There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that warmer climates or previously cold areas becoming warm has any effect other than less death. Cold is the absolute #1 environmental killer. And all of the warming we have seen so far is almost exclusively in the colder areas, which still have no clear and direct link to CO2 levels, despite the broad acceptance that there is a cause and effect, which conveniently takes huge breaks, or reverse for a little while.

Nothing over the last 100 years about more energy and warmer temperatures suggest anything at all except that fewer people die and there is more and greener environments. In fact environmental deaths have fallen faster than the value of the dollar.

The dollar inflation has only had it lose ~98% of its value, while environmental deaths have fallen by more than 99%.

Your belief is pure propaganda and extrapolation that doesn't align with reality. Environmental deaths have virtually done nothing but decline.

Quite to the contrary to this bizarre belief, life exploded inexplicably, the literal "Cambrian explosion," when CO2 levels ranged in the 3,000-8,000 parts per million.

And if levels ever fell below 150 ppm (which ironically we came pretty close to reaching in the pre-industrial age) its quite possible that most life on earth would simply die out.

Levels below 300 are generally associated with ice ages and environmental destruction.

It really is wild to me that the propaganda has been so strong that people literally think CO2 is bad for the environment. Even people trying to counter the idea, tacitly frame their position in this direction (like but methane is even worse!) to not cause outrage.

CO2 is literally the only reason an environment exists. It is the literal life creator.

It's like demonizing language itself as being "bad for communication."

Where my 58K gang at? 🫡 🔥

Congrats everybody we did it. We killed bitcoin X 😂

Is there a way to log in to primal via web by authenticating via the primal app?

Theory: I have this theory of probabilistic influence where i think it might be possible to turn up the temperature on a person algorithmically.

In the old days intelligence agencies had to have direct contact with a would be shooter if they were going to groom someone for an assassination, today I believe it’s possible via algorithms, targeting, online groups etc… to do all of that remotely with no direct engagement.

The new thing isn’t digital grooming. That’s been happening.

It’s more like an algorithmic volume knob where you can increase the probability that something happens to someone.

We already know that modern algorithmic environments can increase baseline risk factors in a population the speculative leap I’m making is something like… you can take someone from >1% risk of assassination to 20% risk of assassination and your hands are never anywhere near the murder weapon so to speak.

I have no proof this theory is real. I have no proof that power has shifted from direct coercion to probability shaping, this is just something I think might be happening.