/sci/ - Science & Math

https://youtu.be/2yEY1VGo_04

>>15902197
Nobody's "pretending" it isn't political. Everyone knows it's political, and if they say otherwise it's because they don't know the definition of the word "political"

>>15902208
So why do they debate the facts and figures of climate change, when the real field of battle is how the government is going to use it to subjugate you even more?

>>15902197
Climate change (the facts) are inherently unpolitical. The decision if and how to react is political. Chuds don’t understand that. They don’t like the proposed ideas and solutions, so they attack the factual basis instead.

>>15902208
>the definition of the word "political"
To clarify because google muddies the waters: there is knowledge and there is how we (ab)use knowledge to make decisions. Both knowledge and decisions are verbs not nouns: they are always forming.

Are forest fires political? The government can order you to evacuate, ban open fires, or even destroy your property while cutting firebreaks. You can disagree, you can protest, but no sane person would say “forests can’t burn” or “the forest isn’t on fire”, would they?

>>15902220
>so they attack the factual basis instead.
Misinformation. Threads that argue against orthodox decision making get deleted or ignored to death. It's very clear what's going on at /sci/ and I won't let you reframe that to fit your narrative.

I just don't see any reason to use unclean energy now that we have like 30 alternatives that will temporarily be slightly more expensive. Unless you own a coal mine, it is pure lunacy.

This is why AnCap is the best solution. We can all co exist if we had it. Separation of church and state, but taken to the logical conclusion.

>>15902234
They just want to divide and weaken you so they can conquer you. Then you won't have a choice anymore.

>>15902235
If I had a button that would give everyone on earth guns including my enemies, I'd press it. If everyone was armed, there would be a massive stalemate, nobody could start shit lest they get shot at in return. I'm taking M.A.D nuclear policy and applying it to the individual level.

>>15902241
Go watch that video of two guys shooting each other over a dirty mattress. If they had nukes, they would've used them.

>>15902248
People with low intelligence and impulse control are less successful in a free market are unlikely to be rich enough to have nukes.

>>15902258
How perceptive of you.

>>15902197
If climate change is political then why don't we just all vote for the climate to stop changing? Then we can get back to more important topics like sending speedboats to Pakistani transgender children

>>15902232
Sorry but are you saying that wealthy fossil fuel energy company CEO sitting in his mansion doesn't deserve a 5th Ferrari to add to his exotic car collection? Shame on you

>>15902226
>The government can order you to evacuate
it can't
>or even destroy your property while cutting firebreaks
it can't do that either

>>15902197
I value the future over cars.

>>15902276
Wait, do you think Al Gore is a scientist? Hahahahaha

>>>/pol/

>>15902260
thanks, enjoy living under tyranny

>>15902278
then don't buy a car

>>15902308
I haven't, but individual decision-making is clearly not a scalable solution.

>>15902278
OH THANK YOU FOR SAVING US ALL FROM CERTAIN DISASTER!!!!
YOU ARE THE SAVIOR OF THE HUMAN RACE AND THE PROTECTOR OF THE EARTH!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnZnnkJxoC8

>>15902328
If you're trying to imply that I have some sort of saviour complex, you should try applying that to every long-term global issue to see the absurdity of it.
>OH THANK YOU FOR SAVING US ALL FROM NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST!!!!

>>15902278
Me too

>>15902278
Same. Everyone should be put in prison to prevent environmental damage.

>>15902380
>Diesel is freedom
Retard

It's political because a baby boomers who were the rebels now feel like they have to rebel against anyone who's older than they.

Global warming may be fake to some white trash in iowa or Kentuky but it's very real for those who live on the pacific island or Indonesia which the tsunami was devastating to the degree it was because much of the country is at or bellow sea level.

Baby boomers probably have a gut feeling it's real but they they figured they live in far enough inland to either not be affected by global or will be dead before all of those refugees start being dumped on their children & grandchildren's laps.

Boomers don't want to be inconvenienced in life at the slightest and they figured that global warming if true could be a way to harm coastal liberals.

>>15902230
Nonsense.

>>15880026
10 days 18 hours

>>15860913
17 days 13 hours

>>15897393
2 days 11 hours

>>15852598
21 days 13 hours

>>15884152
8 days 18 hours

>>15876979
12 days 5 hours

>>15896045
3 days

You are not a victim and you know it. You /pol/tards have been trying to turn /sci/ into the anti-science board for nearly a decade now. Own up to it and stop pretending that everyone is conspiring against you.

It's political because a baby boomers who were the rebels now feel like they have to rebel against anyone who's younger than they. This will be devastating as they all begin to start having their keys taken away from them, they'll scream & protest knowing that they can't survive without the car because of the society they created in hedonism.

Global warming may be fake to some white trash in Iowa or Kentucky but it's very real for those who live on the pacific island or Indonesia which the tsunami was devastating to the degree it was because much of the country is at or bellow sea level.

Baby boomers probably have a gut feeling it's real but they they figured they live in far enough inland to either not be affected by global or will be dead before all of those refugees start being dumped on their children & grandchildren's laps.

Boomers don't want to be inconvenienced in life at the slightest and they figured that global warming is true could be a way to harm coastal liberals.

>>15902427

>>15902279

>>15902491
The irony. Every one of those threads challenges basic climate science and has been up for days. You are not a victim. Nobody is deleting your propaganda threads.

>>15902197
Science and politics are not mutually exclusive. In fact, when science is inconvenient to the political interests of certain groups, science is necessarily politicised. This can be seen not just with climate change but also e.g. in the evolution/creationism "debate".

>>15902322
it is, you just haven't or can't see it, all statism is short term thinking

>>15902522
Projection.

>>15902594
The irony. Do you understand what projection is or did you think you could just post it and win? You are not a victim. Your propaganda threads are not being deleted.

