Nostr Web Client

Dan - what I don't understand is the Government has been working with large corporations for DECADES. The lies and propaganda are incredibly clear.

The biggest in the 70s was food was running out.

Today it's global warming.

But there are 1,000 of smaller 'fibs' that are very easy to see.

Why is a liberal so blind to the idea that organized crime thives in large government programs? Yet decade after decade Government programs are created to 'fix' things - yet they never do.

We have spent $22 trillion to fix Poverty in the USA, yet it's the same (or worse in bigger cities). How can this not be seen?

Also, everything the government touches gets more expensive and has less innovation. "Free" markets ignored, mostly, by Government and you get more for less - proven by history!

The Daniel 🖖 1y ago

I’ll need to spend more time than I have at the moment if to give this a proper answer but I’ll keep this one brief.

Yes, the government is corrupt. Yes, both major political parties were captured by corporations and banks long ago. It hurts to see so many people fail to understand this.

You can be a progressive idealist and still completely disagree with mainstream politics.

On the topic of science, there is more than enough consensus that global warming is real, and denial of the data is as easy to disprove as flat earthism.

Even Max Keiser agrees with this one, and he’s not exactly in the progressive camp.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

StackSats.IO 1y ago

Max is a retard.

Climate change is real - humans don’t have the ability to stop it, it’s driven by solar activity.

Now what?

Should we bankrupt ourselves to pretend that governments can fix it? They can’t fix anything else, they create the vast majority of problems in every country but we should entrust them to somehow fix the climate?

What do we about India and China who keep doing more to emit CO2 and have no intention of stopping?

Humans adapt to climates through technology. They use fossil fuels for better construction of buildings, use of materials, machinery to control our localised temperatures such that we don’t have to deal with extremes - should we stop the very thing that has seen a **massive** reduction in climate related deaths over the last century as we’ve adapted because of a modelled future?

The Daniel 🖖 1y ago

Solar activity? Where are you even getting that information from?

StackSats.IO 1y ago

Do you want to deny that the sun is not the principle factor on earths climate? Is your argument that humans have a greater impact on climate (anthropological climate change) rather than the sun?

You know seasons are driven by earths relation to the sun right? Literally every place on earth has sun-affected seasons and that has existed long before humans were here.

The sun has its own cycles. It affects our oceans (70% of the planet). That affects winds/atmosphere. Those things affect extreme weather which is always pinned on “climate change” even though the link to the sun is ignored.

The sun is a giant ball of fire. It’s not some stagnant thing that just throws off heat and light in some steady state. None of this is controversial.

I just want to be clear that you are arguing that humanity is causing climate change above and beyond what the sun is, and that you believe with coordinated action this can be arrested?

The Daniel 🖖 1y ago

Heat from the giant ball of plasma (not fire) gets trapped in the earth’s atmosphere due to the release of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels by human activity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This was known even then, as early as the 1830s.

DRUNKODELL 1y ago

What

StackSats.IO 1y ago

I know I put forth a few questions so let me try to be succinct:

You believe that humans release of CO2 has a greater impact on the changing climate of earth than the sun does?

You also believe that humans can coordinate to stop this impact (over and above that of the sun) but that we’ll be fine just dealing with the impacts of sun-affected climate change (which you haven’t denied)?

The Daniel 🖖 1y ago

It’s not a belief. Throughout over a million years that humans have existed, the vast amount of warming has taken place over less than 200 years, in tandem with the advancement of industry, which is inconsistent with the theory of solar-caused climate disruption that takes place over exponentially longer time periods.

StackSats.IO 1y ago

Ok mate, you’ve not answered my pretty basic questions. I’m trying to pin down exactly what you are arguing so I can debate in good faith rather than put words in your mouth. Not wanting to address those questions head-on goes against your arguments, not mine.

You can’t claim a million years of humanity and then base historic records on fucking icecores because that’s all we’ve got before the advent of thermometers and widespread use thereof ~150 years ago. You’re mixing actual data with scientism.

Too much of your arguments is based on such scientism. Models by experts. And none of it accounts for solar cyclicality.

The Daniel 🖖 1y ago

The arguments I’ve heard seem to be that:

(a) it isn’t happening at all

(b) humans don’t play a role

(d) there is no solution

These are contradictory, yet they are the most common denialist positions.

StackSats.IO 1y ago

I wrote some long notes which were maybe hard to answer so I gave the benefit of the doubt and pulled it back to 2 concise questions with context and this is your response..

At this point, undoubtedly, you are the one moving the goalposts Daniel; not me.

If you can’t answer basic questions and make a direct argument against the sun being the primary driver of climate change then I quite simply contend that you are beholden to a narrative that you haven’t fully explored yourself.

Have you read this book?: nostr:note1kexprper82q0wlt3qcwcxazmv5348magqm2yn7u8vfak37alxa9qc8yncc

If you haven’t then you don’t know any of the counterarguments to your position, no different to a shitcoiner arguing for their token without having done even basic research on Bitcoin.

You have to know your oppositions arguments if you’re to make a solid case for your position and this thread had demonstrated you simply can’t.

That doesn’t mean you’re wrong and I’m right, it does mean you can’t win an argument because you don’t know the other side of what you are actually arguing which means you refuse to actually engage things head-on.

As a Bitcoiner this should be a red flag for yourself that you only have one side of the story and yet you’re here spruiking it rather than reading what your opposition says.

saminbelize 1y ago

Science isn’t a consensus sport, check the history of science. There are simple experiments anyone can do to prove the earth is a globe, are there any simple experiments anyone can do to verify humanity is in peril due to climate change?

The Daniel 🖖 1y ago

These types of experiments are not simple, especially when it comes to modeling climate in a vast interconnected system of atmosphere, oceans, land, and biodiversity. This has been researched for over a century.

Fred Johnston 1y ago

Predictions of the end times have been around for 1000's of years.

We overcome with technology.

Regardless, Government and 'consensus' never fix anything.

This was the point - But most of the narratives in the article below were created by a central Government consensus - ALWAYS backed by science, never happening. This is likely the ONLY fact and should make most question authority or Governments ability to fix anything (since from a cost/advancement perspective Government has made everything it touches worse)!

Trying to stay on topic - understanding why we get so mislead thinkking central authority expansion will fix things. Wouldn't it be better to start your OWN private non-profit to 'fix' what progressives believe needs to be fixed? If it fails, you know it was the wrong path!?

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/