How Bad Is Global Warming?

[DrEvil]

Sounder » Sat Dec 21, 2019 9:05 pm wrote:

But, Dr. Evil, what about that mil. contractor that projected a 15 million reduction population for Australia in the near future. Surely there are no climate models that told them that.

What contractor? What does this have to do with climate change?

You did not watch the vid. Why did the contractor predict a fifteen million population reduction for Austrailia? What do they know that we don't?

They don't know shit. Have you looked at the actual website? Here it is: http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx

Now scroll down and read the explanation for how they arrived at those numbers. It's pure, unadulterated horseshit. Basically, the economy will go to shit and everyone will move elsewhere. And a lot of people will commit suicide apparently. It's nothing but shoddy guesswork based on some really bad assumptions.

Our social betters and wanna-be social engineers will sacrifice any number of 'common people' to prove that they are smarter than the rest of us and must be relied on to 'guide' the less gifted.

Powerful people are assholes. News at 11. What does this have to do with climate change?

You would need to watch the vid.

But let me ask; what society will be robust for the long term? One where everyone is given the tools and responsibility to think for themselves and community, or one where a few people know how to think and use that position to unfair advantage?

What does this have to do with climate change?

It's rude to skip a question by deflecting with your own question.

It's also rude to ask leading, simplistic questions.

The sparkler dust spreading is so fitting; It's a remake of Nero's gambit, set fires and create the insurance industry. Bit different, not much.

Pretty sad to think that a corporation would kill whole populations just so their clients can better strip mine the place, and then get cover for the activities from 'environmentalists' because of the misplaced guidance provided by the Climate Alarmist anchor belief.

What are you talking about? How does environmentalists give them cover?

The speculation in the vid is that 15 million will be killed so the rest of the world can see the results of CC and finally DO SOMETHING.

Sad, but none the less Happy Holidays to all.

Well, that's just really dumb.

I posted this back in November:

Oh, look! Sounder has disappeared again. How predictable. He's now going to ignore my latest post for a couple of weeks until there's a few more posts below it, and then he will pop back in with something else equally wrong and vague and pretend our latest argument never happened. Rinse and repeat.

I'm psychic!

If there is engagement between us I will generally answer, but most of the time there is only traded rhetoric which deserves no answer.

But that's the problem. Every time I ask you specific questions you clam up, spout some more vague, hand-wavy nonsense or refuse to answer. It's damn near impossible to get a straight answer out of you.

[FourthBase]

Sounder, what's your personal assessment of the Exxon Knew thing?

[Sounder]

Sounder, what's your personal assessment of the Exxon Knew thing?

To be flippant about it, they play chess while we play checkers.

Rockefeller's realized after the Ludlow Massacre that image can be better managed and monetized by throwing money at 'social influencers' rather than to the poor people that work and build assets for the boss.

The money thrown to social influencers is used to create layers of cognitive dissonance making it more difficult for people resolve dissonance and/or to connect to authentic expressions of self, thereby encouraging empty consumerism and rigid ideologies as people try to shape a 'smaller' world where they have a measure of control, unfortunately done at the cost of thinking and honest engagement, given that puffery is now more important to any engagement than is rationality.

When people are overloaded with information without the tools to process said information they are more easily drawn toward reactionary expressions of understanding.

It's amusing to be called a 'big oil shill'. Maurice Strong and big money that happens to also own a lot of oil started and runs this theater, and the script requires a goat.

Big tobacco does fine despite their role as a goat in the last govt. salvation drive, and I expect big oil will do fine also. Hell, they are owned by the same people and they know how to work the game.

But, take it for whatever you think it might be worth, as I may be a bit more cynical than most folk.

Happy Holidays to all

[DrEvil]

^^You do realize that the money they've been throwing at social influencers has been going to climate change deniers?

Why would they be spending decades trying to downplay global warming if the master plan is to use global warming to control us?

[coffin_dodger]

Why would they be spending decades trying to downplay global warming if the master plan is to use global warming to control us?

There's an answer in there if you look hard enough.

[FourthBase]

I would love to believe that big oil is somehow counterintuitively behind a hoax of climate alarmism. That would be a trip. It just doesn't make any sense, though. They're not running out of petroleum. They're still making mega-profits. Why would oil companies ever want to prompt society to demonize oil companies and switch to renewables? I just don't see any practical benefit to that.

[FourthBase]

Why would they be spending decades trying to downplay global warming if the master plan is to use global warming to control us?

There's an answer in there if you look hard enough.

If the plan is to use actual global warming to control us, then denying it would make sense, because they would want global warming to happen, so preventing a solution would be crucial.

If the plan is to use a false pretense of global warming to control us, then denying it would make no sense, because they would need people to believe in it, not deny it. Right? Unless the theory goes that oil companies issuing denials actually prompts many people to believe it more. Interesting. That's some next-level paranoia I hadn't entertained before. Still unlikely.

[Sounder]

^^You do realize that the money they've been throwing at social influencers has been going to climate change deniers?

Yes Koch, Heritage, etc do spend a small portion of total money spent to influence in the direction of denial. It is well spent poison pill money, and comes from the same coffers that spend on the other side of the issue. A portion dwarfed by Foundation, govt., media and UN money that promotes climate alarmism.