>>15902220
people's proposed solutions are evidence about what they believe about the facts.
if someone sincerely believed rising temperatures to be a massive threat in the short term, he'd be reaching for practical solutions that could be implemented quickly and without needing all of society's compliance. he would not be proposing far-reaching ideological transformations of society, because those would be likely to fail, and worse, they'd fail slowly.
the unpopularity of proposals like solar geoengineering with sulfate aerosols, which could be implemented cheaply and would have observable effects quickly, indicates that the supermajority of warming alarmists do not believe their claims about warming's dangers.

>>15902602
This is kinda what i mean by dealing with climate change by having a free market. Allow each problem of climate change to arrive, then people will understand the nature of that problem, and solve it. This method doesn't rely on soothsayers and oracles of science to guide humanity. Instead bob down the road notices his house keeps getting flooded so doesn't put his prized furniture on the bottom floor anymore.

>>15902593
You're a retarded dogmatist.

>>15902616
>Instead bob down the road notices his house keeps getting flooded so doesn't put his prized furniture on the bottom floor anymore.
Is this a joke or is this actually the libertardian approach to climate change

>>15902617
i want to be left alone, you want to control other people. this is why we don't agree.

my system is better than yours because if we lived under my system you could have a small element of your system in mine; You want to have electric cars and a hippy commune? You can have it.
If we lived under your system i could have no element of my system, I would be obliged by the point of a gun to do as you command.

>>15902622
It's completely sincere. People in the moment know best how to deal with whatever problem it is.

>>15902624
>i want to be left alone
Yes, because you are a child who shirks any and all responsibility and has no concept of actions having consequences, or essentially, cause and effect. Your system is worse than mine because if we lived under yours, any "hippy commune" would be flooded by heavy metals and smog, and so would you little backyard with the sign out front saying "I just want to be left alone".

>>15902630
Christ almighty, is libertardianism actually just a complete inability to consider that things logically follow from one another? Do you have any capacity for hypothetical thought?

>>15902630
I'm starting to realise why Americans choose to live in a place called "Tornado Alley"

>>15902598
I am not making the threads, moron. You are the one claiming conspiracy.

>>15902678
Lol no. This is textbook projection.

See >>15902230 and cope harder.

>>15902641
>>15902651
>>15902660
Then i guess its just a game of might makes right. Whoever gets power gets to destroy the other. Back to medieval dark ages society we head, the dumbest part is you guys don't realize you're the drivers.

>>15902809
>Then i guess its just a game of might makes right.
In true libertarian fashion.

>>15902680
I literally have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. You are the one making bizarre conspiracy theories. >>15902427
>You /pol/tards have been trying to turn /sci/ into the anti-science board for nearly a decade now.

>>15902814
Sure, but there's no monopoly on force so cunts like yourself find it much harder to get any decent power. Instead of a just stop oil type screeching to the state to take away people's cars, they can only make a personal choice not to use one, and must convince others to do the same if they want others to follow them.

Holy shit this guy is a spaz

>>15902817
That's not really a bizzare conspiracy theory, it's obvious to anyone with eyes.

>>15902827
There's no monopoly on force so instead you just get a whole bunch of warring factions. What are you gonna do when they make the personal choice to use a gun, dipshit, there's your fucking monopoly right there

>>15902832
What's obvious is that you're a spaz

>>15902809
I'm with you Anon. It's demoralizing to see that the popular reaction to the current horrors of might makes right is even more might makes right. Apparently people must first play that game until game over before they understand that it's not a good game to begin with. Then they lose their darwinistic tendencies for a while before some people restart the game again. Can we think of a superior game that somehow converts the darwinists to a good end?

>>15902845
You're welcome not to play. I just wonder how you'll fare against someone who is playing.

>>15902197
I kind of agree.
Carbon taxes are a vindictive non-solution.
Still doesn't mean climate change isn't happening and caused by humans.

>>15902851
I've always wondered.
If it wasn't manmade, would people be fine with mass death?

>>15902836
>What are you gonna do when they make the personal choice to use a gun
Of course everyone has guns. Guns are what make it all feasible. The force equalizing capabilities of guns allow a woman to fend of a rapist.
It's not 1346 when you had to specialize in swordsmanship to have a good chance of fending off an attacker. The amount of time and money you need to dedicate to train on the use of guns is vastly less, which means everyone on earth has can use them.

If everyone's got guns, everyone's super, you can't get a large enough force to overpower everyone else.
You might claim you could get really rich and somehow use that wealth to get an army and so on. Two big barriers to this: You need people willing to be branded as a mercenary willing to steal from others on your pay. Those people are going to be exceedingly rare. You also need to be stupidly wealthy. here's the big problem with that one: if you got that rich, why not just carry on doing what you were doing before? Since it was clearly such a wealth generator, why bother stopping?

The sorts of people who would want to be a complete cunt aren't going to be successful people in a totally free market. You might cite the high functioning psychopaths that are common as CEOs. There you're forgetting that those guys just want money, they don't care how they get it. So as I said before, why would they stop doing whatever made them rich?

I'm confident that the "maths" or "natural selection" is, by chance, just happily work out so long as the population is genetically intelligent enough, and have technology that fills the same role as guns.

>>15902861
>You need people willing to be branded as a mercenary willing to steal from others on your pay. Those people are going to be exceedingly rare.
LOL
>here's the big problem with that one: if you got that rich, why not just carry on doing what you were doing before?
Because a bunch of people are going to decide that, even if no one is paying them for it, banding together with their guns gives them an advantage over you, and then they won't need anyone to pay them.
>The sorts of people who would want to be a complete cunt aren't going to be successful people in a totally free market.
They are going to be the most successful of all, you naïve child.
>So as I said before, why would they stop doing whatever made them rich?
Yes, indeed? Why would they stop just robbing and enslaving people if that makes them rich?

