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

Another perspective I’ve read recently, it’s also another attack on white identity and history. They only push global warming in white Western countries as a way of saying we are the problem. Whites basically poisoned the world and ruined everything with their industries. Feel bad about yourself whitey and give us more control over you. Brown countries pollute a lot more than we do and they get a pass. Read my signature.

 

I never claimed you did edit your post to say "scientists ", the issue is science vs The science in the context of the discussion, THE SCIENCE of Global Climate Change.

Other than some pie in the sky carbon capture schemes that are still undeveloped, the science tells us that elimenating the use of fossil fuels and severly cutailing our land use practices is currently the only path to stabilizing atmospheric co2 concentrations. Modest reductions of emissions will have virtually no effect, CO2 is ever increasing.

It really is that simple. So what other purpose is there for the IPCC, and all of the various protocols, conventions, and climate agreements over the last thirty years? With all of that handwringing global co2 emissions have not decreased, in fact, they have increased to historic levels. The political issue of global warming is about redistribution of wealth (from the bottom to the top) and more authoritarian control. Label that how you choose.

 

Well, the guy who started this thread is an AGW denier and thinks NASA sucks, and or, is part of a massive conspiracy.

That's all I know.

 

Yes a socialist system would indeed be pretty grim.
Global warming is much preferred.

History>geography.

 

The Green movement has been riddled with anti-capitalists from day one.

I don't see them as authoritarian central planners more as anarchists.

Once the movement got traction, the usual taxers jumped on board.

 

What policies are they planning to implement because of global warming?

 

Just to tighten your language up a bit.

Science isn't about predictions or experiments.
Science is about empiric measurement.

Scientific method and scientific theories are about experiments and predictions.
Noun vs adjective.

Example. Science fiction. It's not science, it's fiction.

The science of global warming, is the readings on the thermometer.
Not the predictions people make based upon them.

 

If seas levels rise dramatically the policies they enact will be land reclamation policies. Like Holland and the Fens here where I live.
In this way you can have as much land as you like below sea level, for example.

Other policies might be to open sea routes through the Arctic.
We may change crops or farm locations.
Adjust fisheries.
Increase irrigation.

We don't have to stop or arrest climate change per se. We can adapt to it.
That's what we have always done in response to it thus far.

Obviously these are far more practical solutions than destroying global industry and the mass starvation and social issues this would cause.

 

That's exactly what the greenies do...........it's about wealth redistribution............ye know little about the UN and the hand wringers do you?
Otherwise, you'd be on the Chi-coms like white on rice.

 

She sums it up pretty well doesn't she. The EU is attempting to force the U.S. to tax more like them. To that I say they can go pee up a rope.

 

Good luck!

 

She didn't say, "Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. The really good model is communist China."

The ONLY quote from her in the article is "China is "doing it right," she told Bloomberg News Tuesday. "They actually want to breathe air they don't have to look at," she said with a straight face.""j

Who can disagree with the second part of that? Does anyone want to breathe air that is so bad that you can see the smog? I certainly don't.

As for "China is doing it right" - what is "it"? Reducing the number of coal plants and replacing them with natural gas, or nuclear, or hydro? You would have to listen to the whole interview to understand the context. I don't see anything that indicates that she thinks communism (which doesn't exist in China, BTW) or one-party rule is a better political structure than democracy.

All she seems to be doing is agreeing with their policies.

Another fake news story / opinion piece.

 

China's air pollution started when they became the world's largest manufacturer of finished products. The air pollution is a result of burning fossil fuels to create energy to convert ores into metals and to use those metals to produce the goods. This required more people living in cities who needed heating and transportation which increased the use of fossil fuels.

All of the above was done in order to satiate capitalist greed.

In essence capitalist greed is threatening human survival.

Alternative energy is the solution to the pollution of fossil fuels which are causing global climate change, not socialism.

There is a direct connection between capitalist greed, fossil fuel pollution and global climate change.

The advantage of having a central government in China is that they can arbitrarily decide to implement policies that will eliminate fossil fuels and slow down global climate change.

