Nature produces and absorbs more than 10x the CO2 than that, even climate alarmists admit that: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
The extra CO2 we produce is allowing plants to grow faster, causing the earth to become greener over the past 30 years (since we have sattelites measuring it): https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/1222...
These are facts the establishment won't tell you because it disrupts their agenda for more government power. When you're only and always hearing about the negatives of one thing (fossil fuels) and only and always hearing about the positives of another (green energy), you're probably being bamboozled.
How insane is it that this climate panic has lead you to pondering mass murder.
In the 70's they where predicting a new ice age, media just report what scares people because that sells.
"You are overly cynical;"
But right? This smells like you're only going to come up with bullshit excuses, like an apologist for a religion would.
"governments do solve a problem."
No they don't, just claim to.
"Or, at least, they are supposed to solve a problem."
Yes, we've heard many fairy tales on this.
"The primary purpose of a government is to promulgate and enforce rules on personal interactions;"
Wow that's extreme. Would that include these comments? Or must it be an interaction irl. Even though western governments totally agree with you they've thrown thousands of people in jail for saying things online that those governments didn't like. Usually it's people complaining about the consequensed of government policy.
You probably don't mean it that extreme, but governments don't care about intentions, they will do what they can get away with.
"these are the laws"
Laws are commandments people respect. But they would not respect such commandments from normal people. Meaning you view government as above normal people. It's fine for them to command people around and it's for the 'normal' people to obey these commands. This allows those in governments to do anything they want. And in reality we've seen government commit the most horrific atrocities, only slowed down by how much the people resist them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"The secondary purpose is to provide the citizens a means of acting collectively"
That's a terrible idea. People totally agree on what to do, even when they have the same information.
Here's a list of some difference in principles progressives and conservatives tend to value the most (left and right are historical accidents):
creativity - tradition
personal freedom - security
equality - economic freedom
Of course these people can't agree on what to do!
Then there is the economic issue. Economical actors have all kinds of transactions they would like to engage in and that would benefit them. But very ofthen those transactions are detrimental to other in the transaction. In the free market it would be far too costly to force others to engage in such transactions. Anyone who tried would also be shunned by anyone else in the market. However with government this changes. It's realitively cheap to influence politicians to force those other parties to engage in the transactions, compared to the massive benefits.
This is called public choice theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
People can organize without government just fine: business (not a corporation, that's a government protection from consequence), sports clubs, mutual aid societies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lReWpkn0dU), etc
Organizing within government is the opposite to cooperating because it always includes initiating violence (or the threat of) against peaceful people.
"for example, to hire police to enforce those laws."
What justifies stealing in order to get what you want? Boing developed a new Airbus, it cost a lot, would it be okay for them to steal that money? It's really very selfish to support government stealing stuff for you to get what you want.
"In a free-wheeling anarchy (which is the libertarian utopia), there is no state, there is only private power. The dream is that the good folk will outnumber the bad folk"
Which is what happens. After China mass murdered their own population because the government had so much power, they started allowing their own people some private property again and hundreds of millions escaped poverty because of it.
Even in a country like Somalia thing improved between 1990 and 2005, when they didn't have government: http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet...
"and be able to dominate the society."
Would you allow that? I would not, I would buy a gun and defe
I'm very well aware that the people, buildings, boots, etc are real.
That doesn't validate the concept of government.
I'm trying to convince people to give up their belief in government, so those bad people lose their power.
Just like the priest only has power because people believe in religion. http://mensenrechten.org/wp-co...
One more thing, I'm very well aware that other socialists violently opposed Hitler, they even called themselves antifa.
That doesn't suggest that Hitler therefore wasn't a socialist himself, they're ideologies where very similar.
It's basically national socialism vs international socialism.
Government is a gang, the delusion of statism means people view their crimes as legitimate.
It's just a guarantee that you get violently oppressed.
Note that the worst organized crime happens in countries where the government implements strict gun regulation, like Mexico.
Please consider my arguments on guns in another comment: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Because government destroys those aspects of life? http://www.investopedia.com/ar... http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet... http://mensenrechten.org/wp-co...
Government forces people to do things, which is the opposite of cooperation.
Governments that provide health care to their people have the worst quality health care of all.
In Canada pets get better health care than humans, because gov hasn't destroyed the health care system for pets.
