When people deny anthropogenic climate change by saying "well it got warmer in the past", do they think that climate change is a stochastic process?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Yeah the Earth has gotten warmer in the past, but if not CO2 emissions, what process that drove warming in the past is driving it now?

[Snakeyes7]

When there is a climate scare, it has often been "the warmest in 100+ years" and they never explain what caused the heat back then because we didn't have the technology back then as we do now so it either isn't actually a climate scare or climate change isn't a man-made product and there is nothing we can really do and all this effort is for nothing.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Actually, things like sunspot cycles, volcanic activity and el ninos explain warming in the past very well.

[Snakeyes7]

So how do they know it is not those happening again? We are having an el niño winter right now.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Right now but el ninos are one of many drivers and they occur on shorter cycles but if one occurred when the sun's intensity was increasing it would cause an abnormally hot year. Also we can monitor volcanic activity and sunspot activity. If volcanic activity was causing warming, the carbon 13 content in CO2 would be increasing but it's decreasing. Also, solar activity doesn't correlate with the warming trend.

[Snakeyes7]

The main question we need to ask is, do humans contribute to it? I highly doubt it because of how much these politicians are drooling over the fact that they are using it to leech people of their taxes and eventually force them into 15 minute cities (which are technically concentration camps or prisons) and make them drive electric vehicles with which they can use to spy on them.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

1. The profit motive works both ways and if people turn away from fossil fuels, oil companies stand to learn a lot.

2. Because someone benefits from it doesn't make it wrong. Again, apart from CO2 there's nothing to explain the warming trend.

[Snakeyes7]

1. Learn what? To trust the experts even though said experts warned of global destruction that should have happened decades ago but didn't? How can you NOT expect people to think that these experts are just saying whatever the powers that be pay them to say just so they can be fooled into giving up more of their rights than we have already lost? These people are now saying "YOU are the carbon they want to reduce" for a reason.

2. The only people who benefit from this are the corporations and the politicians. They will be living in their mansions, flying in their private jets, eating things like fillet mingion every day all while people like you and me will be living in pods and eating the bugs while owning nothing while "being happy" because property is theft, right comrade?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Those failed predictions assumed carbon dioxide emissions would continue to increase at rate that they were at the time. Instead, policies curtailed carbon emissions. In other words, those predictions weren't wrong; they were averted.

[Snakeyes7]

By trying to turn our society more and more fascist as more of these predictions are "averted?" Right.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

No, by combating the influence of the fossil fuel lobbies in government (remember fascism is the merger of state and corporate power), we're making society less fascist and more environmentally friendly.

Government regulations on industry for the safety of the community ≠ fascism.

[Snakeyes7]

You're only just ditching one lobby in favor of another. You're not making anything more or less fascistic.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Actually, most Americans support climate change mitigation policy so it's not coming from the green alternative lobby, it's coming from the people.

[Snakeyes7]

Yeah because they are fooled by the flowery names that these bills have and are to ignorant of the fact that the government is trying to get the authority to tell you what you can and cannot do.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

The government telling you that you can't engage in activities that jeopardize public safety (like excess pollution) is it's legitimate function, not "fascism".

[Snakeyes7]

Don't eat meat, don't have children (at least that is what the media encourages), don't drive non-electric cars, don't use gas stoves, don't own anything?

All while none of this applies to the people in charge?

That sounds pretty fascistic to me. All of these sound like they are switching the favor from one lobby to another.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Those are goals, not near term laws to be implemented. The idea is to use to switch subsidies over to sustainable alternatives practices like mock meats, electric cars, electric stoves over time.

Yeah, so fascistic -_-

And from one lobby to another; the lobby of the people versus fossil fuel fat cats.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

But on the issue of being "fascistic" one thing we can't ignore is how the hyper-individualism espoused by the American right has it's shared roots with Nazism. It's based in the frontier spirit/manifest destiny which was basically the anglo-saxon version of lebensraum.

[Snakeyes7]

If you don't want all this fascist bullshit, how about letting the free market decide which is better the mock meat or real meat? The gas car or the electric car? The gas stove or the electric one?

Oh wait, the people are choosing the things the Fascists don't want them to choose so they are kneecapping them by removing the better option so that they will have no choice but to take the shitty one.

>hyper-individualism espoused by the American right has it's shared roots with Nazism.

The Nazis had race based laws, did it not?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Because a free market economy and the suppression of individual liberty and nationalism characteristic of fascism aren't mutually exclusive and the market isn't some force of nature that will automatically get you to the best outcome.

Yeah, they had laws aimed at keeping disenfranchised groups down; not for redressing historical injustices (they might have said that's what they were doing but they weren't).

