5 ms·

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ Imagine you're 15 and look at the graph above. What deadline do you

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ Imagine you're 15 and look at the graph above. What deadline do you set for humanity to fix the issue?

systemvoltage 3y ago
I don’t trust the Science that censors dissent. It’s not science. The people that propel climate doom are also ok with depopulation of millions. The incoherence is absolutely staggering. The entire climate agenda reeks of malaise, dishonesty and authoritarianism. You will live in a pod. You will eat bugs. You will euthanize people on a mass scale. You will be happy. We have limitless resource - Nuclear energy both in the form of Uranium/Plutonium and the sun itself. Climate doomers are Marxists who don’t want solutions. They just want state power expansion and erosion of rights through the bullshit excuse of climate. It’s year 2050 and there are climate activists for space to keep space pristine. Mark my words. The roots are in place at cities like Berkeley.
- protastus 3y ago
  You didn't answer the question.
  - systemvoltage 3y ago
    It was a rhetorical question.
    - CRConrad 3y ago
      To the guy who asked it... Bravo.
    - protastus 3y ago
      It's not rhetorical. Emissions have to be cut and deadlines need to be set. I am challenging you to provide a proposal, because anyone can be a cynic or a critic.
- jay_kyburz 3y ago
  Wow, thanks for posting voltage, it's think its really valuable to be reminded there are such wildly different points of view on this. And actually it's our wildly different perspectives is what makes me a climate doomer. Me and my group will never allow nuclear because we don't trust people to manage it properly. You and your group will never reduce your energy usage and consumption of resources because that might be an erosion of your rights! It's like with Covid, when people were asked to put on a mask to protect themselves and others, a lot of people said OK, and a lot of people made a big deal about it. I think we should continue our transition to non polluting energy sources, but our democracy means no government is going to make deeply unpopular choices, so nothing will happen very quickly. Climate change will happen.
  - systemvoltage 3y ago
    > Me and my group will never allow nuclear because we don't trust people to manage it properly. Strange and contradictory. I thought people said the same thing about CDC, vaccines and the entire COVID fiasco. You didn’t have any issue with trusting the people to manage the pandemic properly then?
    - jay_kyburz 3y ago
      I think people felt the CDC were being overly cautious at the expense of the economy. We are risk averse and care little for the economy, so while the CDC is thinking like us, we support them. Our fear with nuclear is that people will not be cautious enough and cut corners. (Or the risks are greater than people are willing to admit)

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ Imagine you're 15 and look at the graph above. What deadline do you set for humanity to fix the issue?

systemvoltage 3y ago

I don’t trust the Science that censors dissent. It’s not science. The people that propel climate doom are also ok with depopulation of millions. The incoherence is absolutely staggering. The entire climate agenda reeks of malaise, dishonesty and authoritarianism. You will live in a pod. You will eat bugs. You will euthanize people on a mass scale. You will be happy. We have limitless resource - Nuclear energy both in the form of Uranium/Plutonium and the sun itself. Climate doomers are Marxists who don’t want solutions. They just want state power expansion and erosion of rights through the bullshit excuse of climate. It’s year 2050 and there are climate activists for space to keep space pristine. Mark my words. The roots are in place at cities like Berkeley.

protastus 3y ago
You didn't answer the question.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  It was a rhetorical question.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    To the guy who asked it... Bravo.
  - protastus 3y ago
    It's not rhetorical. Emissions have to be cut and deadlines need to be set. I am challenging you to provide a proposal, because anyone can be a cynic or a critic.
jay_kyburz 3y ago
Wow, thanks for posting voltage, it's think its really valuable to be reminded there are such wildly different points of view on this. And actually it's our wildly different perspectives is what makes me a climate doomer. Me and my group will never allow nuclear because we don't trust people to manage it properly. You and your group will never reduce your energy usage and consumption of resources because that might be an erosion of your rights! It's like with Covid, when people were asked to put on a mask to protect themselves and others, a lot of people said OK, and a lot of people made a big deal about it. I think we should continue our transition to non polluting energy sources, but our democracy means no government is going to make deeply unpopular choices, so nothing will happen very quickly. Climate change will happen.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  > Me and my group will never allow nuclear because we don't trust people to manage it properly. Strange and contradictory. I thought people said the same thing about CDC, vaccines and the entire COVID fiasco. You didn’t have any issue with trusting the people to manage the pandemic properly then?
  - jay_kyburz 3y ago
    I think people felt the CDC were being overly cautious at the expense of the economy. We are risk averse and care little for the economy, so while the CDC is thinking like us, we support them. Our fear with nuclear is that people will not be cautious enough and cut corners. (Or the risks are greater than people are willing to admit)