>>15902845
thanks

>>15902849
That's exactly what I've been pointing to a hundred times: the tragedy of the commons / game theory. Because everyone thinks that way we collectively lose and fail to break the cycle. We're captured by fear that someone else may get an advantage over us. That's insanity. The rational and most beneficial thing to do = insanity. Get that through your thick skull.

>>15902872
I don't care about your opinion on what is or isn't sane. I care about material reality.

>>15902616
>This is kinda what i mean by dealing with climate change by having a free market.
no, it's not, we're talking about two different things, and you've successfully provided an example of a retard for the alarmists to attack so they don't have to engage with me.
if you actually had a high-confidence prediction that rising temperatures were imminent and would be very bad, you could simply prevent that by adding SO2 to the stratosphere. it would cost money but much less than the damage estimates provided by warming alarmists. you would not have to wait for the bad consequences to start happening to do mitigation, if you thought there was a high probability they would happen soon.
my argument is that the fact no major environmentalist organization or government has started doing this unilaterally is strong evidence that they do not believe in the threat from climate change.

>>15902874
I care about material reality too and I don't want to live in the material reality that you're creating = darwinistic hell. Therefore the most rational thing to do is to dominate or even eliminate you. Is that how you want to relate?

Another aspect is that if climate change is manmade and can be reversed as proposed by alarmists, it still means that you have less freedom.
And not to a trivial degree, if automation goes far enough you might be literally a useless eater to the decision making class.
God forbid these might be the most ruthless & opportunistic people imaginable...

>>15902880
I'm not creating anything, you retarded idealist. i'm acknowledging what is.

>>15902867
>banding together with their guns gives them an advantage over you
You're not thinking it through. That group might have greater power than the individual, but their power is still less than that of the wider public. If a gang of hoodlums turn up in the night planning to overpower one individual to steal his car, they will get shot to death by everyone else in the street.

This doesn't require the public to act as some organized body on the same team, you all just act in their own self interest.

If you don't believe me there is precedent for this in western 1860-1900's America. Very few bank robberies happened in the small isolated towns. Why? Cuz everyone had guns, any dickheads trying to steal from the bank got shot to death.

>>15902892
>If a gang of hoodlums turn up in the night planning to overpower one individual to steal his car, they will get shot to death by everyone else in the street.
Why the fuck would I risk my life for a stranger? How is that in my self-interest?
>Very few bank robberies happened in the small isolated towns. Why?
Because small isolated towns have nothing worth risking your life for.

>>15902895
>How is that in my self-interest?
walk into the gas chamber without protest then

>>15902939
Libertarians are fucking mental, lol, you've absolutely lost touch with reality m8

>>15902197
Isn't there a way to do it if you ignore politics?

>>15902962
Yes. Look at the reports of IPCC working group I. That's just about the science. The politics part is done by working group III.

>>15903063
>That's just about the science.
I wish I was still this naïve.

>>15902962
Instead of politics you can think in terms of decision-making. The difference is intention: power versus understanding. The former relies on pushing a deceptive narrative and the latter relies on honest dialogue. Currently governments are not transparent (democratic): they do not provide the public with a clear and detailed overview of all the steps that lead to a policy and per step the considerations and risk / benefit analyses of each step. Therefore the public can only infer from the results what the intentions of the policy are and it looks like as if the policy is meant to make people poorer and less free.
The policy makers scold and gaslight the public for noticing and here we are: a class struggle between the working poor who get hit the hardest and upper middle class people who plug their ears and scream: far-right conspiracy theorists! People like this:

>>15902427
>Nonsense.

I can only hope that soon they too will have to experience the consequences of their ideology.

>>15903066
I'm always reminded of the famous comment about socialists of various stripes: they always think they'll be the ones lording it over the "useless eaters" and "racist chuds," but if class consciousness ever arises then it will be commissar Jamal and commissar Cletus repossessing their house for the public good.

>>15903073
If class consciousness arises then the working class is united in its purpose, by definition, idiot

>>15902593
There are worse things than having to walk to work.

>>15903077
Yes, and the real working class isn't the people pushing "green" nonsense or false accusations of racism, it's the farmers, factory workers, and janitors who they hate. Black or White they have more in common with each other than with the bean milk drinkers.

>>15903083
>the """"""real"""""" working class
Somebody's lacking class consciousness lol
In fact I wonder if you even register as conscious at all or if you're just an automaton regugitating talking points.

>>15903088
Activists are bourgeoisie. Making up fake plights to justify their lives is a luxury of people without meaningful work to do.

>>15902593
>it is
If you really believe this, what's your explanation for the fact that carbon emissions continue to rise despite massive evidence for climate change?

>>15903096
>despite massive evidence for climate change
You'll have to be more specific and not use weasel words like "change." How is it changing exactly, in your opinion?

>>15903099
Kill yourself

>>15903100
Least psychotic climate cultist.

>>15903101
>Everyone will voluntarily just solve climate change themselves, evil statist!
>Also, whatever could you mean by climate change?

>>15903104
There are multiple people in this thread dunking on schizoid freaks like you. Not everyone is your singular bogeyman.

>>15903109
I believe my question was qualified with "If you really believe this", so you have no excuse.

>>15903111
Your question was disingenuous and question-begging. Thankfully I noticed before anyone could be suckered in by your gaslighting.

The fundamentals of climate change are not political. You can't just simply say "it doesn't exist" without some major evidence which would somehow upend 100+ years of physics and Earth Science. The way we respond to climate change is political. If you don't think we should move away from fossil fuels then that's your (political) opinion, but that within itself is separate from the actual science of climate change and reality. Same thing if you think we should phase out fossil fuels, or something else. If you think we should just ignore climate change than just say that, but I take offense when you try to deny it. You'll lose every time if you do.

