Yet people are saying this is something every skeptic need to realize, while ridiculing the same people they apparently need to do something about it.
A overwhelming majority making fun of a minority of people who don't agree isn't actually doing something about the problem. It's virtue-signaling. Cheap laughs.
But they're inbred rednecks.
Why would you think inbred rednecks are necessary to fix the environment?
They have all the money and run everything.
How many rich and powerful inbred rednecks could there really be?
But they voted for Trump.
The carbon foot-print is equally distributed across the entire population.
Yet cities produce the most waste.
But's it's those fuckin inbred low iq uneducated redneck farmers down south living off the land with their fucking cows filling up the atmosphere which will kill us all in 12 years. There's just too many people in the world. We clearly need to seriously consider depopulation strategies going forward.
So you volunteer?
No, the stupid people first duh. I happen to know a certain group of people with certain political and religious views which makes their lives worth less than ours, if you know what I mean? They can go first.
How would you accomplish that?
Well it's either our way or the highway.
So you're justifying another holocaust in favor of a better environment?
We wouldn't call it that. It would clearly be for the greater good.
Which is?
Mother Earth is real and we are hurting her. We need to take care of her by purging the world of stupid people. Otherwise she will retaliate.
So it's like a religion?
No. What are you a climate change denier? I knew it. Fucking nazi.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
The basic principle of global warming has been understood since the late 19th century (YES, late 1800's).
In contrary to deniers' (or "skeptics" if you prefer) beliefs there is scientific consensus and the predictions of the models have actually been fairly accurate.
In contrary to deniers' beliefs the often quoted and debunked "doomsday scenarios" are not scientific consensus but rather opinions of more or less qualified individuals that have NO base in scientific research and publishings.
In contrary to deniers' beliefs local weather phenomena do NOT "contradict" global warming.
In contrary to deniers' beliefs climate change is not a "political invention of the leftists"
In contrary to deniers' beliefs red herrings thrown into the "discussion" by people like crowder, trump, shapiro or political organisations like prager u and some tabloids are NOT based on scientific research but rather on a distortion of it.
This is all well documented and anyone could actually do a little research on their own to confirm this but it is obviously more comfortable to believe what feeds the bias.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask (Old Spike)
All facts which had nothing to do with what I wrote.
I was pointing out the hypocritical way liberals treat it like a political problem which can be solved by complete agreement on the issue, while the people they're often pointing at are not actually the major contributors to the problem, nor are they a major hurdle to keep them from doing something about it.
They're being used as an excuse for their own non-action on the issue.
And the continued rhetoric on the issue have now garbled up every negative aspect of conservative criticism and ridicule and turned it into a knee-jerk reaction stereotype all liberals resort to whenever they fail to do anything about the environment despite promises made to their voters.
It has become a way to virtue signal one's own intellect, despite many being completely ignorant on the subject. And more importantly a way to promote the idea of a political belief as being intellectually superior.
Citing facts at and ridiculing a minority of people who aren't the main source of the problem nor will ever be able contribute to solving the problem, is not an act of actually contributing to solving the problem. Nor is it a sign of intellect on anyone's part. It's not rational.
And it has gone so far where I can say out loud that liberals are justifying politically motivated genocide targeting a stereotype in favor of depopulation, and not a single liberal ever objects to that notion. No one claims to be outraged. No one is banned from their social media accounts, the modern day public square, for posting those kinds of statements.
That's not a sign of a scientifically literate group or population.
That's the sign of an ideology, ignorance disguised as intellect, warping basic ideas like human rights which ensures equality despite political differences or beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Serious issues that should be solved through debate and careful objective consideration despite frustration and disagreement don't exist anymore. There may be "debates".
But a debate consisting of insults being thrown around between all involved is not actually debating the issue. There is no path to agreement or solutions in that scenario. Which sadly is the status quo.
It's a moshpit of ignorants battling it out, in order to one day be able to say "I told you so", despite their complete lack of understanding of the problem, without ever contributing to solving it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Your rant on "liberals" should actually be aimed at your peers, as they find the most stupid arguments for denial and they swallow happily the red herrings and they make it political (the smpotus is the best example).
Look in the mirror first and then talk about ugly.
