UN IPCC finally admits what I and several others have known for a while, the doomsday scenarios were and are BS. And yet they'll keep pushing the agenda to tax us to death while "trust the science" people sell us down the river by voting in politicians that want take our rights away and tax us to death. More at the link. https://energynewsbeat.co/enb-publi...y-has-been-spent-on-net-zero-because-of-lies/
Dishonest representation of an already dishonest article, written by a paid shill of oil companies. Fuck you.
The substance of the change is that - due to reductions in the amount of coal being burned now and planned for the future - worst case scenarios have been avoided and are now considered implausible. This is not the same as saying that they were implausible in the first place - as you are stating. It's particularly malicious given that the real story here ought to be that the action taken to mitigate risks has been successful, thus warranting more such action, not less. The current trajectory for climate change is still very, very bad. You'd know these things if you weren't arguing from a conclusion and thus only interested in spreading dangerous propaganda.
Somalia is starving worse than ever, thanks to four years of drought and the wars against Ukraine and against Iran and Trump cutting aid https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/02/1167026 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-famine-trump-aid-cuts-iran-war-b2976537.html https://umcmission.org/story/responding-to-drought-and-famine-in-the-horn-of-africa/
https://bsky.app/profile/calgaryclimatehub.ca/post/3mp7pyuvrr22l But this is somehow better than using those same methods to build high speed trains, according to Lubak.
Oh, look, it turns out that a bunch of climate scientists were bribed to fake the results of a study. By an oil company. https://x.com/ben_inskeep/status/2071553351079084447?s=46&t=iYW3foyqIA6Tn8VWwn3nwQ
Damn it, it looks like Greta got to Thomas Jefferson! https://bsky.app/profile/capitalweather.com/post/3mpt7tkwf2i2a
So, this is bad. TL;DR version: All the folks who did research on global warming never thought to take into account things like air pollution caused by massive forest fires until the past couple of years.
Harder to blame that on humans in a way that allows you meddle in their personal freedom or wring money out of them.
If climate change is caused by humans (which seems to be overwhelmingly established by scientific evidence, and I say that as someone who 15 years ago was still somewhat sceptical on the subject), then the massive forest fires that result from that climate chage certainly can be blamed on people. And requiring people to contribute to behaviour that provides for the general well-being of everyone is appropriate. Personal freedom is not and should not be unlimited. As has often been said, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Preventing me from doing things that hurt you is not "meddling" in personal freedom. If you were all alone in the world, you could do whatever you want. But you aren't, so there have to be rules about what you can do to others, and what others can do to you.
You're not going to sell me on communism in an environmentalist wrapper, and I'll believe everyone is serious about climate change when China and India are held to the same standards as every western nation. Even then, you are NOT forcing me into an electric car full of surveilance devices.
As evidenced by my unambiguous, vocal support for corporate welfare, which you were just about to quote any second now... No? This is all about your petulant insistance that the world owes you a living, "justified" by the shitty conduct of corporations and billionaires? Neat.
Oh for fuck's sake. Your mindset is stuck in the 2010s at the latest. China has been in a massive modernization boom since the 2000s, and aggressively took measures to curb pollution starting in the 2010s. While it still has the highest total CO2 emissions, it outperforms in terms of renewable energy and in electric vehicles, has a massive freeway system that makes the Interstates look quaint, and now has the largest high-speed rail network in the world, and has vehicle emission standards that would make California jealous. India itself is in the middle of its modernization boom, building out its intercity freeway and high-speed rail networks, and is going all-in with solar and wind power. The difference between the two is that China's centralized government works to their advantage here, and Xi Ji Ping can hold local government careers over their heads if they don't meet goals, while India's federal system gives a lot more autonomy to its 27 states, and still has issues with the seasonal agricultural burnings, along with the physical geography trapping smog over the subcontinent -- you know, that wall called the Himalayas? Either way, both countries are quietly making us look like temper-tantrum throwing toddlers, especially the corporations who see any attempt to curb their emissions as a threat to their bottom line, the politicians who are hard for their lobbyists, the megarich who don't give a fuck because fuck you they've got theirs, peasant, and the dumbfucks who blindly slobber these congressional knobs. YOU'RE -- as in, YOU -- aren't the problem when it comes to curbing emissions, unless you'd rather drive a leaded gasoline jalopy, despite what the pushers want to claim. Sure, do your part. Ride a bike instead of drive. Use less water, less energy. All good, but only a drop in the bucket. Push for light-rail in Omaha/Council Bluffs, and in Lincoln (not a bad idea, long term) if it interests you. But if you don't know what geopolitical situations are and how they've evolved, and have no interest in knowing, shut the fuck up and save face.
I wouldn't think of it, since I am totally opposed to communism. It has never worked outside a small, selected community, and even there it has never worked for very long. At the same time, I am also opposed to people calling every rule that makes it easier for people to live together and society to function as a whole "communism", just because they don't happen to like it. That usage is only dismal ignorance (showing that people don't have any idea what comminism is) or blatant dishonesty (since it is simply the logical fallacy known as a "strawman", whereby you substitute some vaguely similar and easily discredited principle for what the other person actually said, hoping he won't notice you have totally changed the subject).
i truly believe history is being made here right in front of us...UA is the only known (at least to me) 'male' of the spiecies to suffer from either of 2 female issues he is in a permanent state of ministrations or he is suffering chronic permanent menopause (get it???). i mean even he surpasses all of the women of the world with his symptoms
