all 14 comments

[–]Wrangel 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Climate change has a strong scientific backing and is unfortunately very real. The green house gases trap heat and this is easy to show experimentally. Emissions do damage the environment and are bad for our societies.

The anti climate change stuff is in many ways a gop cope along with much of their environmental policy since their policies don't work on a finite planet.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why do you think climate change is real? The climate has always been changing. It is obvious that is another lie.

[–]Wrangel 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Overwhelming scientific evidence that not even a multidecades long attempt to challenge by oil companies and republicans has managed to make a real dent in.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What are some examples of the overwhelming scientific evidence?

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, water vapor is though. CO2 is transparent to heat, whereas clouds trap heat in. Unless of course you mean CO2 is what they pump into greenhouses to makes the plants grow faster, thereby greening the planet.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your Covid alarmist views amounted to nothing and your climate alarmism, likewise, shall amount to nothing.

Practically everything that is given as 'evidence' of climate change is explanable by other means; furthermore, practically 100% of climate change predictions never eventuate.

As one of countless examples of climate nutter predictions, the Carteret Islands off the coast of PNG were supposed to be submerged by 2018. Well, they're still there today. Indeed, numerous islands in that region which were supposed to have been submerged have in fact since grown.

Nor is the submergence of any particular place when it occurs conclusive evidence of climate change, since nearby artificial island construction (which is responsible for rising sea levels in the Maldives: those idiots built numerous artificial islands using Arab sand to relieve population density on their main island) and the damaging caused to coastlines by blast fishing are two other factors well known for causing effects commonly misattributed to climate change.

Climate alarmists need to provide more evidence than the usual 'X will be underwater by year 20XX' for their claims: claims which I see no reason to care about even if they were absolutely true. Carbon capture technology will clearly make strident advances and hydrogen cars will clearly also make a massive impact on reducing emissions in the years to come.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, the climate is changing. Sea levels are not rising fast enough to be a major concern. That part is fear mongering. The rising tide of color is the greater concern. Niggers will destroy the planet before climate change.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Are the sea levels even rising? That was also debunked. It has barely risen in the past thousands of years.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Are the sea levels even rising

Yes, but not enough to care about.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If it's not real, you better have an explanation for the future when crops are dying off from unpredictable droughts or severe weather storms.

Or more importantly, when fresh water also becomes increasingly scarce.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is any of that even happening?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know that global warming and climate change are complete nonsense.

Carbon dioxide and methane, among others, do prevent heat from being radiated through the atmosphere into space, and that energy has to go somewhere on Earth. It's no stretch to surmise that at least some of it ends up in the ocean or atmosphere thus affecting weather patterns i.e. climate. These gases are released by human activity.

The idea that countries need to unite or the world is gone in 12 years is BS.

It would be a lot easier to trust mainstream or left-wing sources on the whole climate issue if the people making claims would actually act as if the problem were as important as they say it is. If a blue-haired fat feminist walked up to me and said "Mr. Auk, on behalf of all leftists, I swear we'll give you any political compromise you want in exchange for [insert climate policy here] because saving the planet and the life on it is more important than [insert left-wing bullshit here]", I would gladly put our differences aside and hash out a deal.

I would be OK with giving leftists whatever they want in regards to the environment generally in exchange for whatever we want on demographics and culture. This should be an easy deal for them to make, because, after all, there is not a single item on the left-wing agenda that could possibly be more important than saving the planet, which they tell us is at stake.

Instead, all the climate stuff is just another plank among many in the leftist platform, another mandatory moral crusade, as if that's what anyone wanted. Though to be fair, the fact that the United States has effectively a two-party system deserves some of the blame for this situation.

Note that this is all completely independent of the scientific facts about climate change.

But I still care about the environment. I hate the plastic pollution result of mass consumerism and materialism. My love for animals and nature makes me support low-meat/plant-based diets. I hate street littering, and I wish we could plant more trees. I also hate the air pollution from cars that causes lung cancer in humans and hurts nature. I wish we could end coal, natural gas, and oil and rely on only wind, solar, other renewables, and some nuclear.

You and me both. The reason I'm generally comfortable with left-wing environmental positions is because they're basically our own anyway.

I don't think eating meat is that big a deal. Humans evolved to be omnivores. Just don't be a glutton, and show respect to the animal by not wasting its body. For that matter you could say the same about eating plants.

My takes on the environment have also put me against the GOP.

Don't worry about that. The GOP is not master over us and we are not the GOP. What matters is that your/our positions on the environment are in keeping with white well-being.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The ONLY way to save the environment is to at least stabilize the population, but probably lowering it is necessary since the aquifers are depleting with the current population. Burning wood is a perfectly viable, sustainable way to get energy if the population is low enough.