[Snakeyes7]

>Because a free market economy and the suppression of individual liberty and nationalism characteristic of fascism aren't mutually exclusive

Free market economies and the suppression of individual liberty is absolutely mutually exclusive. You are giving the individuals the liberty to buy what they can afford and what works best for them. Given how history looks at total government control, the government doesn't give a single shit about what the people want, they just force onto you what best fits their agenda and will make the people like it.

Does "you will own nothing and you will be happy" ring a bell at all?

>Yeah, they had laws aimed at keeping disenfranchised groups down

That is, by definition, a collectivist ideology and not hyper-individualist. If it was, then it would be nowhere near as authoritarian as it was because the government would operate on live and let live, much like what the US was *supposed* to be.

Not only did they keep certain groups down, other groups were propped up, because they viewed what was going on right at that moment as a historical injustice even though it wasn't and it created an unnecessary sense of tribalism among the German people.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Giving people the freedom to use leaded gas isn't protecting individual liberty; it's just jeopardizing individual liberty. Giving you that entitlement denies other people their individual liberty to not breathe toxic air.

www.forbes.com/.../?sh=3f46d26712c4

Racism isn't collectivist because it omits a part of the collective.

"Not only did they keep certain groups down, other groups were propped up, because they viewed what was going on right at that moment as a historical injustice even though it wasn't and it created an unnecessary sense of tribalism among the German people."

Yeah, like I said, they made a post hoc justification but the way historic policies continue to disenfranchise is demonstrable.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Or I guess it would be more appropriate to say it's as much your freedom to pollute and jeopardize the livelihood of others as it is your freedom to steal land from Native Americans, again illustrating why American hyper-individualism is tied to it's shared origin with Nazism.

[Snakeyes7]

>Giving people the freedom to use leaded gas isn't protecting individual liberty;

That sounds a lot like forcing people to buy certain things to me. The reason people aren't buying electric cars is because they are expensive as shit, the charging takes up a shit ton of power, charging stations are rare and are nowhere near as fast as simply refilling the tank. This hoity toity climate change stuff isn't convincing the average person to take hammers to their piggy banks, just the elitist snobs who think driving around in fancy cars is everything and actually think they are saving the environment when they are just using the same electricity generation method they condemn, at least to the public anyway.

If you really want people to enjoy a non-toxic air to breathe then tell your friends at the WEF, WHO, UN, etc. not to allow their members to come in on their private jets that emits more carbon than a lifetime use of a gas car in a single trip, and make them walk because that makes them good stewards for the environment than they supposedly are now. Or better yet video call like they forced us all to do in 2020.

>Racism isn't collectivist because it omits a part of the collective.

No, it is an example of a situation where two collectives form: "us/the good guys" and "them/the bad guys". This is the very basis of the post hoc justification of the formation of these collectives for one to disenfranchise the other.

This is not hyper-individualism: that would be a "kill or be killed" world instead of "let us band together to stop the blight that has shown itself to us" like the Nazis did to the Jews.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

First of all, the majority of the US public wants to see more in the way of climate action, it's the oil executives who are lobbying against it. And the reason that electric cars are so expensive is because the ones that are produced in the US right now are high end. That's like saying that petrol cars are too expensive because of how much Ferraris and Roll's Royce cars cost.

www.pewresearch.org/.../

And "race" isn't a collective as it's not based around people with a common interest. It's an artificial divide to weaken the collective. Stoking racial tensions to prevent people from forming class consciousness is an age old tactic employed by the Nazis. You see the right wing sense of liberty is based on this single: there are ingroups that the law protects but does not bind and outgroups that the law binds but does not protect. When you have the "freedom" to pollute and not give a fuck how it affects others, the ingroup has the freedom to indulge while the outgroup (those most impacted by past discriminatory policies) end up suffering the most. Hence the ingroup is not bound and the outgroup is not protected.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/.../history-of-lead-poisoning-in-black-communities

[Snakeyes7]

Where did they get this sample from? Commiefornia? That's one of the only places I can think of where this many people are in favor of such excessive government control at the expense of our rights.

>And "race" isn't a collective as it's not based around people with a common interest.

They're not supposed to be but they can made to be one if some propaganda causes them to band together against some common enemy whether or not they actually are their enemy.

>It's an artificial divide to weaken the collective.

By that logic, the communists did the same thing when they divided everyone into "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat."

>Stoking racial tensions to prevent people from forming class consciousness is an age old tactic employed by the Nazis.

No not really, Hitler just thought the Jews WERE the bourgeoisie equivalent. Hitler was not a capitalist, if he was, he wouldn't have been against private gun ownership and he wouldn't have taken over all the business within Germany from within by force.

>You see the right wing sense of liberty is based on this single: there are ingroups that the law protects but does not bind and outgroups that the law binds but does not protect.

Because the left includes libertarians in their definition of "right-wing" this is total bullshit, they judt want the bill of rights to be respected but that is just too much for totalitarians to handle. This might apply to conservatives in some degree, but it applies to the left-wing the most.