Hitler was far more socialist than fascist.
The first 8 points of his manifesto where German nationalism, the remaining 17 where socialist: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w...
Also, his mass murdering of people is perfectly in line with what other socialist governments did.
I include communism in that as another way to implement the theory/ideas in socialism.
Mussolini, far more fascist, imprisoned people, but he didn't mass murder them.
So the main problem with Hitler was his socialism.
This is a whole book proving my statements about all government: http://mensenrechten.org/wp-co...
I fully agree with Larken Rose on the issue of government.
Note that we're making a bold claim:
No good thing can ever be done through government.
All you need to prove me wrong is show a single case where the presence of government had a net positive effect.
But all you have is fairy tales.
One more thing.
There's no magic in voluntarism, it's about letting people do what they think is best.
Why would forcing people to do things they think are bad make things better?
Are you talking about socialism? Yes that has been a utter disaster every time it's tried.
From about 1990 to about 2005 Somalia had no government and life improved for them: http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet...
Without government holding them down people can buy guns and defend against bandits and maffia just fine.
Note that the countries with the most crime have the most intrusive and anti-freedom governments.
Yes we had rulers before, like kings, they're no better, just another form of having rulers.
The problem with government is that they have the right to initiate violence against peaceful people, same applies to a king.
Yes some people are very bad, are you saying the political process selects the good people?
The last US election just had the worst two possible options in their history, the political process seduces the worst criminals to seek power.
Yes, the recent church shooting is the perfect example of why good people need to have guns.
1. The guy was able to murder 26 people (not 46) because none of them had a gun, it was a gun free zone.
2. Gun free zones only affect good people, the bad people will still have guns when they want to do bad things.
3. According to gun regulations the guy should not have been allowed to buy a gun on three accounts. So your solution has been tried and it failed utterly. The government can't do anything good, that's the fairy tale people like you believe in.
4. Even though government is such an abysmal failure you want to entrust it with your safety. Even though far more people die in mass shootings where they can keep going until the police stop them compared to when a citizen stops them: http://www.freerepublic.com/fo....
More reasons:
5. Kids used to bring their guns to school for shooting practice, no school shootings then.
6. Regular crime also gets worse when people aren't allowed to defend themselves, here are the stats specifically for murder in the UK, where they have almost no guns: https://crimeresearch.org/2013...
7. The lie on the australian gun buyback program is that things first got worse and then after they de-regulated guns a bit, and people got more guns, things got better again https://crimeresearch.org/wp-c...
8. States in the US have a relative high amount of freedom and have a wide variety of gun regulations. This allows different solutions to gun regulation to be tried out. And it hasn't worked, note that you never hear democrats talk about the stats on gun regulation. Even they know such a lie would be too blatant. In the US there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and crime, that's why the Democrats only argument is emotional.
9. Mass shooters shoot themselves when they're being shot at by cops or citizens. If you're going to wait until they're done murdering, you're going to be waiting a very long time.
I guess as a statist you buy into the propaganda that justifies government power.
So I'll explain how everyone would benefit from the end of government, no danger!
Most of this stuff comes from Larken Rose, here he explains how bad the state problem is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What will happen is that the state governments take over from the federal government.
They already have the potential to do everything a statist might want.
But okay, lets assume that people give up on all rulers in one go, not just the federal level.
What will happen is entrepeneurs will start creating a lot more jobs because they're no longer being held down by government.
Poor people will finally have the freedom to work and no more welfare, so they'll get to work.
There will be a small portion, 1% to 2% of society that needs help or can't find work right away, they will be helped by charity.
Women will mostly go back to the situation before the 60's because it just makes more sense for them.
Their husband will be able to make enough money for the family, so they can stay home and take care of the kids.
Which is much more enjoyable than pushing papers in an office, it also gives them more time to help out in the community.
Freedom to do anything you want sounds fun but with that freedom comes the responsibility for your own safety.
And as feminists have shown, women really don't want to take responsibility for anything, especially safety.
Btw, neither do men, but women choose men who take responsibility because that's how you make money.
It's much better for the kids, now they're being sacrificed to the government and indoctrinated into obedience.
Which is not fun. It requires stomping out their curiosity for learning new things.
They will also start getting jobs at young ages again because it's great for your career and it shapes you as a human.
