"Nah... We're gonna be just fine"Direct consequence of global warming related to the human activities.
the Victoria Falls on the border between the Zimbabwe and the Zambia.
January 2019 :
View attachment 154692
Today :
View attachment 154693
I just realized this discussion doesn't actually exist. After all, we're all already dead since the late 90's due to damage made by pollution to the ozone layer, right?..
That isn't even the same discussion, what are you on about?
It's about how reality doesn't tend to care about people's agenda motivated doomsday "predictions".
Problems can be solved if you take effective measures against them :O
What a shocker.
Seriously, that example was badly chosen.
What does being anti-LGBT have to do with the environment one way or the other? And the fact that they have a right wing bias when every post you lot link to has a radical left wing bias, yet the right wing publication gets taken down. Uh huh, nice to know which side the mods are on.Maybe this helps:
a summary:Church Militant - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or nomediabiasfactcheck.com
Overall, we rate the Church Militant Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as being labeled an anti-LGBT hate group by other sources.
Now we slowly see where our friends are coming from...
No, it was a perfect example.
At the time, the world was also going to end, realistic steps were taken to alleviate the problem, the (political) activists screeched it was not enough and the world was coming to an end, but low and behold, the issue was indeed solved and we're all still here! Now that's a shocker!
Fast-forward to 2019, there are again issues to be solved, realistic steps are being taken to address the issue, the (political) activists are screeching it's not enough and the world is coming to an end... I suspect we're all still going to be here in 15/30/45 years...
What does being anti-LGBT have to do with the environment one way or the other? And the fact that they have a right wing bias when every post you lot link to has a radical left wing bias, yet the right wing publication gets taken down. Uh huh, nice to know which side the mods are on.
Are you trying to say your center right, @Becks ? I'm not really seeing that, to be honest.
Ok, that's what I was thinking. For the record, I've spent a lot of time around the far left, both on forums and in the world; I married into a family that thinks San Francisco is the Mecca of civilization and Berkeley is the greatest center of higher learning in the known world. Trust me, I know the left quite intimatelyOh, by US standards I'm probably a far-left radical.
By european standards I'm center-right, sometimes center-left depending on the issue.
It looks to me as if you're cherry picking and derailing the debate, (as always). If you read any description of a source and see that they have a religious or political agenda, you must raise an eyebrow and be skeptical. That goes for any religion and any part of the political spectrum. What you read isn't necessarily false, but you can bet your life that it's not the whole truth, which is kind of why it goes "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Sometimes it can even be informing to read arguments from both sides. As long as they're both based on facts and truth, you can often spot which side is wrong, and it's not always the same side.What does being anti-LGBT have to do with the environment one way or the other? And the fact that they have a right wing bias when every post you lot link to has a radical left wing bias, yet the right wing publication gets taken down. Uh huh, nice to know which side the mods are on.
What does being anti-LGBT have to do with the environment one way or the other? And the fact that they have a right wing bias when every post you lot link to has a radical left wing bias, yet the right wing publication gets taken down. Uh huh, nice to know which side the mods are on.
Because 80% of the "climate activism" is actually politically motivated, and the climate changes is just a new excuse to push left ideologies forward. Why do you think "capitalism" and overall "the right" are the nominated guilty parties of the climate changes (even the Communist Party of China, the world greatest polluter, is deemed "right wing" by the lefty activists)? Because all this has little todo with actual climate changes, and much more to do with using climate changes as excuse to push left wing agendas.
That's why you can't take these people seriously, and it's a shame that pretty much all public discussion nowadays is infected with political bias, and overall in every noteworthy topic of public discussion there's far too much emotion involved and far too little reason.
Yeah...all you did here was explain to me that scientific articles that don't line up with your bias should be sunk to the bottom whilst one's with a bias you agree with are good to go and have the mods seal of approval.It looks to me as if you're cherry picking and derailing the debate, (as always). If you read any description of a source and see that they have a religious or political agenda, you must raise an eyebrow and be skeptical. That goes for any religion and any part of the political spectrum. What you read isn't necessarily false, but you can bet your life that it's not the whole truth, which is kind of why it goes "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Sometimes it can even be informing to read arguments from both sides. As long as they're both based on facts and truth, you can often spot which side is wrong, and it's not always the same side.
Science can be political in it's conclusions, and even when you read scientific articles, it is always a good idea to check out the author(s). But, and that is a very important point, in science the law says you have to be honest. You're allowed to be wrong, but if you deliberately lie, you risk going to jail, literally. You can create any "institute" and throw a bunch of videos @ Youtube without having to obey to the same laws. Youtube contains a lot of very high quality information, but it's not all true, and there's a lot of conspiracies floating around. Not all conspiracies are necessarily false either, but most of them have been seriously debunked (using science).
If you want to argue against science, you must accept a few rules. One is that we still believe in logic. If anything goes against the philosophical rules of logic, then you could have some exceptionally strong arguments, but you'd still be wrong. Secondly you must accept that if anything contradicts the accepted basics of math, then it's wrong. Finally you have to tell the truth. You could argue against climate change using science, but it always ends up with someone looking at the numbers and the diverging calculations, and points to the error in one set of calculations. That's good. That's progress
Or you could chose to trust that the closest you'll ever get to the truth is science. That way you don't have to worry about whether to trust the "dangerous lefties", or whatever it is that scares you. What does science say?Because 80% of the "climate activism" is actually politically motivated, and the climate changes is just a new excuse to push left ideologies forward. Why do you think "capitalism" and overall "the right" are the nominated guilty parties of the climate changes (even the Communist Party of China, the world greatest polluter, is deemed "right wing" by the lefty activists)? Because all this has little todo with actual climate changes, and much more to do with using climate changes as excuse to push left wing agendas.
That's why you can't take these people seriously, and it's a shame that pretty much all public discussion nowadays is infected with political bias, and overall in every noteworthy topic of public discussion there's far too much emotion involved and far too little reason.
Here's an article I found right at the top of the Google search:Direct consequence of global warming related to the human activities.
the Victoria Falls on the border between the Zimbabwe and the Zambia.
January 2019 :
View attachment 154692
Today :
View attachment 154693
Or you could chose to trust that the closest you'll ever get to the truth is science. That way you don't have to worry about whether to trust the "dangerous lefties", or whatever it is that scares you. What does science say?
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...climate.nasa.gov
I probably would give you an answer - if I wouldn't be under the strong impression that meanwhile no one is taking you seriously anymore. Meanwhile everyone and his dog knows who you are and what you are. No one would come up with the odd idea and pulling environment arguments down to political wings, no one but a few American ultra right wing agitators. And when their arguments fall flat then it's suddenly a left wing discrimination.