Global Warming A Back Door To Socialism - And Now Even The UN Admits It

They have the dirtiest air in the country.

 

When your loved one dies to an MS13 gang member, or when you get robbed, you'll care. When an illegal with no licence hits you, OH YOU'LL CARE. Happened to me. Guy popped out to have a look, yammered something in Spanish, then took off. Went to find out, his plates were stolen. I'll assume he was illegal, because I couldn't communicate with him and he wouldn't take out his drivers licence when I showed him mine and looked at me weird about insurance, ect. As soon as I snapped a photo of his plate, he took off. We pay higher insurance rates to cover all those aholes. But you'd have to live in areas that are effected. Do you live in an area with a high concentration of illegals? I do.

 

Think it works the same as any lobby. Politicians have to stop accepting the money. Its not about the oil companies using them. That's just business. You do whats best to keep yourselves going. But its politicians WILLINGNESS to be bought. It ALWAYS comes down to govt screwing us over and not doing whats best.

 

So, for me, it always boils down to reality and evidence. There is an unending mountain of evidence that climate change is a threat. None that ms13 is. So, it won't bite me or anyone else regardless of the "privilege". That's just scare tactics.

 

I'm quaking

 

I don't disagree with this for the most part. The only real problem is long distance travel, and the time it takes to replenish batteries to afford folks the mobility that they now enjoy. I would LOVE to own a high performance electric car. They just aren't practical. For any trip more than 250 miles over interstate, your trip is time plus waiting for the recharge. Days, not hours. And that effects mobility. The dream must be able to satisfy the expectations. I don't think anyone is willing to return to the days when it took days or weeks to travel across the nation. On solar roofs, I got a quote. I couldn't, ever, get to a point where the savings paid for the investment. As in NEVER. So what's the point? Smug? I don't pay an electric bill to the grid, (until it gets dark...) but I spent half the cost of the house on the roof? I wouldn't ever spend that in the life of a house on power in the first place.

 

I think that's a good point. However, that depends on the electorate being willing to take a politician to task for their corruption. That also depends on the media being thorough in reporting that corruption

 

Is there? According to whom? What "evidence" of future catastrophic events will overcome your ignorance of gang violence in your cities? What threat, do you know will actually happen? I doubt your "futurecasting" is accurate, and can provide plenty of evidence of how those future casts have consistently gotten their prognostication wrong. And just for grins, don't you think that expressing "unending mountains of climate change "threat"" isn't also scare tactics? I mean, I can show you dead headless corpses in cities across the country, what can you show me?

 

Well, for starters and finishes, there's published per reviewed science. Vs no evidence at all.

 

So, ok. I'll bite. what "per reviewed" science can you point to that expresses a prognostication of cataclysmic doom? I have time. tick tock...

So, is this the "no evidence at all" you're referring to? Seems as much.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/
Knock yourself it kiddo, that's not even all of it.

Now, about all that evidence that brown people are going to rape all the white women....

 

Lazy on your part isn't a good sign. Feel free, your assertion, you provide the evidence. Pick one. Anyone.

 

I mean, what do you want? There should be plenty of information there. Flat earthers and climate denialists are all the same.

 

Pick one. Anyone of them. Show me that you understand the content of the studies you represent the way you do. Demonstrate it. And for the record, no flat earthers, or climate denialist here. About the only one that fits that definition is you. Aren't you the one determined not to let the climate change?

 

Oh, I get it, you give me your uneducated taking points about actual science as if your opinion based on nothing means something. Ok, then the burden is on you. There are lots of diverging viewpoints of denialists. Which are you? Climate isn't warming? It's the sun?

 

The important point is that I'm not a scientist and neither are you. Just like I don't try to play doctor, I believe people who know what they are talking about and don't follow my emotions to political pundits.