Reminder that there is still no meaningful solution to the intermittancy problem of renewables

>>15903116
>somehow upend 100+ years of physics and Earth Science
The made up global warming stuff is only 30 years old. Before that the government had other scams that didn't involve Earth Science.

>>15903118
Nuclear power is the solution

>>15903123
Not the solution to renewables. With nuclear power you'd just throw wind and solar into the bin because you don't need them.

>>15903119
Now cmon anon, you know that's not true. We've known about the physical properties of carbon for like 150 years. Actual atmospheric science has existed for like 70 years, but the physics behind it is really old.

>>15903066
>I can only hope that soon they too will have to experience the consequences of their ideology.
Take your meds.

>>15902817
>You /pol/tards have been trying to turn /sci/ into the anti-science board for nearly a decade now.
This is reality.

>Threads that argue against orthodox decision making get deleted or ignored to death.
This is fantasy, as I demonstrated.

Learn the difference.

>>15902197
The fact that the ecosystems and outdoors are getting fucked/deeply altered by humans is science.

The politics is in the interpretation of the consequences and the plans to reach solutions.

For example, destruction of the outdoors and natural beauty will mean less people belieive the world was created by a loving God.

Fucking of fertile soils by increased agriculture and industrial development in the West will mean more globohomoization of food production and making countries interdependent on each other and the supra-national (((organisations))) that organise trade. This will also result in the loss of ancestral know-how and ways of life in the west.

extreme heat and weather events in the global south will give the left another excuse to import brown people.

generally more polluted water and air quality will result in children being weaker and having lower testosterone.

destruction of the natural beauty of the outdoors due to too much intensive farming, monoculture, and unlimited urban sprawl and building highways will remove the last places where whites can flee the large cities where they will be unwelcome.

All these are outcomes that leftists would like, and just like the other aspects of environmental change, they have solutions, but obviously the leftists aren't focusing on these, when climate change just so happens to align with their interests.

>>15903200
>The fact that the ecosystems and outdoors are getting fucked/deeply altered by humans is science.
what does that even mean?
you're incoherent
the AI at https://www.writingtoiq.com/ says you IQ is 89
you're too dumb to even communicate effectively your native tongue

>>15903194
>everywhere on the entire internet needs to be muh protected safe space where i can regurgitate muh memorized, officially approved mainstream ideas without being contradicted

why don't you just stay on reddit and facebook? if you did that you wouldn't have to be so upset and distraught by the content you see here on 4chan

>>15902248
You're spreading misinformation, tranny. It was two armed men versus one schizo retard with a bat. Btw, the son was found not guilty and the father was sentenced to ~5 years.

>>15903116
>You can't just simply say "it doesn't exist" without some major evidence
You're going to need some "major evidence" to prove that it exists.

>>15903872
>there is global boiling
>if we make an observation that doesn't seem to fit global boiling
>then it somehow must be explained as part of global boiling
>because there is global boiling
Therefore global boiling is an unfalsifiable theory. They will keep repeating that it's a fact that humans walk on two legs and have no feathers. They have no clue that this fact is valid, reliable, accurate and replicable for naked chickens too.

>>15903191
>Take your meds.
This Anon uses ad hominem to completely ignore my description of the political concerns but he also replies that it's nonsense that the the political concerns are being ignored on /sci/.

>>15902197
>Why do people pretend climate change is not political?
Global warming is not political. What to do about global warming is where the politics come in.

>>15903104
Everyone will solve the products of climate change by themselves. I don't expect to stop climate change.
If a farmer experiences more drought, he will find a new way to solve that problem. That might be building some type of irrigation. Or he might try a different crop. Or he might change business. The point is he will solve that problem without the state, if allowed to.

>>15903991
Take you meds. Your psychiatrist prescribed them for a reason.

>>15903866
Because I was here first, /pol/tard. Don't you have tranny BBC threads to jerk off too?

>not one mention of China in this whole thread
yeah that figures

>>15904343
Libertarians be like
"Oh, we made the air unbreathable? Thank god the free market can provide us with such affordable gas masks and airtight shelters."

>>15904343
>Everyone will solve the products of climate change by themselves.
But not everyone is affected by the same amount. Also, not everyone is at fault by the same amount.

>>15904380
Government regulation supporters be like:
''Pay the upper class more money to solve the problems they've created and your problems will be solved, can't you see there's a problem?''

>>15904406
>Pay the upper class more money
In reality, government regulation supporters usually want the upper class to pay more taxes than the lower class.

>>15904409
In reality taxes are raised right now to subsidize the reduction of emissions which leads to lower output and inflation that hits poor people harder than rich people.

>>15904416
>have $5 on your bank account
>inflation makes it worth only $4.80
>lose 20 cents
>have $5 billion on your bank account
>lose $200 million due to inflation
Why do chuds think that inflation is bad? Are you a useful idiot or are you actually paid to post this shit?

>>15904829
Wait do you think rich people just have all that money sitting in bank accounts?

>>15904834
Wait to do you think your average white trash meth addict has more money in their bank account than some rich dude?

>>15904836
The poor are benefiting from inflation since they just get more money in the form of welfare.

>>15904836
Inflation is a tax on the poor specifically because the rich are insulated from it by holding assets rather than liquid cash.

>>15904842
>inflation is a tax
Stopped reading. You know nothing about economics.

>>15904842
>Inflation is a tax
So, it affects people proportionally to their wealth?