(Koch and Soros are best buds in their aim to further screw the working folk with their unrestrained immigration drive, tells you who the partners and enemies are.)

But this money is invisible to you, because it is 'doing good money' I suppose.

We never see global warming doubt from MSM or from the govt., unless it comes in a poison pill form as with Trump.

They play chess, we play checkers.

[thrulookingglass]

They’re not climate change deniers, they’re pro-pollution because that’s all their businesses do. All they care about is their bottom line. Just another case of profit before the planet. Industries pollute. Pollute the world, peoples minds and their fucking lives.When money is all one values,all else falls to the wayside.

[JackRiddler]

^^You do realize that the money they've been throwing at social influencers has been going to climate change deniers?

Yes Koch, Heritage, etc do spend a small portion of total money spent to influence in the direction of denial. It is well spent poison pill money, and comes from the same coffers that spend on the other side of the issue. A portion dwarfed by Foundation, govt., media and UN money that promotes climate alarmism.

(Koch and Soros are best buds in their aim to further screw the working folk with their unrestrained immigration drive, tells you who the partners and enemies are.)

But this money is invisible to you, because it is 'doing good money' I suppose.

Since it's not invisible to you, why don't you map it out? Because you can't, except by generalization and inference, that you read somewhere that Soros funded something, and then decide that it's all Soros or equivalent, and then decide that Soros=Koch=Too Many Mexicans, done.

Lazy thinking guided by premises assumed in advance, as usual with your output on this and most issues.

The oil and gas interests have paid BILLIONS since the 1970s both to cover up and to fund denial campaigns. They are highly visible and distinct from your imagined back-end link with the scientists at the forefront of the climate change movement (or the movements to protect the human rights of immigrants, whether these receive money from given billionaire-figures or not).

As lookingglass says, you are obscuring the existence of a pollution lobby. It's indefensible. It would be indefensible even if climate change models were inaccurate (when clearly, they appear to be too optimistic!).

Stop presenting your ignorance as a sign of superior intelligence, please. Please.

.

[Sounder]

Jack wrote...

As lookingglass says, you are obscuring the existence of a pollution lobby. It's indefensible. It would be indefensible even if climate change models were inaccurate (when clearly, they appear to be too optimistic!).

Really, thrulookingglass said that I am obscuring the existence of a pollution lobby? You are welcome to say that, but the lookingglass seems to point in a more general and correct direction.

Lets see, How much does big money spend, well reflected by major media content and foundation and govt. money support, on climate alarmism versus say; effects of pesticide runoff, risks of nuclear power and decommissioning costs, effects of electromagnetic fields on human physiology, or risks created by depleted uranium, radiation runoff in to the ocean, or GMO pesticide use as a desiccant resulting in messed up guts for most people, or industrial chemical use and regulation etc. etc. and on and on.

The pollution lobby achieves its objectives by diverting general attention away from the actual nasty shit that gets done, and toward the goat.

If true, Climate Alarmists (as well as the reactionary class among the deniers) are the ones participating in obscuring the existence and mode of functioning of the pollution lobby.

So I guess it must not be true.

It's indefensible puffery.

[Sounder]

No, this is puffery.

Jack wrote...

Stop presenting your ignorance as a sign of superior intelligence, please. Please.

[coffin_dodger]

Stop presenting your ignorance as a sign of superior intelligence, please. Please.

Since when has ignorance even been possible to present itself as a sign of 'superior intelligence'?
In what reality is this even a thing?

[Sounder]

Well there are touchstones that must be maintained dodger.

It does not matter how ignorance and 'you think you are smarter than the rest of us' get connected.

Just connect them and trust that conformists will conform.

It's how puffery works.

[DrEvil]

^^You do realize that the money they've been throwing at social influencers has been going to climate change deniers?

Yes Koch, Heritage, etc do spend a small portion of total money spent to influence in the direction of denial. It is well spent poison pill money, and comes from the same coffers that spend on the other side of the issue. A portion dwarfed by Foundation, govt., media and UN money that promotes climate alarmism.

It's not alarmism when they're just stating facts. If you have reason to believe the science is fudged then please share your sources. Am I lying when I say that I can clearly see the effects of global warming where I live?

(Koch and Soros are best buds in their aim to further screw the working folk with their unrestrained immigration drive, tells you who the partners and enemies are.)

Oh no! Brown people! If the climate scientists are right there is going to be a hell of a lot more immigration in the future, so it would be in your interest to argue for doing something about it instead of spreading fud.

But this money is invisible to you, because it is 'doing good money' I suppose.

They're clearly not spending enough seeing as we're still here arguing about it. The oil industry is the most profitable industry in the world. They're not just going to roll over and give up all that sweet, sweet money.

We never see global warming doubt from MSM or from the govt., unless it comes in a poison pill form as with Trump.

Because they accept the science instead of constructing elaborate and stupid conspiracy theories about sparkler dust and weather control to kill half of Australia to make us all finally believe?

They play chess, we play checkers.

We play chess, they cheat.