which offers advice on "climate change adaptation and mitigation".
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2018640643/climate-change-in-the-pacific-what-s-really-going-on
This is a good, balanced article on the subject (in my opinion, of course):
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/
FACT: Global temperature stable
I really don't know where to begin with this. All I can think is that you've misunderstood the "global warming hiatus" that occurred between 1998 and to 2012 when the rate of increase in global temperature slowed down (but kept increasing) which is sometimes cited by climate change deniers as evidence that global warming is happening.
Using Wikipedia as a source is notoriously risky but in this instance the article is properly and extensively referenced with links to peer-based academic research and hard data.
FACT: Antartic growin
Again, a fact which doesn't account for the subtleties of what is actually occurring and which is intended to deflect from the fact that the Arctic is shrinking. It is also based on outdated data but conveniently the argument hasn't changed.
The area of ice coverage in the Antarctic was thought to be growing in simple terms, that is (or was) a fact, but the reasons for which are still not fully understood. Several scientists have suggested that it may conversely be due to increasing sea temperatures and changes in weather patterns affecting where the new ice is formed.
Also from 2014 there was a dramatic decline in the ice coverage.
In addition to this a new study has in fact concluded that "Using revised inventories, improved thickness mapping, and time series of velocity and SMB, we present four decades of mass balance in Antarctica that reveal a mass loss during the entire period and a rapid increase over the last two decades in parts of Antarctica closest to known or suspected sources of CDW from observations of high ice-shelf melt rates, ocean temperature, or based on ocean model output products."
(SMB is surface mass balance, CDW is circumpolar deep water)
FACT: warming areas are producing more food
This is a rather simplistic argument which is generally true but again conveniently ignores multiple factors. I will assume for the purposes of this discussion that we're ignoring that the global temperature is stable and accept that the temperature is warming….
In developed countries with good irrigation systems and access to water yields are indeed up. Increasing efficiency and technological developments in agriculture will no doubt continue this trend for some time. So your fact is correct, if we ignore developing countries.
In developing countries where irrigation systems tend to be less advanced and in particular in warmer countries where access to water can be problematic crop yields are expected to go down as annual rainfall decreases (eighty percent of the World's crops are rain-fed), temperatures increase and pest numbers increase.
Desertification, land degradation and soil erosion are all exacerbated by temperature increases and will lead to reduced yields in the tropics in particular.
The IPCC's report on Climate Change and Land is a good starting point for anyone wanting to learn more.
FACT: Cold weather kills more people than hot weather does
This is true, although the study that this is based on comes with an awful lot of caveats (in particular the fact that their study collated data from previous studies where "the variation in study designs and modelling approaches and the use of alternative definitions of attributable risk measures" can affect the way deaths are categorised).
Did you quote this fact to suggest that global warming is not a problem?
FACT: The amount of carbon released by fires in the amazon infentisimally small.
In comparison to what? All carbon emissions? Then this is a fact. What relevance does it have though? You seem to fundamentally miss the point here.
The problem is not only the increase in carbon dioxide as a result of the fires it is the destruction of the trees themselves. Removing the trees reduces the Amazon's ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turn it into oxygen. The more trees that are destroyed the higher the levels of carbon dioxide that is left in the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect and the rise in temperatures.
FACT: Carbon produced naturally by decomposition is around 50 times greater than all human made emissions
This is an attempt at a fact that is inaccurate and therefore false.
Not all "natural" carbon is produced by decomposition, so that part is inaccurate in that form. I'll assume that you're referring to all carbon released naturally (i.e. without interaction from humans). That is to say carbon released from the land (including animals and vegetation) and oceans.
"Nature" has a more or less balanced cycle (sometimes referred to as the global carbon cycle) where the amount of carbon released naturally is approximately equal to the amount of carbon reabsorbed (for example by the aforementioned trees). Obviously this varies from region to region, year to year, but by and large it approximately balances out.
Human-made carbon emissions however are not in balance, they are not reabsorbed so are a net contributor to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is the crux of the issue.
To take some recent numbers, natural processes are estimated to emit around 770 Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide each year, while human-engineered processes are estimated to be around 26 Gigatonnes a year. This is a multiple of just under 30 times.
Decomposition is estimated to contribute around 220 Gigatonnes a year which is around 8.5 times human-made emissions (no sniggering at the back).
Again, this fact is just deflecting from the main issue which is humans are net contributors to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This IPCC report covers the global carbon cycle amongst other subjects. This page has lots of nice charts and data about carbon dioxide release.
FACT: The Great Barrier Reef healthier than ever
I don't even know where to begin with this. Tell me you're not taking the word of an Australian Government minister for this.
There is plenty of peer-reviewed academic research which points to a long-term decline in the health (and coral cover) of the Great Barrier Reef.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497744/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00411/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/80
FACT: Some rich and powerful humans want to control the lives of other humans and tell them how bad they are and how virtuous themselves are.
This is and has always been true. What's your point?
Looking forward to your properly-referenced response.
^fuck off cocksucker
That's your opinion, to others he's calling the elite on their usual bullshit and achieving more than any other US President in living memory.
I really don't know where to begin with this. All I can think is that you've misunderstood the "global warming hiatus" that occurred between 1998 and to 2012
One man's hiatus is another's stability. So what. What exactly is bad about warming anyway? Cold kills more than warm and warmer weather opens up a lot of mining and agriculture in areas that didn't have it before. Win win win.
Again, why is that bad? Less ice = more prosperity.