Saying you believe the government fear mongering (to justify their power) of what will happen without them, makes you sound like religious people claiming we need people to fear god or they will misbehave. Many people who say this do so because it benefits them, they don't care that it comes at the expense of the rest of society. They depend on government for their income, teachers, unions, journalists, feminists, etc. Will whine a lot and very loud. When they're ignored for a few days, they get a productive job instead.
More people will buy guns because they understand that nobody's going to protect them.
Not that they're any less safe, in fact, they'll be more safe because criminals are no longer being protected by the state.
People can now retaliate against criminals and are much more likely to have a gun in order to do so.
People will become more rational, irrationality is something government creates because it promises to prevent people from suffering negative consequences. Which is a very old process, pretty much every successful civilization collapsed, I think because of this mechanism: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7...
By declaring yourself a country you recognize the legitimacy of a ruling class.
The real solution of our problems can come when we can get people to give up on the belief in statism.
Which has no moral validity. Nor does it solve any problem.
It's sad that even people who woke up from the fairy tale of religion still believe in the fairy tale of governments.
People have been screaming about the reliability of voting machines and voter fraud for years, but they where dismissed as paranoid.
Now, when it's in favor of their political interest, the establishment suddenly cares about the reliability of elections.
They're talking about thousands of dollars in an election where Hillary spent more than a billion dollars, 550 million more than her opponent. https://www.bloomberg.com/poli...
Yet somehow a couple hundred thousand dollars from Russians flipped the election...
Also, why would we trust these establishment companies who have a huge political bias?
It's so obvious that they're just pushing this bullshit to excuse Hillary's failure.
I'm happy to have a discussion with anyone on any topic, even if I think they're a climate alarmist.
I think climate panic is bullshit because those conclusions and predictions have been countered by the science: http://petitionproject.org/gw_...
Furthermore most fear mongering climate predictions follow the following pattern:
1. Make a vague prediction
2. Get lots of attention
3. Make new prediciton(s) before it turns out the previous one is false. https://www.thenewamerican.com...
It's very similar to Christian preachers predicting the end of the world and then getting more victims when it doesn't happen.
Only the 'predictions' are far worse, they don't include a verifiable outcome or time when it will supposedly occur.
Thus they should be rejected out of hand.
It's interesting that the media are having more and more trouble pushing this propaganda:
1. The term has changed from global warming to climate change, did anyone explain you why? Climate change is redundant because the climate is defined as the average weather over the past 30 years. So it will always change, by definition.
2. They almost never show charts of how environmental weather extremes changed over time. They probably know it would prove their bullshit wrong. Like the hurricane energy that hasn't increased: http://www.globalwarming.org/2...
3. They never talk about the positives of fossil fuels or CO2. Like with fossil fuels enabling us to defend ourselves against the climate, greatly reducing the number of climate deaths, while the population grows. Or how CO2 made the planet greener: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/.... When people are always and only telling you about one side of an argument, it's a hint of propaganda.
Please honestly investigate this stuff, don't just believe what the establishment tells you.
I don't agree capitalism is an 'economic system'.
It's what happens when people have economic freedom.
Which means people are allowed to keep the fruits of their labor.
So they will invest in productivity, which they need capital for.
Improving productivity is how we improve our quality of life.
The system they're talking about includes government meddling, which always ends badly.
"How long does change take?"
When you're actively working against the change, as the paper explains Google is doing, very very long.
When you have an anti-science attitude like you:
- "nicer ways to say", facts cannot be stated in a 'nice' way. Refute the scientific conclusions based on the evidence or the method they used to get the evidence. Talking about 'nice' ways to say things is admitting you care more about protecting your dogma than facts.
- You don't bother reading the document, instead just assume the MSM lies about it are true. That kind of laziness makes it very easy for people to defraud you.
- You seem to be equating leftist politics with modern society, please look into why people are left or right wing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The media and regressive companies like Google love to pander to people of another color or gender.
This guys document was well-written and scientifically based.
But the regressiveleft hates any facts that contradict their delusions, very similar to religion.
"We're this any other color or sex of person calling out actual harmful company policies they would be condemned, have little attention paid to their plight and would be fighting for years for some kind of recognition."
Please provide some examples of this.
BTW: you'll have to actually provide evidence for this, can't just mention a bad outcome and assert bigotry.