Comments
(Old Spike)
Thought this was beetlejuice obv
(Old Spike)
Yet people are saying this is something every skeptic need to realize, while ridiculing the same people they apparently need to do something about it.
A overwhelming majority making fun of a minority of people who don't agree isn't actually doing something about the problem. It's virtue-signaling. Cheap laughs.
But they're inbred rednecks.
Why would you think inbred rednecks are necessary to fix the environment?
They have all the money and run everything.
How many rich and powerful inbred rednecks could there really be?
But they voted for Trump.
The carbon foot-print is equally distributed across the entire population.
Yet cities produce the most waste.
But's it's those fuckin inbred low iq uneducated redneck farmers down south living off the land with their fucking cows filling up the atmosphere which will kill us all in 12 years. There's just too many people in the world. We clearly need to seriously consider depopulation strategies going forward.
So you volunteer?
No, the stupid people first duh. I happen to know a certain group of people with certain political and religious views which makes their lives worth less than ours, if you know what I mean? They can go first.
How would you accomplish that?
Well it's either our way or the highway.
So you're justifying another holocaust in favor of a better environment?
We wouldn't call it that. It would clearly be for the greater good.
Which is?
Mother Earth is real and we are hurting her. We need to take care of her by purging the world of stupid people. Otherwise she will retaliate.
So it's like a religion?
No. What are you a climate change denier? I knew it. Fucking nazi.
(Old Spike)
The basic principle of global warming has been understood since the late 19th century (YES, late 1800's).
In contrary to deniers' (or "skeptics" if you prefer) beliefs there is scientific consensus and the predictions of the models have actually been fairly accurate.
In contrary to deniers' beliefs the often quoted and debunked "doomsday scenarios" are not scientific consensus but rather opinions of more or less qualified individuals that have NO base in scientific research and publishings.
In contrary to deniers' beliefs local weather phenomena do NOT "contradict" global warming.
In contrary to deniers' beliefs climate change is not a "political invention of the leftists"
In contrary to deniers' beliefs red herrings thrown into the "discussion" by people like crowder, trump, shapiro or political organisations like prager u and some tabloids are NOT based on scientific research but rather on a distortion of it.
This is all well documented and anyone could actually do a little research on their own to confirm this but it is obviously more comfortable to believe what feeds the bias.
(Old Spike)
All facts which had nothing to do with what I wrote.
I was pointing out the hypocritical way liberals treat it like a political problem which can be solved by complete agreement on the issue, while the people they're often pointing at are not actually the major contributors to the problem, nor are they a major hurdle to keep them from doing something about it.
They're being used as an excuse for their own non-action on the issue.
And the continued rhetoric on the issue have now garbled up every negative aspect of conservative criticism and ridicule and turned it into a knee-jerk reaction stereotype all liberals resort to whenever they fail to do anything about the environment despite promises made to their voters.
It has become a way to virtue signal one's own intellect, despite many being completely ignorant on the subject. And more importantly a way to promote the idea of a political belief as being intellectually superior.
Citing facts at and ridiculing a minority of people who aren't the main source of the problem nor will ever be able contribute to solving the problem, is not an act of actually contributing to solving the problem. Nor is it a sign of intellect on anyone's part. It's not rational.
And it has gone so far where I can say out loud that liberals are justifying politically motivated genocide targeting a stereotype in favor of depopulation, and not a single liberal ever objects to that notion. No one claims to be outraged. No one is banned from their social media accounts, the modern day public square, for posting those kinds of statements.
That's not a sign of a scientifically literate group or population.
That's the sign of an ideology, ignorance disguised as intellect, warping basic ideas like human rights which ensures equality despite political differences or beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Serious issues that should be solved through debate and careful objective consideration despite frustration and disagreement don't exist anymore. There may be "debates".
But a debate consisting of insults being thrown around between all involved is not actually debating the issue. There is no path to agreement or solutions in that scenario. Which sadly is the status quo.
It's a moshpit of ignorants battling it out, in order to one day be able to say "I told you so", despite their complete lack of understanding of the problem, without ever contributing to solving it.
(Old Spike)
Your rant on "liberals" should actually be aimed at your peers, as they find the most stupid arguments for denial and they swallow happily the red herrings and they make it political (the smpotus is the best example).
Look in the mirror first and then talk about ugly.
(Old Spike)
I rest my case.