[Veloce]

https://www.facebook.com/unitednationsfo...nref=story

Live feed here:
http://www.earthtoparis.org/

This might be the greatest example of virtue signaling I've ever seen. The level of stupidity in that youtube video is beyond anything I could imagine...

Quote:

Never before have we had to face a challenge as big as climate change

Quote:

...leaders and experts from 190 countries to combat climate change

By all means, let's "combat" the natural activity of the Earth, let's "combat" the sun, let's "combat" cycles and environmental patterns in nature, let's combat all of that...

...with a hashtag.

The very worst part of all of this, is I know the guy narrating the first youtube video I posted. I've always liked the guy, though I've gone to several parties at his place and it's filled with the most hardcore left-leaning sjws imaginable. To say I don't fit in there would be a major understatement.

A, if you're reading this, sorry man but you're way off target here. You're an incredibly talented and smart guy but you're wasting it on this progressive nonsense.

As usual, Joseph Paul Watson offers a great response:

Right on cue, I'm watching John Kerry live talk about how even if all of us in the Western world reduced our carbon emissions to ZERO, it wouldn't put a dent in "the problem" due to developing nations.

This is indeed a dark, subversive, and sinister plot to keep the 3rd world right where it belongs. In the dirt and in the jungle, without electricity, without plumbing, without transportation.

#fuckyouParis

[amity]

I've noticed the establishment is going all-in in recent times to push global warming alarmism on the masses.
From the Climate Change Circle Jerk Conference(CCCJC) in Paris recently to magazines like NatGeo publishing entire editions to try and indoctrinate and alarm the masses even further about how the world is one step away from climate oblivion.
It's not easy to talk sense into people about this stuff, as the level of brainwashing is so high and so widespread.
As usual, I find that Stefan Molyneux's video are a good way to plant the seeds of doubt in peoples' minds that there may be grounds for questioning much of the dogma we're fed by officialdom and the various talking heads we see on the media.

[shameus_o'reaaly]

Yep-human impact on the environment is probably overblown though real-but why, I wonder, does nobody worry about more immediate problems, like the tap water containing estrogen runoff, heavy metal contamination, BPAs, secondary absoption of prescription meds?
Because nobody can make half as much money from that. Most green energy initiatives have only served to drive up the price of industrial energy (see Spain) and to siphon off subsidy money (Solyndra, etc), so that a business is harder to run in the West.
Carbon credits are a gigantic scam that feeds off this, too. The focus is less and less on what benefits people and their environment, and more and more what they can be made to feel guilty for doing, or be fined for breaking laws that become too difficult to follow.
Even without the far more immediate threat of ISIS, much of the environmentalist chatter would be dishonest and disingenuous.

(12-07-2015 11:11 AM)Veloce Wrote:  

https://www.facebook.com/unitednationsfo...nref=story

Live feed here:
http://www.earthtoparis.org/

This might be the greatest example of virtue signaling I've ever seen. The level of stupidity in that youtube video is beyond anything I could imagine...

Quote:

Never before have we had to face a challenge as big as climate change

Quote:

...leaders and experts from 190 countries to combat climate change

By all means, let's "combat" the natural activity of the Earth, let's "combat" the sun, let's "combat" cycles and environmental patterns in nature, let's combat all of that...

...with a hashtag.

The very worst part of all of this, is I know the guy narrating the first youtube video I posted. I've always liked the guy, though I've gone to several parties at his place and it's filled with the most hardcore left-leaning sjws imaginable. To say I don't fit in there would be a major understatement.

A, if you're reading this, sorry man but you're way off target here. You're an incredibly talented and smart guy but you're wasting it on this progressive nonsense.

As usual, Joseph Paul Watson offers a great response:

Right on cue, I'm watching John Kerry live talk about how even if all of us in the Western world reduced our carbon emissions to ZERO, it wouldn't put a dent in "the problem" due to developing nations.

This is indeed a dark, subversive, and sinister plot to keep the 3rd world right where it belongs. In the dirt and in the jungle, without electricity, without plumbing, without transportation.