 

Our dependence on fossil fuels has created a huge wealth redistribution scheme that also happens to harm the environment and puts substantial catastrophic style risk on the economy. Even if you don't like it we will radically transform the economy because fossil fuels are a finite resource that will run out. And the economic risks and problems rise long before the resource runs out. It's better to institute policies that encourage alternative options and investments so that the transition happens slowly. But make no mistake. It will happen regardless of whether people want to take the bull by its horns or flounder in reactionary panic at a later time.

 

Nice cop out. I could, just as easily have said, got to www.NOAA.gov and said, see, there's your refutation. It would have been about as effective as your inability to actually choose one study that we might explore from the text these cataclysmic consequences that so worry you. So, instead of actually producing one, you simply say... "all of them", which only further brands you as unable to sustain your own assertion.

For the record, I've written it as many times as I can count. Climate changes. That doesn't seem to be denial of anything. It actually is the positive of the assertion. Yes, it changes. How do I know? The mile covering NYC isn't there any more, and because it isn't we understand that effectively, the climate that produced it has also had to change allowing for all that ice to melt. Now, Explain, because you assert you know, why. I'll wait. Tick tock...

 

Gosh, that almost sounds like an apology. No, you are not a scientist. No, you don't understand the literature or the studies that you claim mastery of. No, you do not have the ability to discuss the topic outside of the most superficial means. Got it.

 

This is such a stupid argument. Did people get cancer before cigarettes? Does that then mean they don't cause cancer? It that we shouldn't worry about it since it always happened? Good lord

 

Again, can you explain the biology behind cigarettes causing cancer? And no matter if you can or can't, aren't you still stupid for smoking?

 

Has it? Did you know that most of the world that has developed providing here to fore never seen wealth to nations that lived in the stone age has reduced the level of abject poverty globally from around 70% to around 35%? I suppose not, otherwise you wouldn't spout such gibberish. The rest of the breathless hyperbole is just that. Breathless and unsubstantitve. I would point out that while fossil fuels my in deed be finite, carbon based fuels are not. The are virtually limitless. This crash you foresee is simply a limited perspective. I suppose you're the guy who says, cut the arm off because fixing the artery is too hard, and frankly, it's much less costly. Except for the person who's arm you just sawed off. Your speculative plaintive assertion is simply that. Why work so hard at being so wrong?

 

So, here's an excellent example of superficial. Answer the question. Cigarettes cause cancer. Always? And if not always, why not. I suppose you're only statistically deep here, and I expect that you'll just say, cause that's what "everyone" knows. right? And yet, all around the world, in every place folks who smoke never develop cancer. Why is that? I'm not even a smoker. I detest the smell, the habit, the smell, mostly. But that also doesn't indicate that I won't develop a correlative kind of cancer, does it? And then again, I might never develop a cancer at all. Why is that? Does it simply mean that I didn't inhale enough second hand to develop cancer? Perhaps it would help if you actually identified the actual trigger that produced the mutation of the cells that became cancerous. I know that's what the actual scientists in the field are working on. You position so far is, you drive. You are statistically this much at risk every time you drive and instead of saying, at a confidence level of X% you have a likelihood of being killed by a drunk driver, but instead of saying this, your position is, you are going to die from a drunk driver.

 

Ok, so to be clear, you are denying that smoking cigarettes increases your risk of cancer?

 

Solar roofs aren't there yet, but the tech will get better. I know plenty of people with panels already and a lot of people with Teslas. Just like EVs have another generation or 3 to get to a mass market cost point, at least for the low-end, it'll all get cheaper. And in that time hopefully they'll become efficient enough to make them viable on longer trips. Gas cars aren't going to go away though. They won't disappear over night. Some people will always want them.

The insanity where politicians want to prop up EVs, while obliterating the vast majority who can't afford them, it just stupid. Sort of like banning planes to force us to build stupid trains. If trains were so great, it would be worthwhile. But suburbia isn't designed around a network of trains. It takes 3 mins just to drive out of my neighborhood to a main street where I could potentially catch a hypothetical train. Can't walk that. Wouldn't want to.