You might be thinking about the case of Colin Kaepernick, but he was just a bad player.
He problably saw a bad future coming and decided to ahead of it by becoming a political activist, so he could play the victim card. http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
I fully agree that humans influence the environment but the uncertainty in models is larger than the supposed influence.
Even if you fully accept that all climate warming is due to human influence you still have to answer two important questions.
1. Is a warmer planet bad?
2. Can government do something without destroying the economy
It's clear the establishment assumes yes to both answers by default but they haven't even asked the supposed 97% about this.
On the first question they do fear mongering all the time, predicting distopian futures that turn out to be false every time and blaming every negative weather event on human influence.
On the second question; their beloved Paris accord only promises to reduce the increase in temperature by a tiny amount.
But then they'll say it's only the first step, basically admitting there will be an endless stream of agreements that do almost nothing.
It's important to keep the economy intact because in a bad economy people care less for the environment.
All of this reveals a distinct anti-human attitude.
It's like asking a termite: Q: Does termite behavior change the environment? A: Yes. Conclusion: The termite hill should be destroyed.
Fossil fuels are what make our quality of life possible, without it we would degrade 100 years.
"Renewable energy" is shit. Because it's unreliable and too expensive.
I'm very interested in a potential new internet.
But these things are contradictory:
- respect privacy
- impose reasonable controls on behavior
- few barriers to entry (net neutrality)
'resonable' is in the eye of the beholder, so you need a central authority to make that happen.
I think we'd be better of if people grow up and learn to take or ignore criticism.
Bullies always find a way to manipulate the central authority.
I don't know about net neutrality, the biggest problem with it is if you get a government to step in.
So far the internet has been run on profit pretty well and there's no real net neutrality.
Companies like Google place servers in ISP data centers to speed up their websites.
Slashdot Mirror
Nature produces and absorbs more than 10x the CO2 than that, even climate alarmists admit that: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
The extra CO2 we produce is allowing plants to grow faster, causing the earth to become greener over the past 30 years (since we have sattelites measuring it): https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/1222...
These are facts the establishment won't tell you because it disrupts their agenda for more government power. When you're only and always hearing about the negatives of one thing (fossil fuels) and only and always hearing about the positives of another (green energy), you're probably being bamboozled.
How insane is it that this climate panic has lead you to pondering mass murder.
In the 70's they where predicting a new ice age, media just report what scares people because that sells.
"You are overly cynical;"
But right? This smells like you're only going to come up with bullshit excuses, like an apologist for a religion would.
"governments do solve a problem."
No they don't, just claim to.
"Or, at least, they are supposed to solve a problem."
Yes, we've heard many fairy tales on this.
"The primary purpose of a government is to promulgate and enforce rules on personal interactions;"
Wow that's extreme. Would that include these comments? Or must it be an interaction irl. Even though western governments totally agree with you they've thrown thousands of people in jail for saying things online that those governments didn't like. Usually it's people complaining about the consequensed of government policy.
You probably don't mean it that extreme, but governments don't care about intentions, they will do what they can get away with.
"these are the laws"
Laws are commandments people respect. But they would not respect such commandments from normal people. Meaning you view government as above normal people. It's fine for them to command people around and it's for the 'normal' people to obey these commands. This allows those in governments to do anything they want. And in reality we've seen government commit the most horrific atrocities, only slowed down by how much the people resist them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"The secondary purpose is to provide the citizens a means of acting collectively"
That's a terrible idea. People totally agree on what to do, even when they have the same information.
Here's a list of some difference in principles progressives and conservatives tend to value the most (left and right are historical accidents):
creativity - tradition
personal freedom - security
equality - economic freedom
Of course these people can't agree on what to do!
Then there is the economic issue. Economical actors have all kinds of transactions they would like to engage in and that would benefit them. But very ofthen those transactions are detrimental to other in the transaction. In the free market it would be far too costly to force others to engage in such transactions. Anyone who tried would also be shunned by anyone else in the market. However with government this changes. It's realitively cheap to influence politicians to force those other parties to engage in the transactions, compared to the massive benefits.
This is called public choice theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
People can organize without government just fine: business (not a corporation, that's a government protection from consequence), sports clubs, mutual aid societies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lReWpkn0dU), etc
Organizing within government is the opposite to cooperating because it always includes initiating violence (or the threat of) against peaceful people.