>>15904829
Nice try troll, but for the idiots who really believe what you're saying: a high bank account number grows faster than a low bank account number and without the need for labor as a result of interest, dividend, stocks and other type of investments, even faster than inflation rates. Low bank account numbers can't invest as a result of needing to live hand-to-mouth. High bank account numbers can afford accountants and financial advisors to avoid taxes and hedge against inflation. High bank account numbers can buy political influence to make rules in favor of high bank account numbers. Therefore there will always be more downward pressure on the poor and more windfalll for the rich. Inflation ensures the existence of people who will never be financially independent because they can't increase buying power faster than inflation. Inflation also ensures that people need to keep increasing their productivity forever and thus forbids them from being content with a particular level of knowledge, skill, customers or income. Inflation dooms people to forever run on a threadmill of more, more, more, always trying to gain advantage over eachother. This inevtably and repeatedly causes internal and external conflict. Inflation = satan.

>>15904871
it doesn't, it disproportionately affects the poor. rich people can afford an increase in prices because they already have more money than they need, poor people are the one who end up having to choose between eating and paying the power bill. you don't understand this because you're an overgrown baby that still has mommy and daddy paying all your expenses for you.

>>15904871
>>15904850
Inflation devalues whichever money it is the host of. If you happen to be holding wealth in the form of that money, you loose out.

Inflation is whenever money is printed. This is usually only legally done by the government, or at least by it's instruction. In the recent past, the definition of inflation is deliberately trying to be confused with the rise and fall in the price of goods & services , which can be affected by inflation as well as other things.

Inflation is functionally a tax because it is the result of printing money, and that money is printed by governments in order to pay for their budget deficits.

Some people don't recognize inflation by it's old true definition, so cannot understand that prices constantly rise in response the lowering of the value of money by it's increased supply. These people think the government can print money consequence free. These people believe in MMT. A minority of people who believe in MMT do realize money printing is inflation, and consider inflation to be a tax that is levied in order to pay for the government's deficit spending.

As a tax, it's very effective as it needs very few enforcers, additionally it's exceptionally good at attacking the lower classes, as they predominantly hold the little wealth they have in the form of money. This leaves them susceptible to inflation.

>>15902197
It's a fact.
Facts aren't political.
You're response to facts can be political if you like though

>>15905316
>It's a fact.
no, its a lie

>>15905238
>This is usually only legally done by the government
The Federal Reserve is not part of the government, its a private bank owned by the Rothschilds

>>15903073
>>15903089
Bruh don't you see what's happening here
You tell the white people in the cities "you got nothing on common with Cletus, he has more in common with Jamal"
And then to Cletus you say "you got nothing in common with Jamal, he's black, you need to band together with the other whites"
And to Jamal you say "whites form a unified front against you, you can't band together with them"
And that is how you foster class division. Working class means ALL the working class, not some idealised fascist fantasy of the REAL deserving working class as distinct from all those Untermenschen who also work but don't count because they don't deserve to.

>>15906113
Okay but communism isn't going to happen, while left-wing activists are causing real problems right now.

>>15906113
>don't count because they don't deserve to.
We're on the sinking Titanic and the middle class are like the women who are privileged to get on the life boats first with the upper class. Naturally I resent them. They don't even see what's going on here. Therefore they are less deserving because they have more power and refuse to use it for the greater good.
All they do is feign empathy with people who can not afford heating while they vote green policy. Then they tell poor people to suffer for the greater good or that it's their fault for not trying hard enough, ignoring the fact that wealth is relative and artificially scarce ensuring that there must be a class of poor people.
The middle class is the midwit in the meme and therefore the most evil caused by voluntary ignorance.

>>15902457
>tsunami
so not climate change

>>15903995
>1978
less than 50 years of data.

>>15902220
I stopped caring about climate change politics in canada when they decided to cut nuclear from green subsidies and are actively trying to get the few plants we have shut down.

>>15906228
because it all malthusian antinatalism. climate change is just a propaganda tool to encourage sterilization programs

>>15906228
Yeah, green activists the world over have genuinely made things worse by protesting and lobbying against any nuclear plans.

>>15902392
It is. "With a car, you can go anywhere you want" is not just a meme.

>>15902272
ah yes because there are no CEOs in "clean energy" companies getting rich off our taxes making shitty and worthless products. here we see anons post displayed mask off>>15902230. as he said your agenda has nothing to do with climate. you are just a spiteful mutant.

>>15903081
No, there aren't. You're demanding a fundamental reorganization of our entire civilization, which for decades has been constricted to carefully navigate around the horrific social ills that are also caused by leftist idealogues. All of our cities are utterly infested with evil, stupid monsters, and because of people like you, we're not allowed to even punish them for their actions, let alone get rid of them entirely, because you (against all evidence) claim their stupidity and evil is entirely extrinsic. And now you want us to LIVE with them! And you want to disarm us while doing so. Well I fucking refuse. I'd rather this world burn down than live in the fake snd gay dystopia that would create. It would barely even affect AGW anyway, since, you know, India and China still exist.

>>15906232
>encourage sterilization programs
I'll never understand conspiracy cultists because you like to pretend you're being targeted by the elite class to be "sterilized" or "exterminated", while pretty much every capitalist country is doing everything they can to RAISE birth rates. Well, except making it affordable and raising the standard of living, lol. More workers means more blood with which to grease the gears. More soldiers for armies to protect them from the terrorists they're radicalizing in the middle east while they steal their land and resources. More people to consume their products. Literally no fucking western government wants their population to decrease. That's bad for literally everyone in charge, lol. You retards are just hellbent on feeling like some kind of victim, but if you want to make up a conspiracy theory, at least have it be believable.

>>15906243
Anywhere (within your countries borders; if roads leading there have been constructed; if you readily have access to fuel)
I guess almost everyone born before the establishment of the Ford Motor Company was living in an open-air prison, and it's definitely not the other way around.
>>15906248
>All of our cities are utterly infested with evil, stupid monsters, and because of people like you, we're not allowed to even punish them for their actions, let alone get rid of them entirely, because you (against all evidence) claim their stupidity and evil is entirely extrinsic.
I am probably more racist than you.

