I have a hard time trusting science when it is manipulated by the ones that fund the scientists. It should not be that way but it is. These days you have to question everything, at least in the so called "West".
Yes, they cannot actually lie but we have to be very switched on as to what they're comparing with what etc; we certainly can't trust the scientists themselves nor the media to accurately report it. But we can trust that if we apply the process we'll approach understanding.
The Paris Climate Accord is another steaming pile of propaganda meant to lend credence to an initiative for a "problem" that isn't.
A disingenuous PR virtue-signalling exercise where pledges are voluntary, and the two biggest climate polluters, India and China, won't commit to anything.
Apart from that - what emissions are we pledging to reduce??
CO2? The gas of life? Without which, all food, plant life, and forests would die?
Climate changes. It always has. It always will.
The Paris Climate Accord states countries should spend BILLIONS of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions with the goal of lowering the temperature by (get this) 1.5 degrees.
For that, they want to destroy industry, annihilate millions of jobs, and plunge billions into poverty.
For a non-existent problem.
They've convinced everyone that man-made activity is responsible for a rise in CO2, when in actuality, the bulk of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the off-gassing of oceans when slight temperature increases cause more CO2 to be released into the air.
It is a cycle as natural and as old as time.
We don't need to "manage" it.
Just as we don't need to "manage" cholesterol (its like saying we need to "manage" the temperature of the human body, or the colour of our skin).
Whether it's high or not is meaningless - its meant to be there.
Consuming animal fat doesn't cause heart attacks. Our forefathers consumed plenty of meat, butter, cheese and cream.
The relatively recent phenomenon of congestive heart failure is due to ingestion of toxic seed oils (some of which we used to use as fuel to light street lamps, before they convinced us all to start chugging it down) and excess glucose.
Sugar. (AND carbohydrates, which essentially convert to the same thing).
We have an explosion of dementia and Alzheimer's thanks to statins. Their action in stripping away the cholesterol that protects our brain (a newborn baby's brain is 80% cholesterol. It's THAT critical) is akin to stripping away the protective plastic coating on electrical wires.
Almost everything we've been told is a lie. What we don't know CAN hurt us tremendously.
Carbon dioxide captures heat. You can show this in a lab or a simple home experiment. And there are equations that will tell you how much heat it captures.
Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the sun largely because of the CO2 in Venus' atmosphere. Enough CO2 in the earth's atmosphere would fry the planet.
There is a lot of politics in this debate, and there is no doubt that governments are trying to use the issue to shoehorn in an authoritarian surveillance state. But it doesn't alter the fact that the science itself is fairly robust.
There is also the issue of animal welfare which for some reason is always omitted from the debate. Factory farming is the greatest atrocity in history. It makes one ashamed to be a human. There is no justification on health grounds for eating meat. I have been vegan for a decade and my health has never been better.
I would say we already have an authoritarian surveillance state that manipulates us and that they're using this issue to pretend that we don't have one and that we need to oppose any climate measures as a way to avoid one being imposed..
Is it not perhaps more accurate to say "we could trust the science if the scientific method, and not the funding bias, was what controlled outcomes" ?
yes x
I have a hard time trusting science when it is manipulated by the ones that fund the scientists. It should not be that way but it is. These days you have to question everything, at least in the so called "West".
Yes, they cannot actually lie but we have to be very switched on as to what they're comparing with what etc; we certainly can't trust the scientists themselves nor the media to accurately report it. But we can trust that if we apply the process we'll approach understanding.
THINK . .
Before it becomes ILLEGAL!
The Paris Climate Accord is another steaming pile of propaganda meant to lend credence to an initiative for a "problem" that isn't.
A disingenuous PR virtue-signalling exercise where pledges are voluntary, and the two biggest climate polluters, India and China, won't commit to anything.
Apart from that - what emissions are we pledging to reduce??
CO2? The gas of life? Without which, all food, plant life, and forests would die?
Climate changes. It always has. It always will.
The Paris Climate Accord states countries should spend BILLIONS of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions with the goal of lowering the temperature by (get this) 1.5 degrees.
For that, they want to destroy industry, annihilate millions of jobs, and plunge billions into poverty.
For a non-existent problem.
They've convinced everyone that man-made activity is responsible for a rise in CO2, when in actuality, the bulk of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the off-gassing of oceans when slight temperature increases cause more CO2 to be released into the air.
It is a cycle as natural and as old as time.
We don't need to "manage" it.
Just as we don't need to "manage" cholesterol (its like saying we need to "manage" the temperature of the human body, or the colour of our skin).
Whether it's high or not is meaningless - its meant to be there.
Consuming animal fat doesn't cause heart attacks. Our forefathers consumed plenty of meat, butter, cheese and cream.
The relatively recent phenomenon of congestive heart failure is due to ingestion of toxic seed oils (some of which we used to use as fuel to light street lamps, before they convinced us all to start chugging it down) and excess glucose.
Sugar. (AND carbohydrates, which essentially convert to the same thing).
We have an explosion of dementia and Alzheimer's thanks to statins. Their action in stripping away the cholesterol that protects our brain (a newborn baby's brain is 80% cholesterol. It's THAT critical) is akin to stripping away the protective plastic coating on electrical wires.
Almost everything we've been told is a lie. What we don't know CAN hurt us tremendously.
Carbon dioxide captures heat. You can show this in a lab or a simple home experiment. And there are equations that will tell you how much heat it captures.
Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the sun largely because of the CO2 in Venus' atmosphere. Enough CO2 in the earth's atmosphere would fry the planet.
There is a lot of politics in this debate, and there is no doubt that governments are trying to use the issue to shoehorn in an authoritarian surveillance state. But it doesn't alter the fact that the science itself is fairly robust.
There is also the issue of animal welfare which for some reason is always omitted from the debate. Factory farming is the greatest atrocity in history. It makes one ashamed to be a human. There is no justification on health grounds for eating meat. I have been vegan for a decade and my health has never been better.
Thank you, yes!
I would say we already have an authoritarian surveillance state that manipulates us and that they're using this issue to pretend that we don't have one and that we need to oppose any climate measures as a way to avoid one being imposed..
And when you're agreeing with. the Tories, and therefore the money, about all this, i think you. have to started questioning your critical thinking.
With the exception of pointing out the harms of statins, this nonsense is all coming from industry to maintain its profits.
You're re-emphasing my point that i am the only one who can see through industries lies.
A climate-catastrophist vegan. You are indeed special.
And you have fallen for the manipulation of industry. You are indeed an undiscerning non thinker.