This is probably bad because Tucker has a big audience and they now think Ver is an authority.
That’s not emotional, my dude. It’s me setting a limitation on how much of your bullshit I’m willing to suffer.
What’s gonna set you free? Look inside and you see.
When you got so much to say, it’s called GRATITUDE.
~Beastie Boys
Me saying, “this conversation is over if you agree with either of the above” is not an example of politicizing anything, as you have alleged.
To repeat, the “either of the above” was my request that your confirm your extraordinary claim that either:
1. over 50% of ALL scientists don’t believe in climate change, or
2. over 50% of climate scientists specifically are lying in order to remain employed.
Again, you said “most scientists don’t believe the hoax.” Rather than answering, you changed to state that you have friends who can’t question the narrative. “Most of my friends think something” is not evidence. It’s anecdotal. Regardless, I agree with you that good science is about remaining open to questions.
So, let me ask you these questions:
1. What do you think about habitat loss and over-harvesting driven primarily by our global food system are the dominant threats to wildlife populations around the world?
2. What do you think about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?
3. What do you think is causing species (plants, animals, insects) and wildlife degradation to the tune of 73% over the last 50 years?
Who would have thought. Spraying massive quantities of chemicals that ag-chemical multinationals have told us are safe onto food we eat might not be.
https://www.earth.com/news/herbicide-exposure-linked-to-brain-inflammation-and-cognitive-decline/
Michael Clayton
You don’t have to mention insurance companies. I did, in my OP. I’ll respond to your other post, later, but it’s easier to respond to this one quickly.
Insurance companies are not a monolith. While it may be correct to say that if they deem something is high risk, then they charge more, it is incorrect to state that they all do. Insurance companies compete against each other. If one, or several, charge more for something that isn’t real (as you put it),
then others will write affordable policies and earn more customers. What we are seeing is even more extreme. Insurance companies are simply pulling out of markets entirely, refusing to write policies to collect premiums. California wild fires are a good example. State Farm refuses to underwrite because the costs are too great, and the inevitability of claims too certain. Extreme weather events due to changing climate are evident in the southwest, as well. Try getting flood insurance in Florida.
Will respond to your other post later.
No one, and I mean NO ONE, is high enough to watch this from beginning to end.
…But I could be wrong.
Thanks for your opinion.
I’m curious, where did you find information to assert that “most (i.e. more than 50%) scientists don’t believe the hoax”? That’s an extraordinary claim. Are you referring to ALL scientists (e.g. plant biologists, marine biologists, ornithologists, entomologists, etc.)? Or are you asserting that over 50% of climate scientists, specifically, are lying in order to keep their jobs?
Or, perhaps you’d like to restate because, if you’re saying either of the above, this conversation is over and I’d doubt very much that you were a meteorologist in the Navy. (Or perhaps my understanding if what that title conveys is incorrect.)
Further, as I pointed to in my OP, are you equally certain that insurance companies believe there’s “no data showing evidence” of climate change? (Note that I didn’t say “global warming,” you did and it’s important to distinguish the two.) Or, are they all lying, too.
Similarly, If you are saying either of the above, I don’t think you understand how insurance markets work, or markets in general, for that matter.
The #bitcoin to #gold ratio 
You may not believe in climate science or climate change. You may call it a #ClimateHoax.
But, the US military (and your insurance company) begs to differ so, whether you like it or not, you need to plan and invest accordingly. …And maybe reconsider your stance.
To wit: the US Navy foresee increased warfare due to the effects of climate change, as well as maritime infrastructure challenges posed by rising sea levels.
https://news.usni.org/2022/05/24/department-of-the-navy-climate-action-2030
Do not trust David Sacks, Anon.
Signed,
a bitcoiner
I know this is hard for pre-coiners to believe, given that what they’ve been told about Bitcoin is that it’s risky, but it’s now been demonstrated that there is not a more conservative investment than Bitcoin.
Literally every other asset class carries more risk of:
1. dilution (e.g. equities)
2. debasement (e.g. currencies)
3. counterparty failure (e.g. bonds)
4. ongoing CapEx/OpEx maintenance (e.g. real estate)
Bitcoin still faces regulatory risks, but those are fading now that Gensler is on his way out the door, and perception risks (environmental, legal), but those are fading now that Digiconimist has been repeatedly exposed as a liar and it’s overwhelmingly clear that Bitcoin is used by more than “just criminals.”
The main risk I see now is a personal/emotional one. The average investor performs poorly because they FOMO in and panic sell rather than simply hodling for a long time.
The results of a dispassionate DCA strategy are both obvious and profitable.
#StayHumble #Hodl
I don’t drink anymore, but was always partial to Einstock. Icelandic beer, brewed with coriander and orange peel.