>>15906249
>while pretty much every capitalist country is doing everything they can to RAISE birth rates.
No. They're doing everything they can to import labor. Raising birthrates would be doing things like eliminating elective abortion and no fault divorce, along with, as you suggest, lowering cost of living, which could be achieved by restricting or punishing housing speculation. You're suggesting that all capitalist governments ARE trying to raise birth rates because logically they logically SHOULD, but you are ignoring an important element: politicians are greedy and evil. Children are a long term investment, an H1-B can start working immediately, and more importantly, the visa worker isn't white. Does this fuck the country in the long term? Yes, but why should a congressman care, he'll be dead before it happens.

>>15906250
>Anywhere (within your countries borders; if roads leading there have been constructed; if you readily have access to fuel)
Which is pretty much everywhere other than totally undeveloped wilderness. Even then, you can usually drive to its edge.
>I am probably more racist than you
Evidently not. Answer me this: are you willing to trade a genocide for "walkable cities"? If not, I'm not interested.

>>15906262
>Answer me this: are you willing to trade a genocide for "walkable cities"?
Probably

>>15906249
>promotes birth control
>open access to abortion
>no fault divorce
>promotes female participation in the workforce
>24-hour antinatalist propaganda in television, movies, social media
"they're doing everything they can!!!!"

>>15906249
>Literally no fucking western government wants their population to decrease.
Imagine being this naive. Every human has a cost / benefit. The balance of that ratio is shifting as a result of the pareto principle accelerating by technology: most of the production is provided by a small group of people.

A large group of people will be filtered by the inability to provide added value. Without unconditional provision of basic needs, they will become ''useless'' (relative to market demand). That's cruel, so instead the ruling class raises inflation, restricts carbon and provides bread & circuses to phase out the kind of lower class people who have no potential for growth. They will become antinatalists and that's the end of that genepool.

>>15906363
Take your meds

>>15902203

>>15906533
least blurry bigfoot photo

>>15906225
listen, I'm not a climatologist, but I'm sure you can find one to have a proper debate if you find one.
My chart is one in countless charts supporting greenhouse gas global warming, go see for yourself.

>>15906248
hooooly shit, you went waaaaaaay off-topic there, kek

>>15906601
No actually, what the long term charts show is that CO2 concentration is a function of temperature, not the other way around. Which makes sense, the warmer it is, the more land is habitable, just due to the distribution of all land on the planet.

>>15906533
Anon, that's not a windmill.

>>15906610
no, it's not what it shows. I have seen countless charts in the last 30 years about what you are talking about and that's not what they show. Sorry, you are wrong.

I'll get back to y'all after I finish my denier book

>>15906533
That one made the rounds on FB a while ago, that one is so stupid that only FB users would fall for it. Also, do anyone build 2 MW wind turbines anymore?

>>15906621
Explain how charts showing that spikes and declines in CO2 FOLLOW spikes in temperature by decades doesn't indicate that CO2 is a function of temperature and not the other way around.

>>15906738
Well temperature is atomic movement so carbon is also a side effect of atomic movement

But that's about it is an indicator

>>15906738
>CO2 is a function of temperature and not the other way around
It's a feedback loop. Only a retard would deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Only a retard would deny that an increased temperature also causes more CO2 in the atmosphere, e.g. from the decreased solubility in water.

>>15906749
Do you have a PhD in warming?

>>15906817
>It's a feedback loop.
There has to be more to it than just a CO2 feedback loop, otherwise the first increase in CO2 or temperature would set off a chain reaction until Earth was just like Venus. And in the geological past we have had far more CO2 than today without setting the world on fire.

>>15906905
I recently read why a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on earth (anymore?). However, I forgot. Anyway, feedback loop != runaway.

>>15902197
Of course it's a political issue. Climate change is of course occurring, but it's very inconvenient to the people who expect to profit off of the fossil fuel industry. This is why they've been funding a massive disinformation campaign for decades, which you've clearly been a victim of. They do things like discredit the science, discredit science in general, lobby for car-only infrastructure, associate cars with the american dream, etc.
Your car is your freedom because it's illegal to make cities any other way, and your cars run on and consist of fossil fuels.
Nobody can convince me that this isn't highly intentional politicking.

>>15906921
The only way you could do it is if you dramatically increased the amount of gas in the atmosphere by dumping it from another celestial body.

>>15906933
The issue I have with envrionmentalists is that they occasionally correctly identify that the government has interfered in the market in those ways, but then they demand the government interferes in other ways! I think 100% of all subsidies for any corporation should not happen, neither renewables nor fossil. Zoning laws should be removed, as should all planning laws; if we did that we would have market entrepreneurs make a small shop near your house, thus creating a more walkable settlement.

I think that if we strive remove government interference from the market, people will do nice things because people will pay money for those nice things. That is to say, I don't think people need to be regulated to do nice things and not do bad things.

>>15906950
>the government
He's literally just described private fossil fuel companies spreading misinformation because it's in their economic interest to do so. Governments don't do anything but make promises they can't keep in regards to reducing the carbon footprint.
>That is to say, I don't think people need to be regulated to do nice things and not do bad things.
That's a nice fantasy, but even if you believe that everyone will individually act to prevent climate change at cost to themselves (already completely delusional), what happens when an oil company comes along and funds fake research that says climate change isn't real and that you should keep buying what they're selling? Or what happens when there is a market failure in regards to renewable or nuclear energy? It's not like you can just build your own electric grid.

>>15906601
>countless charts supporting greenhouse gas global warming
your chart is based on less than 50 years of incomplete data. it is worth less than the watery shit i am taking as i type this reply.