"for example, to hire police to enforce those laws."
What justifies stealing in order to get what you want? Boing developed a new Airbus, it cost a lot, would it be okay for them to steal that money? It's really very selfish to support government stealing stuff for you to get what you want.
"In a free-wheeling anarchy (which is the libertarian utopia), there is no state, there is only private power. The dream is that the good folk will outnumber the bad folk"
Which is what happens. After China mass murdered their own population because the government had so much power, they started allowing their own people some private property again and hundreds of millions escaped poverty because of it.
Even in a country like Somalia thing improved between 1990 and 2005, when they didn't have government: http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet...
"and be able to dominate the society."
Would you allow that? I would not, I would buy a gun and defe
I can say that without seeing the list, because like Tommy Robinson said:
The truth is hate speech now https://twitter.com/TRobinsonN...
I'm very well aware that the people, buildings, boots, etc are real.
That doesn't validate the concept of government.
I'm trying to convince people to give up their belief in government, so those bad people lose their power.
Just like the priest only has power because people believe in religion.
http://mensenrechten.org/wp-co...
One more thing, I'm very well aware that other socialists violently opposed Hitler, they even called themselves antifa.
That doesn't suggest that Hitler therefore wasn't a socialist himself, they're ideologies where very similar.
It's basically national socialism vs international socialism.
Government is a gang, the delusion of statism means people view their crimes as legitimate.
It's just a guarantee that you get violently oppressed.
Note that the worst organized crime happens in countries where the government implements strict gun regulation, like Mexico.
Please consider my arguments on guns in another comment: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Because government destroys those aspects of life?
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...
http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet...
http://mensenrechten.org/wp-co...
Government forces people to do things, which is the opposite of cooperation.
Governments that provide health care to their people have the worst quality health care of all.
In Canada pets get better health care than humans, because gov hasn't destroyed the health care system for pets.
Why downvote?
Life got better for the people in the period of 1990 to 2005 when Somalia didn't have a government:
http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet...
Hitler was far more socialist than fascist.
The first 8 points of his manifesto where German nationalism, the remaining 17 where socialist:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/w...
Also, his mass murdering of people is perfectly in line with what other socialist governments did.
I include communism in that as another way to implement the theory/ideas in socialism.
Mussolini, far more fascist, imprisoned people, but he didn't mass murder them.
So the main problem with Hitler was his socialism.
This is a whole book proving my statements about all government:
http://mensenrechten.org/wp-co...
I fully agree with Larken Rose on the issue of government.
Note that we're making a bold claim:
No good thing can ever be done through government.
All you need to prove me wrong is show a single case where the presence of government had a net positive effect.
But all you have is fairy tales.
One more thing.
There's no magic in voluntarism, it's about letting people do what they think is best.
Why would forcing people to do things they think are bad make things better?
Are you talking about socialism? Yes that has been a utter disaster every time it's tried.
From about 1990 to about 2005 Somalia had no government and life improved for them:
http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet...
Without government holding them down people can buy guns and defend against bandits and maffia just fine.
Note that the countries with the most crime have the most intrusive and anti-freedom governments.
Yes we had rulers before, like kings, they're no better, just another form of having rulers.
The problem with government is that they have the right to initiate violence against peaceful people, same applies to a king.
Yes some people are very bad, are you saying the political process selects the good people?
The last US election just had the worst two possible options in their history, the political process seduces the worst criminals to seek power.
Yes, the recent church shooting is the perfect example of why good people need to have guns.
1. The guy was able to murder 26 people (not 46) because none of them had a gun, it was a gun free zone.
2. Gun free zones only affect good people, the bad people will still have guns when they want to do bad things.
3. According to gun regulations the guy should not have been allowed to buy a gun on three accounts. So your solution has been tried and it failed utterly. The government can't do anything good, that's the fairy tale people like you believe in.
4. Even though government is such an abysmal failure you want to entrust it with your safety. Even though far more people die in mass shootings where they can keep going until the police stop them compared to when a citizen stops them: http://www.freerepublic.com/fo....
More reasons:
5. Kids used to bring their guns to school for shooting practice, no school shootings then.
6. Regular crime also gets worse when people aren't allowed to defend themselves, here are the stats specifically for murder in the UK, where they have almost no guns: https://crimeresearch.org/2013...