#fuckyouParis

[Barron]

Damn. Thought this thread was going to be about an anti-multicultural hashtag going viral

[Lizard King]

Earth to Jack Black: put the hamburger down.

[Libertas]

You know, I'm maybe of the unpopular opinion around these parts in that I think human activity can add to climate change and that we should be looking at ways we can reduce carbon emissions as a matter of prudence.

But I simply can't take things like this seriously because these people don't seem to be really serious about it. Their plans always involve racketeering schemes into projects that don't work like Solyndra that harm everyone. Globalists vs. people again. Solar and wind are pipe dreams. Period. The choices we have with just solar and wind are business as usual, extremely punishing taxes and regulatory schemes, or reducing our standard of living by a lot.

It's a joke because the new generation of liquid thorium nuclear reactors produce very minimal waste and one of those takes ten coal plants offline. They emit no carbon either. But the stupid greens and liberals don't want them because they're scared and nuclear = baaaaad. Meanwhile we're such dopes that Washington finances India to develop the reactors and actually builds them for them so they don't become a coal burning monster like China, but we won't invest in our own damn infrastructure and piss that money away on bullshit solar and wind programs.

Like Trump said in Crippled America: solar and wind are scams. They take decades just to recoup their costs. Solar and wind are simply not energy dense enough for an economy like ours and to maintain high standards of living. Nuclear is the only presently foreseeable alternative to fossil fuels.

If they were serious about curbing emissions they would agree to replace coal plants with liquid thorium reactors and on safe and improving waste disposal measures. Then in the long term they would finance a multinational effort to bring nuclear fusion power plants online sooner, rather than in the latter half of the century.

But they don't do this. They just talk and make agreements that help absolutely nobody except maybe the Saudis and the other shitty sheiks who will keep selling us their oil and financing terrorism only now we'll have to pay an added tax and go through more bullshit regulations for the favor.

TL;DR, I'll believe that manmade climate change is as serious a threat as they say it is when they don't involve punishing solutions that don't really work anyway.

[Dr. Howard]

Just when I think the bar has been reached, it is lifted. The sheer balls out ignorance of #earthtoparis

I've got an 'earth to paris' wakeup call for them. A bunch of heavily armed muslims killed 130 people in your city not 2 weeks ago. What was the climate change death toll that same day?

Sure climate change (ie. changes in earth's climate, natural or not, that happen faster than humans can adapt) may be a problem, but is it an immediate problem? Is it coming to rain tidal waves down on your city tomorrow? No.

Advocating that paris be a center of concern for climate change is like taking your last $400 to pay your mortgage, when you have loan sharks with guns coming to collect on a gambling debt tomorrow.

[Veloce]

(12-07-2015 06:15 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

You know, I'm maybe of the unpopular opinion around these parts in that I think human activity can add to climate change and that we should be looking at ways we can reduce carbon emissions as a matter of prudence.

I'm actually of a similar mindset. I don't believe the world has infinite resources (especially bluefin tuna) and I do believe it's a virtue to carve out an existence that isn't based in overconsumption.

That's what kills me though. There are indeed pressing environmental issues like air, water, and food quality. These are issues that require massive amounts of money and political energy to address. And that money is being fucking squandered on bullshit "green" energy alternatives and these laughable conferences. Billions of dollars, being flushed down the toilet, for a non-issue when there are very real issues facing the world right now.

[wi30]

[tarquin]

(12-07-2015 10:02 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 06:15 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

You know, I'm maybe of the unpopular opinion around these parts in that I think human activity can add to climate change and that we should be looking at ways we can reduce carbon emissions as a matter of prudence.

I'm actually of a similar mindset. I don't believe the world has infinite resources (especially bluefin tuna) and I do believe it's a virtue to carve out an existence that isn't based in overconsumption.

That's what kills me though. There are indeed pressing environmental issues like air, water, and food quality. These are issues that require massive amounts of money and political energy to address. And that money is being fucking squandered on bullshit "green" energy alternatives and these laughable conferences. Billions of dollars, being flushed down the toilet, for a non-issue when there are very real issues facing the world right now.