Even if you ignore all the data supporting AGW, try an analogue of Pascal's wager.
Let's say AGW is false: The human cost of switching to renewables and/or nuclear is completely negligible, only harming the revenue of fossil fuel companies, the air is cleaner and we become less dependent on a finite resource.
Now let's AGW is true: The human cost of continuing to rely on fossil fuels is catastrophic. Countless ecosystems die out, many coastal cities are flooded for long periods of time or even completely sunken into the ocean, traditional farms are affected by frequent droughts, hurricanes and heat waves become increasingly commonplace.

>>15906950
>I think that if we strive remove government interference from the market, people will do nice things because people will pay money for those nice things. That is to say, I don't think people need to be regulated to do nice things and not do bad things.
And the reason you think that is because you are profoundly retarded

>>15906963
Sorry, I read his
>lobby for car-only infrastructure
>it's illegal to make cities any other way
and assumed he is including the other government interferences of subsidized fossil industry as complaints. What I've said is still valid.

>>15906963
>individually act to prevent climate change at cost to themselves
I don't plan or expect them to. I don't consider it a problem, I think people will react to things as they come. This is a fool proof method that has worked with every challenge that nature has given humans so far.
I'm sure that if all humans had perfect access to information (god-like access, you know the lottery numbers, etc), then this probably isn't the most efficient approach, however it is one that works with certainty.
My analogy is to that of engineering and evolution, engineering can provide a solution quickly but might not always provide one, evolution takes more time but will always work.

>when an oil company comes along and funds fake research
I'd hope that scientists bother to read through people's papers and consider whether what's been said is sound. I'd also hope that a minority of them bother to try and reproduce these papers. However I expect scientists are just as lazy as everyone else and often let the journals and peer review to do the thinking for them, so lies might go on for longer than they might otherwise. Either way, the process of trial and error will divin the truth, like evolution.

> Or what happens when there is a market failure in regards to renewable or nuclear energy?
I don't understand what you mean to convey, what do you mean by a failure?
>It's not like you can just build your own electric grid.
That's only because of laws and regulations prohibiting it. We used to have multiple grids until political entrepreneurs used the government to remove their competition.

>>15907090
do you have a lock on your door

or do you like

react to things as they come

>>15907038
I think the reason you don't believe me is because you have been lied to throughout your life that corruption exists because of the market, and not because the government itself is criminal by nature.

>>15907099
I don't believe you because every single word out of your retarded shit mouth is making the world a dumber place. I don't even believe you're serious. No one can be as wilfully fucking dense as you are acting right now.

>>15907098
You don't need to make a law that all doors must have locks, people do it on their own; via the free market.

This is what I mean, people do not need to be regulated by the government. If preventing climate change is the best way to solve the problem, they will naturally gravitate towards doing that. What I am trying to get across is that allowing a free market will find the solution best. Let people do it without government force.

>>15907107
hey what if like government turned out to be the best way to solve problems, like, as a society

>>15907107
In a way I have to thank you. Never have I seen someone display so clearly how utterly delusional and out of touch the disciples of the free market are.

>>15907105
I am being completely honest. The government seems obvious as the candidate for the source of evil, because it is allowed to steal from people, to imprison people, to make laws, and is allowed to give some of these powers to others.

Does it not seem obvious that if you let a group of people steal from everyone as their form of income, that this group by nature is corrupt?

>>15907099
Corruption exists because of incentives. The market creates incentives which are not necessarily aligned with human interests. The government can be evil but it is in fact not the root of all evil, as you seem to believe.

>>15907108
Perhaps, but I don't think it is. I don't think you'd be as gleeful to say slavery is the best way to solve problems.

>>15906877
No I value my time

>>15907112
You feel this way because you have been raised by the state, your entire education was subsidized by it. In the same way parents raise their children to love them, the state does the same. I hope that in some time you will become more open to the ideas behind free markets.

>>15907117
>I don't think you'd be as gleeful to say slavery is the best way to solve problems.
what if the free market decided tho

i mean it did didn't it

it was government that abolished slavery

>>15907113
>Does it not seem obvious that if you let a group of people steal from everyone as their form of income, that this group by nature is corrupt?
Haha but enough about capitalists

>>15907122
>it was government that abolished slavery
It was the free market. Industrialization made slavery unprofitable, and in the case of the US the government forced new states to allow slavery when they didn't want it (there was a war over this).

>>15907126
You're saying the South seceded over states' rights... to abolish slavery...

>>15907116
>Corruption exists because of incentives.
Corruption can only be implimented by the use of a government. You can't lobby for your product to be considered healthy if the FDA doesn't exist for example.

>The market creates incentives which are not necessarily aligned with human interests.
Not to a significant degree if it is a free market, because humans and their interests are what define who gets rewarded most in a free market.

>government can be evil but it is in fact not the root of all evil
It is a very strong method that the evil gain power through. In a free market evil people are not as successful as they can be in a place with a government.

>>15907126
hahahaha

>>15907122
I don't think that a free market would decide that. Conflict is less profitable than trade, working with someone is much easier than fighting against them. Even governments don't take a stance of total war.

>>15907130
Individual interests are not the same as human interests. There are many Molochian negative-sum games that emerge within the market.

>>15907137
>I don't think that a free market would decide that.
Well then I think your model of a free market has some flaws in it in light of the facts

>>15907125
Capitalists are not allowed to steal from people. Only the government may levy taxes. As poor a deal that Walmart might charge, they must still have your consent before they have your money. The government just has to send the IRS. This is the fundamental difference.

>>15907137
Most slaves didn't rebel, so it would have been completely feasible for the south to continue as normal.

>>15907140
True, but the free market is an aggregation of individuals. You have a regression to the mean of sorts, and so if a market is allowed to be free it will make the majority people better off.

>>15907145
>Capitalists are not allowed to steal from people
It's literally the sole source of profits

>>15907144
I don't think your facts are correct in that case.