7. The lie on the australian gun buyback program is that things first got worse and then after they de-regulated guns a bit, and people got more guns, things got better again https://crimeresearch.org/wp-c...
8. States in the US have a relative high amount of freedom and have a wide variety of gun regulations. This allows different solutions to gun regulation to be tried out. And it hasn't worked, note that you never hear democrats talk about the stats on gun regulation. Even they know such a lie would be too blatant. In the US there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and crime, that's why the Democrats only argument is emotional.
9. Mass shooters shoot themselves when they're being shot at by cops or citizens. If you're going to wait until they're done murdering, you're going to be waiting a very long time.
I agree voluntarists sometimes become afraid, drop voluntarist principles, and flee back to the safe feeling of false political promises.
I guess as a statist you buy into the propaganda that justifies government power.
So I'll explain how everyone would benefit from the end of government, no danger!
Most of this stuff comes from Larken Rose, here he explains how bad the state problem is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What will happen is that the state governments take over from the federal government.
They already have the potential to do everything a statist might want.
But okay, lets assume that people give up on all rulers in one go, not just the federal level.
What will happen is entrepeneurs will start creating a lot more jobs because they're no longer being held down by government.
Poor people will finally have the freedom to work and no more welfare, so they'll get to work.
There will be a small portion, 1% to 2% of society that needs help or can't find work right away, they will be helped by charity.
Women will mostly go back to the situation before the 60's because it just makes more sense for them.
Their husband will be able to make enough money for the family, so they can stay home and take care of the kids.
Which is much more enjoyable than pushing papers in an office, it also gives them more time to help out in the community.
Freedom to do anything you want sounds fun but with that freedom comes the responsibility for your own safety.
And as feminists have shown, women really don't want to take responsibility for anything, especially safety.
Btw, neither do men, but women choose men who take responsibility because that's how you make money.
It's much better for the kids, now they're being sacrificed to the government and indoctrinated into obedience.
Which is not fun. It requires stomping out their curiosity for learning new things.
They will also start getting jobs at young ages again because it's great for your career and it shapes you as a human.
Saying you believe the government fear mongering (to justify their power) of what will happen without them, makes you sound like religious people claiming we need people to fear god or they will misbehave. Many people who say this do so because it benefits them, they don't care that it comes at the expense of the rest of society. They depend on government for their income, teachers, unions, journalists, feminists, etc. Will whine a lot and very loud. When they're ignored for a few days, they get a productive job instead.
More people will buy guns because they understand that nobody's going to protect them.
Not that they're any less safe, in fact, they'll be more safe because criminals are no longer being protected by the state.
People can now retaliate against criminals and are much more likely to have a gun in order to do so.
People will become more rational, irrationality is something government creates because it promises to prevent people from suffering negative consequences.
Which is a very old process, pretty much every successful civilization collapsed, I think because of this mechanism:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7...
Antifa wants the state to hold their hand and create a safe space, that's only going to increase the power of government.
That would be great. It's not going to work though. Criminals don't care about your proclamations, they'll steal your stuff anyway.
By declaring yourself a country you recognize the legitimacy of a ruling class.
The real solution of our problems can come when we can get people to give up on the belief in statism.
Which has no moral validity. Nor does it solve any problem.
It's sad that even people who woke up from the fairy tale of religion still believe in the fairy tale of governments.
People have been screaming about the reliability of voting machines and voter fraud for years, but they where dismissed as paranoid.
Now, when it's in favor of their political interest, the establishment suddenly cares about the reliability of elections.
They're talking about thousands of dollars in an election where Hillary spent more than a billion dollars, 550 million more than her opponent.
https://www.bloomberg.com/poli...
Yet somehow a couple hundred thousand dollars from Russians flipped the election...
Also, why would we trust these establishment companies who have a huge political bias?
It's so obvious that they're just pushing this bullshit to excuse Hillary's failure.
I'm happy to have a discussion with anyone on any topic, even if I think they're a climate alarmist.
I think climate panic is bullshit because those conclusions and predictions have been countered by the science:
http://petitionproject.org/gw_...