It is to the point where the left-wing wants to make excuses for literal calls for the genocide of Jews in places where any other sort of "hate speech" isn't tolerated whatsoever.

Stop pissing on my leg and telling me it is raining.

[Snakeyes7]

>When you have the "freedom" to pollute and not give a fuck how it affects others, the ingroup has the freedom to indulge while the outgroup (those most impacted by past discriminatory policies) end up suffering the most.

I guess in that case, I have the freedom to not bend the knee to your ideology, but since you see that as the equivalent of "pollution" then you are "polluting" on this country and it's values.

You have the freedom go and get some land and build your own commune and you can go all in with what you want to do. If it ends up being prosperous, then people have the freedom to move to your town and you can expand that way.

But no, you want everyone else to take part in this when the majority of the country (even if they think the government is justified in going full fascism for muh climate) know (some learning the hard way) that government overreach causes nothing but pain and suffering at the hands of the government.

Really, it amazes me how people are still statist cucks even though you can clearly see what giving the state this much power has brought on many countries in the past.

Secondly, no you don't have the freedom to pollute, we never had that. If you poison a water supply, you go to prison for that. The difference is that the corporations are doing it this time and who isn't stopping them when they have the only power to do so? The government. It's not a "wing" issue either, these corporations brib- er I mean lobby the government to let them get away with this for a long long time.

Mussolini said it himself, that fascism is the merger of corporation and state. So we have been living under a fascist government for a long time. It makes me wonder why the media and the corporations are suddenly driven mad at the thought of Donald Trump.

[Snakeyes7]

Oh by the way, when people say "black community", they are collectivizing black people.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Sorry, just because you don't like a source doesn't invalidate. Climate regulations don't infringe on our rights, they protect our rights to live in a world that isn't ravaged by climate change.

Hitler was a capitalist and "free market" isn't the same as capitalism. Markets versus command economies are systems of distribution. Capitalism versus socialism are means of production. The Nazis had a command economy that controlled how firms did business with each other but they were still privately owned (in fact the Nazis privatized more than anyone else). "Libertarians" as it's used in the US is a misnomer and they would be better described as proprietarians and the Bill or Rights doesn't say that the government will enforce any contract with no conditions. Oh and it was China loosening restrictions on wet markets that caused the pandemic, but sure government over-reach causes nothing but pain (oh wait it doesn't). In fact things got better for the people during the progressive Era because the government started putting restrictions on big business (including how much they could pollute).

[Snakeyes7]

I also have the right to live in a world where the government doesn't breathe down my neck while they get to do whatever they want. Climate change is being used to plunge the US, no the world into authoritarianism loke the Nazis used the "threat" of Jews and you know this and applaud it.

They have not made it any secret that they want us to stop eating meat and eat bugs instead, have little to no children, drive cars that are expensive as shit (most people can't even afford gas cars without taking out loans) and suck up an insane amount of power, give up our land so that they can "preserve" it and shove us all into pods and imprison us into 15 minute cities as if we don't have families and friends that live outside of that area.

How are you ok with this? If you want to live that way, be my guest but I am drawing the line at forcing all of us to do it too at the point of a gun that the average law abiding citizen won't be allowed to possess.

> "free market" isn't the same as capitalism.

That is quite literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Free markets are the very backbone of a capitalist society. Adam Smith even calls the completely hands-off approach from the ruling class: "laissez faire" or "let the people do what they want."

Otherwise, the practice of competition, the law of supply and demand or free trade agreements wouldn't exist. Without it, you will just have total state ownership and you will "buy" (against your will) their product and you will like it. If it sucks, too bad there is no alternative and you cannot create an alternative yourself lest you become a traitor to government power.

I guess something I should ask is, does that mean you are a fan of free markets since you like to shit on capitalism so much?

[Snakeyes7]

>Hitler was a capitalist

If that's the case then he wouldn't have had his gestapo bust into all their private business, take them over by force and tax the ever loving shit out of it from then on (I hear it was as bad as 70% of their revenue).

Oh yeah, so much in favor of private ownership.

>The Nazis had a command economy that controlled how firms did business with each other but they were still privately owned (in fact the Nazis privatized more than anyone else)

No not really. Aside from what I already said, the only thing "private" about those businesses were that the people who were already there when they got invaded got to stay so long as they lick the boot.

>"Libertarians" as it's used in the US is a misnomer and they would be better described as proprietarians and the Bill or Rights doesn't say that the government will enforce any contract with no conditions.

Not just the Bill of Rights but the original meaning of the country's founding such that all men are created equal, and that everyone has the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. All of which are unalienable and comes from God and do not come from the government and for good reason. Mainly so that people just don't lie down and let any random creep that takes power take them away.

[Snakeyes7]

>Oh and it was China loosening restrictions on wet markets that caused the pandemic, but sure government over-reach causes nothing but pain (oh wait it doesn't).