That does not mean that the Chinese are going to stop being greedy capitalists.

All it does mean is that they are going to be SMART greedy capitalists who will do it WITHOUT fossil fuels which is a WIN-WIN for them. They can clean up their air while at the same time eliminating the EXPENSE of importing fossil fuels.

Interesting how the communist Chinese are better at being greedy capitalists than we are here in the good old USA.

 

Well, when I first started posting on this forum I gave more effort to be articulate. But, since this board turned out to be a rolling bluster of political zealousness, hey the effort is unfitting. As its stupidity gives more chance to me getting miffed -- you don't quote Shakespeare to a brick.

 

We stop the environment from killing people all the time. Just look at Africa. Most of the people living there can’t do it on their own. Disease and climate keeps trying to take care of things and we keep getting in the way.

 

Actually they’re only good at being to make policy while ignoring the opinions, feelings and safety of heir people. Of course you can get lots of shot done when nothing stands in your way. You think it’s ok the govt can pick winners and losers and be allowed to kill as many as they want for the betterment of their already subpar living conditions?

 

Unfortunately on this particular issue as on many others, the misuse of language has rendered the subject matter a joke.

With idiots claiming "science" where there is none, fact where there is only opinion and basically claiming to have a very high degree of advanced knowledge on a subject matter that they clearly haven't even grasped the basic fundamentals that all 13 years olds are expected and educated to know.

Instead of knowing their ****, they simply rely on painting those that disagree with them greater idiots. And that is the level of the Climate Change debate.
People crapping on about science like they even know what the word means.

Words people commonly don't know the meaning of.
Science.
Fascism.
Liberal.
Statistic.

These are my top four education gaps on this forum.
With the vast bulk of posters here falling into it.

 

Vapid strawman duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

Strawman? So you're implying China's people have a strong say in govt operations? Then why are their working conditions so poor? Why did their air get so bad in the first place? Why is their internet so controlled and regulated? Why did/do they have a one child policy skewed more towards males? Your're either trolling, ignorant or being intellectually dishonest in ignoring reality.

 

Puerile ad homs ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

Shame on her if she really did say "Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. The really good model is communist China." The problem is that she didn't actually say that. The author of that article said that. Those were his words; not hers.

Here are some more quotes that actually did come from her.

“We cannot ask others to do what we have not done ourselves.”

and...

“We will move to a low-carbon world because nature will force us, or because policy will guide us. If we wait until nature forces us, the cost will be astronomical.”

and...

“Second, I believe in human ingenuity – that when we decide on a task to be done, no matter how daunting it may seem at the beginning, we are able to unleash human ingenuity and human innovative capacity that was unknown, and takes us to a solution.”

and here's one deniers will latch onto because they'll misinterpret it...

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

...that's right. She wants to begin the process of...gasp...moving away from a fossil fuel based economy to a sustainable economy which isn't dependent on a finite resource. And, get this, she wants to do it intentionally. The madness!

 

Yes ... and those ad homs aside, you also ignored all the pertinent, albeit rhetorical questions. You seem to recognize that honest answers to the questions posed would undermine all your disinformation (#3 ... Ironic!

 

You'd think liberals would be more supportive of Darwinism in action right?

 

Air quality.
Because they had an industrial revolution that pulled 400 million people out of subsistence living. Out of abject poverty. The need to industrialise was massive and immediate.

One Child.
Because they didn't have enough food to feed their population and they were unable to buy it because they were peasants.

Working conditions.
Those working conditions you describe as so poor, are incredibly superior to those found in the peasant economy subsistence lifestyles they have all flocked to the sweatshops to escape.

Internet.
Their internet is so controlled because China is a massive and disparate country with any number of reasons to politically implode at any time.
Look how divided America is with only 1/4 as many people.

 

Did I forget to mention your puerile strawman questions?

Nevermind!

Your puerile strawman drivel was also ignored for derogatory reasons.

And yes, your latest drivel fails for the same reason since it is entirely based upon the aforementioned puerile strawman drivel.