Furthermore most fear mongering climate predictions follow the following pattern:
1. Make a vague prediction
2. Get lots of attention
3. Make new prediciton(s) before it turns out the previous one is false.
https://www.thenewamerican.com...
It's very similar to Christian preachers predicting the end of the world and then getting more victims when it doesn't happen.
Only the 'predictions' are far worse, they don't include a verifiable outcome or time when it will supposedly occur.
Thus they should be rejected out of hand.
It's interesting that the media are having more and more trouble pushing this propaganda:
1. The term has changed from global warming to climate change, did anyone explain you why? Climate change is redundant because the climate is defined as the average weather over the past 30 years. So it will always change, by definition.
2. They almost never show charts of how environmental weather extremes changed over time. They probably know it would prove their bullshit wrong. Like the hurricane energy that hasn't increased: http://www.globalwarming.org/2...
3. They never talk about the positives of fossil fuels or CO2. Like with fossil fuels enabling us to defend ourselves against the climate, greatly reducing the number of climate deaths, while the population grows. Or how CO2 made the planet greener: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/.... When people are always and only telling you about one side of an argument, it's a hint of propaganda.
Please honestly investigate this stuff, don't just believe what the establishment tells you.
Are climate alarmists so afraid to have an actual discussion that they must denounce anyone who disagrees as a troll?
I don't agree capitalism is an 'economic system'.
It's what happens when people have economic freedom.
Which means people are allowed to keep the fruits of their labor.
So they will invest in productivity, which they need capital for.
Improving productivity is how we improve our quality of life.
The system they're talking about includes government meddling, which always ends badly.
"How long does change take?"
When you're actively working against the change, as the paper explains Google is doing, very very long.
When you have an anti-science attitude like you:
- "nicer ways to say", facts cannot be stated in a 'nice' way. Refute the scientific conclusions based on the evidence or the method they used to get the evidence. Talking about 'nice' ways to say things is admitting you care more about protecting your dogma than facts.
- You don't bother reading the document, instead just assume the MSM lies about it are true. That kind of laziness makes it very easy for people to defraud you.
- You seem to be equating leftist politics with modern society, please look into why people are left or right wing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The media and regressive companies like Google love to pander to people of another color or gender.
This guys document was well-written and scientifically based.
But the regressiveleft hates any facts that contradict their delusions, very similar to religion.
"We're this any other color or sex of person calling out actual harmful company policies they would be condemned, have little attention paid to their plight and would be fighting for years for some kind of recognition."
Please provide some examples of this.
BTW: you'll have to actually provide evidence for this, can't just mention a bad outcome and assert bigotry.
You might be thinking about the case of Colin Kaepernick, but he was just a bad player.
He problably saw a bad future coming and decided to ahead of it by becoming a political activist, so he could play the victim card.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
I fully agree that humans influence the environment but the uncertainty in models is larger than the supposed influence.
Even if you fully accept that all climate warming is due to human influence you still have to answer two important questions.
1. Is a warmer planet bad?
2. Can government do something without destroying the economy
It's clear the establishment assumes yes to both answers by default but they haven't even asked the supposed 97% about this.
On the first question they do fear mongering all the time, predicting distopian futures that turn out to be false every time and blaming every negative weather event on human influence.
On the second question; their beloved Paris accord only promises to reduce the increase in temperature by a tiny amount.
But then they'll say it's only the first step, basically admitting there will be an endless stream of agreements that do almost nothing.
It's important to keep the economy intact because in a bad economy people care less for the environment.
All of this reveals a distinct anti-human attitude.
It's like asking a termite: Q: Does termite behavior change the environment? A: Yes. Conclusion: The termite hill should be destroyed.
Fossil fuels are what make our quality of life possible, without it we would degrade 100 years.
"Renewable energy" is shit. Because it's unreliable and too expensive.
I'm very interested in a potential new internet.
But these things are contradictory:
- respect privacy
- impose reasonable controls on behavior
- few barriers to entry (net neutrality)
'resonable' is in the eye of the beholder, so you need a central authority to make that happen.
I think we'd be better of if people grow up and learn to take or ignore criticism.
Bullies always find a way to manipulate the central authority.
I don't know about net neutrality, the biggest problem with it is if you get a government to step in.
So far the internet has been run on profit pretty well and there's no real net neutrality.
Companies like Google place servers in ISP data centers to speed up their websites.