Dude, we have made then confirmation that covid leaked from a lab in Wuhan years ago. We're you living under a rock?

>In fact things got better for the people during the progressive Era because the government started putting restrictions on big business (including how much they could pollute).

Really? Are you saying we are in another progressive era? That's funny because we keep willingly give the government more and more power and yet they are taking more and more of our rights hiding behind things like climate change to justify all their wrongdoings just as Hitler justified all his wrongdoings by saying that the Jews spread typhus.

[Snakeyes7]

*were

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

-Preventing people from polluting isn't the government breathing down your neck, it's ensuring that you don't compromise the ability of others to breathe from inhaling toxic fumes.

-The plan is to phase out gas cars not a sudden ban, just like the use of horses which caused manure problem in cities was phased out by the cars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jclswLs_YLc

-Free markets aren't the backbone of capitalism, control of the means of production by the few to exploit the many is. So trying to say that Hitler wasn't a capitalist because he didn't embrace a free market economy is a moot point.

-Laws against pollution don't infringe the on the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because pollution adversely impacts one's quality of life and lifespan so they enforce it. Austerity has nothing to do with the founding principles of the USA let alone liberty. It's "no taxation without representation" not "taxation is theft".

-It wasn't confirmed; the list of viruses which were being tested in the lab didn't include COVID-19.
*but, but they didn't publish it! The list was published two years before the pandemic started so how did they know which strain would be accidentally leaked to prevent it from being included in the list.

[Snakeyes7]

-Ok then do a better job convincing the average person to buy an EV because right now it is a total scam.

- Yeah but that is still an action done by the public institution against the will of the private individual which is not capitalism but a command economy which both Communists and Nazis are guilty of.

- I just explained to you that capitalism is the individual ownership of their own means of production for them to compete with other. You literally just described the complete opposite. When have I ever said that capitalism is ownership of the few? The US establishment is trying to take control of the economy using a disaster they are terrible at explaining to the average person about as their excuse. Does that not sound exactly like how you described. I guess since they are doing it for reasons you agree with it suddenly ceases to be that, right?

-Yeah you are correct, so long as it harms other people or their property. Maybe you have forgotten that things like trees need carbon dioxide to live and before you say that there are very little trees left, I invite you to step out of your city and touch grass. I assure you that you will see at least one tree. We still have many forests and woods and the only real threat to these woods is the government and corporations who have the money to buy an excessive amount of land which the average person couldn't afford.

- That is not what the Wuhan Institute of Virology said, the only thing the wet markets contributed was more of the "superspreader" variety.

www.livescience.com/...rt-at-wuhan-wet-market.html

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

-Again, markets versus command economies are systems of distribution, capitalism versus socialism are a means of production. What the Nazis did wasn't free market capitalism but it was capitalism.

-Plants are usually limited by how much nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium is available to them, not carbon dioxide.

-Oh they didn't see the virus in tissue samples in the lab -_-
Yeah it's not like the first animal that had it couldn't have been eaten destroying the evidence. And just because it jumper to humans doesn't mean that the virus jumped to other species in the wet market.

[Snakeyes7]

- You cannot have a free market if everything is publicly owned. It's like if Amazon took over everything including the government which would then make it a public institution (it might as well be one even now considering how much the government and corporations like Amazon kisses each others asses, a merger if you will) only that you have no choice but to pay them for their services whether you use it all or not or else you will be thrown in a cage.

If you decide that the way the public institution sucks, you don't get another option. It is a violation of the rule of In fact, the government might even throw you in a cage or kill you anyway just for saying that.

According to investipedia:

> "Capitalism is a system of economic production that is controlled by market forces rather than a central government."

> "Business owners acquire the means of production and hire workers who get paid for their labor under capitalist structures."

Get ready because here is where you disagree:

> "This system is defined by private property rights, capital accumulation and re-investment, free markets, and competition."

> "While capitalism helps propel innovation and prosperity in modern society, it can also create inequalities and contribute to market failures."

> "Capitalism is the direct opposite of communism, which is a system that is controlled by the government."

- Fine, come up with a better solution than the shitty EVs we have now and maybe people will buy it with no government overreach necessary. Unless you think people are too stupid to make their own choices so you make the choices for them like the generous god you are.

[Snakeyes7]

-Honestly, I don't give a shit about China. That country is screwed up in so many ways including some of the things that they did and are doing that you are advocating for here in the US that our constitution forbids because it violates our right not to be under a ruler with an iron fist who decides what we can or cannot do with our own lives so long as we don't violate the rights of others. So far we have no evidence of cars producing enough to endanger the average person.

[NaultD]

Lacking object permanence like a baby entertained by peek a boo or flat earthers.

Nothing is real unless they see it right here right now.

[Joker_]

yep!