In comparison to what? All carbon emissions? Then this is a fact.
Yep.
ah dumbass there are more trees on earth than at any time in the last 35 years. Forested areas are net growing. And guess what they love more carbon, greening is happening. Sorry, that's another inconvenient fact for you stupid fucking hippies.
gee that's convenient that all other carbon except the 1% or so thats produced by humans burning it is somehow magically balanced out. Wow those magical fairies sure do a good job, too bad they can't do that 1% extra. Poor fairies. By the way how do you know about these magical balancing fairies that selectivley only balance "natural" carbon emissions?
shrug, it looks fine to every tourist that's ever been there this year too:
https://www.couriermail.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=CMWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest;=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Fnews%2Fqueensland%2Ftourism-veteran-says-great-barrier-reefs-death-is-fake-news-hurting-industry%2Fnews-story%2Ff9a5dcf7f34d7ec386c9cb8b0408c5b7&memtype;=anonymous&mode;=premium&nk;=c8f205016e7468d6578940680d83c19c-1567302411&v21suffix;=45-b
That global warming is a useful vehicle for these humans to exploit those less powerful than them. It also lets them tell us how apparantly morally superior they are to us. I see you've jumped on the bandwagon, feel good fuckwit?
he's in over his head meddling in things he doesn't understand
That's your opinion, to others he's calling the elite on their usual bullshit and achieving more than any other US President in living memory.
FACT: Pacific Islands growing, not sinking.
Some Pacific islands are growing, that is true.
Yep including Tuvulu the one that's constantly whinging and asking for money from us. Don't let facts get in the way of global warming hysteria huh.Some Pacific islands are growing, that is true.
FACT: Global temperature stable
I really don't know where to begin with this. All I can think is that you've misunderstood the "global warming hiatus" that occurred between 1998 and to 2012
One man's hiatus is another's stability. So what. What exactly is bad about warming anyway? Cold kills more than warm and warmer weather opens up a lot of mining and agriculture in areas that didn't have it before. Win win win.
FACT: Antartic growin
Again, a fact which doesn't account for the subtleties of what is actually occurring and which is intended to deflect from the fact that the Arctic is shrinking. .
Again, why is that bad? Less ice = more prosperity.
FACT: The amount of carbon released by fires in the amazon infentisimally small.
In comparison to what? All carbon emissions? Then this is a fact.
Yep.
The problem is not only the increase in carbon dioxide as a result of the fires it is the destruction of the trees themselves.
ah dumbass there are more trees on earth than at any time in the last 35 years. Forested areas are net growing. And guess what they love more carbon, greening is happening. Sorry, that's another inconvenient fact for you stupid fucking hippies.
FACT: Carbon produced naturally by decomposition is around 50 times greater than all human made emissions
"Nature" has a more or less balanced cycle
gee that's convenient that all other carbon except the 1% or so thats produced by humans burning it is somehow magically balanced out. Wow those magical fairies sure do a good job, too bad they can't do that 1% extra. Poor fairies. By the way how do you know about these magical balancing fairies that selectivley only balance "natural" carbon emissions?
FACT: The Great Barrier Reef healthier than ever
I don't even know where to begin with this. Tell me you're not taking the word of an Australian Government minister for this.
There is plenty of peer-reviewed academic research which points to a long-term decline in the health (and coral cover) of the Great Barrier Reef.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497744/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00411/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/80
I don't even know where to begin with this. Tell me you're not taking the word of an Australian Government minister for this.
There is plenty of peer-reviewed academic research which points to a long-term decline in the health (and coral cover) of the Great Barrier Reef.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497744/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00411/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/80
shrug, it looks fine to every tourist that's ever been there this year too:
https://www.couriermail.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=CMWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest;=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Fnews%2Fqueensland%2Ftourism-veteran-says-great-barrier-reefs-death-is-fake-news-hurting-industry%2Fnews-story%2Ff9a5dcf7f34d7ec386c9cb8b0408c5b7&memtype;=anonymous&mode;=premium&nk;=c8f205016e7468d6578940680d83c19c-1567302411&v21suffix;=45-b
FACT: Some rich and powerful humans want to control the lives of other humans and tell them how bad they are and how virtuous themselves are.
This is and has always been true. What's your point?
That global warming is a useful vehicle for these humans to exploit those less powerful than them. It also lets them tell us how apparantly morally superior they are to us. I see you've jumped on the bandwagon, feel good fuckwit?
The biased and bitter books by people he's fired?
Nah.
Anyway fuck all you hippy faggots, the people are finally waking up against you fucking control freak fascists and your lies and virtue signalling bullshit, conservatism is back worldwide and it's not going away anytime soon. I'm done here.
Nah.
Anyway fuck all you hippy faggots, the people are finally waking up against you fucking control freak fascists and your lies and virtue signalling bullshit, conservatism is back worldwide and it's not going away anytime soon. I'm done here.
Hating someone based on skin colour is a completely different proposition to hating someone for their actions and beliefs.
possibly, but that's not my point - this is what's known as a strawman argument
the point is that you've been conditioned to hate specific groups of people even though in socio-economic terms you have way more in common with them than the people that own the company you work for, or who own your apartment building, or whatever - i.e the people that hold power over you. they benefit from society being divided as it's easier to do what they want to get richer if we're all fighting amongst ourselves.
it's so deeply ingrained by now that even considering the possibility would mean completely changing your personality and worldview, which would be traumatic, so you'll dismiss the idea as lefty bullshit and go about your business.
Sign in to post in this thread.