>>15907146
The slavery of the south continued at the behest of government. e.g. when a slave escaped, the government mandated that low class men form gangs to recapture them.

>>15907152
I'm fairly sure that profits come from the sale of goods, anon. They don't confiscate your money at gunpoint.

>>15907155
So you don't think property rights ought to be respected?

>>15907152
Profit is not theft, because both parties agreed upon that wage.

I suspect that we will shortly come to a situation where you will happily state that a man can be said to have committed an act by doing nothing at all.

>>15907158
I think that in a free market, people will be able to determine a method of property rights. I also suspect that people will never take anyone who claims ownership of someone seriously in such a society.

>>15902197
Climate change denialism was exclusive to American conservatives for about 20 years before going global.

>>15907157
So if I walk out of the workplace with the full value of my labour, no one's going to come for me with guns?
>>15907159
Yeah, and if your house is on fire, and I promise to put it out in exchange for your life's savings and eternal servitude, we both came to a mutual agreement that was beneficial to both parties, didn't we? No worker is free to make a fair decision as long as the thread of starvation and homelessness loom over him.
>>15907163
So you have no guarantee save useless conjecture and optimism.

>>15907163
>people will be able to determine a method of property rights
And what if they go communist? Does it turn into mutualism? What even is a free market when property is not defined in advance and not everything can be considered property?

>>15907169
>So if I walk out of the workplace with the full value of my labour, no one's going to come for me with guns?
No-one will come after you with guns when you get the paycheck and benefits package which you mutually agreed was the true value of your labor.

>>15907169
>No worker is free to make a fair decision as long as the thread of starvation and homelessness loom over him.
He could choose to work elsewhere in a place where his labor is valued, or to homestead and make his own way.

>>15907169
>So you have no guarantee save useless conjecture and optimism.
I think if everyone is armed, that we have reached a certain culture and genotypic level of intelligence, such that the government has diminished to such a small size that we have a free market, then we won't have to worry about everyone suddenly deciding to do slavery. Hell, would you expect the current population to be ok will slavery?

>Yeah, and if your house is on fire, and I promise to put it out in exchange for your life's savings and eternal servitude
I don't think many people would be happy to agree to that offer. Nor do I think that many bystanders would be particularly bothered if the person who agreed to the terms did not follow them strictly.

>No worker is free to make a fair decision as long as the thread of starvation and homelessness loom over him.

Two immediate issues. The simplest, If nobody is responsible for a man's need for food and shelter, how can you justifiably have them work for free?
The second issue, really a continuation of the first: How are those two conditions prevented without the use of slavery? To give food and a home to all people for free, people must create those things for free. The best way socialists have devised to jury-rig their way out of this moral dilemma is to say a group of people can be stolen from without guilt, of course the criteria they use for defining this group is arbitrary, consequently it leads this group expanding until everyone is contained within it.

>>15907179
In a free market, groups of people will be free to buy a patch of land and mutually agree to rules on it; the can have a hippy commune together. This is the beauty of the free market, we can all coexist.

>>15907213
And what happens when there is a monopoly on land?

>>15907231
We don't even have one now, not even when we had kings. I can't expect us ever having this scenario.

>>15907235
We do have one in the sense that the state can seize it at any time, "ownership" is really leasing.

>>15907236
If were talking about a free market, it'd probably have come about naturally (as apposed to a god snapping it into existence), so I'd expect there wouldn't be something odd like a single owner of all land on earth. So asking how a free market would respond to a monopoly of all land isn't right.

Frankly I expect by the time we've advanced culturally and genetically enough for a free market, we will have colonized space. At that point trying to have a monopoly on land will be quite a challenge!

Ancapistan, The Free Market™, and solar/wind majority are just as ephemeral as bloody Communism.
Cash enforces methods (or paradigms if you will) for muh science. "Facts" are literally purchased.

>>15907031
If you don't send me $1,000 right now, the world will end in less than 5 years.
try an analogue to Pascal's wager.
If I'm lying, it's just a $1000. totally neglible in the grand scheme of things.
but if i'm not lying, then it's the fate of the whole world that is at stake.

>>15907894
Imagine being the first scientist that noticed temperatures changing, imagine how easy was to ignore you or silence you

>>15907900
no one else needs a scientist to tell them when the temperature changes. they feel it happen.

>>15902853
it's not mass death
maybe in africa, but that's a good thing (or would be, with sane migration policies)

>>15907950
Are you dense?

Is cold in some places warm in others, people can't notice what doesn't happen to them, why collecting data matters

>>15907280
I don't think he said that.

>>15902197
Climate change is only political is that it requires political change to be addressed, that said CFCs were political, leaded fuel was political and asbestos was political so it isn't like we haven't changed laws at economic cost to protect people and the environment in the past.

>>15909150
average global temperature is a meaningless metric.

>>15909579
It's a good measure of total thermal energy in the atmosphere, if it's going up the atmosphere is changing.

>>15907210
Libertarianism is shrug: the ideology. It'll work itself out. And if it doesn't it wasn't a real free market anyway.

>Libertarians looking at all of human history, the transatlantic slave trade, wars, exploitation, negligence, every single bad thing ever:
>"Come on, people wouldn't do that, no one would be okay with that"

>>15906817
>Only a retard would deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
That's not what I've said. I did experiments measuring the relative greenhouse gas effect of different gases with microwave spectroscopy. Whether the greenhouse gas effect exists at all is not in dispute. The question is, is the absolute value of that effect meaningful to earth's climate, and that remains in dispute.

>>15910239
Nonsense. Go larp somewhere else.

>>15910242
?? It's a basic undergrad experiment. I'm sure lots of people here have done it. All it takes is gas cuvettes and a microwave spectrometer.

>>15909818
>>15909822
Does it both you that people just ignore you?