I'm 100% in agreement. Further, as the US has huge energy reserves that are mostly untapped, I believe that it is in the long term interests for the U.S. to conserve energy reserves until the rest of the world is mostly depleted. Then we can charge huge sums of money. Working on conservation now pays off in the long term, but it is a very long term goal.

Land, air, and water pollution are more immediately important to me and are often at odds with the carbon reduction agenda. How much energy does it cost to build a new hybrid vehicle as opposed to driving one that lasts longer? How much pollution is exported to China so batteries for these new cars can be manufactured? I venture that making longer lasting vehicles would have a much greater impact on the pollution levels than encouraging some of these technologies.

That being said, in my heart I lean strongly toward the free market. Much of the reason that these terrible hybrids exist is due to government intervention in the market. I can't advocate further intervention except in instances of clear harm. I just hope that the voice of reason pierces the shrills of the trendy environuts.

[CynicalContrarian]

(12-07-2015 06:15 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

You know, I'm maybe of the unpopular opinion around these parts in that I think human activity can add to climate change and that we should be looking at ways we can reduce carbon emissions as a matter of prudence...

If there was any integrity to this whole scam, people would focus on genuine pollution.
Soot, chemical run-off, oil spills, garbage etc.
Yet it seems it's far easier to rant about taxing carbon.
As if carbon is an un-natural poison...

Not to mention the hypocrisy of ranting about climate change from a laptop or smart phone... which requires fossil fuels most likely.

As usual with the left / regressive control freaks. They want to impose their nonsense on everyone else.
While not putting their money where their mouth is or leading the way.

[Habano]

(12-07-2015 06:15 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

But I simply can't take things like this seriously because these people don't seem to be really serious about it. Their plans always involve racketeering schemes into projects that don't work like Solyndra that harm everyone. Globalists vs. people again. Solar and wind are pipe dreams. Period. The choices we have with just solar and wind are business as usual, extremely punishing taxes and regulatory schemes, or reducing our standard of living by a lot.

That, I think, is the true problem here. The people tweet another hashtag and feel good about doing their part to go "green." They don't contemplate the consequences of giving the globalists what they want.

Any effective scheme to reduce the emission carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases involves imposing a monetary cost to emit them. It could be a cap and trade system or a carbon tax, but make no mistake, it involves making everyday life more expensive. Gas and energy prices will spike in addition to even more vengeful spending on alternative energy that is prohibitively expensive and often ineffective.

The elite try to respond that they can make a carbon tax or cap and trade regime "revenue neutral"--that ordinary taxes could be reduced to accommodate the new regulatory costs for what they want. But the reasoning is nothing but lies.

Who spends more of their income to drive cars to and from work? Who pays more to heat and cool their homes? It's not the rich, even though they may own three mansions and fly a private jet. It's the poor and working class; they pay a greater portion of their income to afford the basic necessities of life. And don't think for a moment that the corporate big cats are the ones who are going to pay for it. They will simply pass the cots down to the consumers. If a carbon tax makes gas cost an extra $4 (about what Europe is paying right now), the people at the pump are going to pay an extra $4. For God's sake, Exxon came out today in favor of a carbon tax:

http://http://www.houstonchronicle.com/b...682461.php

But even more perverse is what this is going to do to developing countries. All of the more developed countries in the world went through a phase when they emitted enormous amounts of pollution. Think about it. During the periods of industrial revolution in the United States and Great Britain, it was impossible too see though the smog in the larger urban cities. But what happened? The countries developed. They went through the natural economic progression from heavily-polluting manufacturing economies to consumer-based economies more concentrated on services. If the developing countries are stupid enough to go along with what the elite want, they will get what they deserve: a longer tenure as lesser developed countries.

In short, who stands to win at Paris? The elite. In more developed countries, they will win by imposing retrogressive costs on the poor, costs they will benefit from if income or corporate taxes are lowered to accommodate the carbon tax or cap and trade. In lesser developed countries, they will win by keeping them subservient, docile producers of cheap goods.

And yet the SJWs frolic. Hashtag activism indeed.