People don't pay attention long enough. We have 20 solid years of non-stop doomsday predictions, all of which were wrong. Nobody pays any attention to this, they just go right on believing all the new baseless doomsday predictions. Meanwhile actual looming disasters are ignored.
>No, that is a take that you have been fed by those who have gigantic vested interests in stopping any attempts to challenge THEIR power and profits.
Like who? The evil oil companies who are one of the major drivers of the greenwashed consumerism that is being touted as the solution to "climate change"? They don't care about oil, they care about money. They invest in whatever they think will make them money, including silly nonsense like wind and solar.
>You are being used as a useful idiot to spread uncertainty about absolute facts about absolutely real and highly pressing threats to our entire planet.
That's a very arrogant take on it. No part of climate hysteria is absolute facts, and climate hysteria is very clearly distracting people from REAL highly pressing threats to our ecosystems. We're letting huge portions of the oceans DIE while we pretend it is because of CO2 emissions, rather than doing something about the disposable consumer culture driving the massive amount of pollution coming from Chinese rivers and causing the problem. We just want to go on causing the problem, but pretend that charging our worthless electronic garbage from a solar panel instead of a natural gas plant makes it ok.
>Stop repeating them. Stop repeating them NOW. Stop helping those who put their own profits before the needs of all of humanity. Stop helping bring about destruction. Just stop
Consider taking your own advice. You are promoting an environmentally destructive system driven by corporate greed because it is a current social virtue to do so. Are you going to come back and apologize to all the people you needlessly lashed out at in 30 years when the shambling corpse of the climate boogeyman can no longer be made to look scary? When you realize that promoting the continuation of an unsustainable global economic system CAUSED a real global catastrophe, rather than preventing one? Or will you gradually allow yourself to pretend you never really believed in global warming and always knew it was fake as that becomes the predominant opinion?
Multiple people have made every attempt at having a discussion with you, and yet you continue to ignore this and keep repeating the same red herring. Nothing in your post has any relevance to the discussion, and your statement was false, as I showed you.
Yes. Can you explain the difference for me? The only difference I can find is that colonialism was done with the support of the people in the country, while immigration in white countries today is being done against the wishes of the people in the country.
Why is it some sort of nefarious scheme to "convince" white people that other people invading their countries is bad, but also white people invading non-white's countries was also bad? People have a right to their countries. Immigration is being forced on people against their will. This is wrong.
>they positioned themselves that social media platforms should use “constitutional logic” when regulating speech in their platform l,
I don't know if that was said, but it certainly is not the case with current twitter.
>which, for better or worse, depending on context and things, “kill all white men” would pass the fee speech test.
In which case "KILL ALL BLACK MEN" would pass too. One is allowed, the other is not.
>On the other hand I’ve seen tons and tons of sexist, misogynistic, white supremacist tweets that are super prominent on the platform.
I hear that often, but I never see any support for it. When pressed on it, what I get as "proof" is completely mundane posts that only extreme leftists would classify as any of those things.
>Do you complain about balance issues for places like say, Voat as well?
As well? I don't complain about them at all. Pointing out that it exists when people deny it is not complaining.
>I seem to only hear concerns about balance when it has to do with a perceived bias against the right.
Well I see two obvious differences that could cause that. The first simply being size. Facebook, google, twitter, reddit, etc are all, as organizations, far-left. And they all use their platforms to silence things they disapprove of, and push their politics. Whatever sites do the same from a far-right perspective are tiny. So, obviously there would be far more complaining from the far larger group of people who use the biggest sites on the web.
Second, all the supposed "far right" websites I see mentioned don't appear to be far right at all, and don't appear to do much or any moderating. They are "far right" because people with left wing views choose not to participate, not because they get banned. There's a big difference between being removed from a platform for having an unapproved view, vs being allowed to post your unapproved view and then people tell you it is wrong.
First of all, no you can not. Go try to kick a black person out of your business for being black and let me know how that goes. Second, what does your statement have to do with the discussion? I said balance isn't a false paradigm, how is "it is legal to be biased" a response to that?
When you get banned for simply posting facts that one group dislikes, while "KILL ALL WHITE MEN" is totally fine and acceptable, there's definitely a balance problem. The idea that one socio-political viewpoint is objectively correct, and another is the same as believing the earth is flat is not a reasonable analogy.
Which increases rain, as I said. The most highly productive ecosystems on the planet are hot. Rainforests are not scary bad things to be afraid of. California is running out of water because they draw too much water, not because of CO2. Huge portions of the planet are currently drawing water from aquifers and natural reservoirs faster than they refill, and rely on that inherently unsustainable practice to irrigate crops. In a few decades, we could see massive starvation in India as water runs out. And instead of even TALKING about this problem much less promoting sustainable agriculture, climate hysteria distracts from it so it goes unaddressed, allows these problems to continue, then blames them on CO2.
>I'm sure Jakarta would like a word.
Blaming every flood on "climate change" is precisely the problem. Has the number of floods increased? No. Has the severity? No. Has sea level rise accelerated? No. Have hurricanes increased in size or severity? No. Yet every time any of these events occurs now, we're blasted with "look its climate change how dare you deny it!" in the media.
Possibly, although as I mentioned he's not alone in his claims, he does have a fair bit of evidence, and he is most certainly not western nor is his claim new.
So? Every single wikipedia article on anything controversial is trash. Even things you don't realize are controversial, but a few random people have an emotional investment in. Wikipedia does not require valid citations, most citations on wikipedia don't support the claims made in the articles.
>You? Zero.
I am not writing an encyclopedia article.
>I mean, you can go trawl through the data yourself
I have, which is why I suggested that you try it. Do yourself a favor, watch this 13 minute video, then go look at the data he is referencing and see for yourself that he's correct. Climate hysteria is political, and supposedly trustworthy scientific organizations are engaged in deliberate deception to push lies. https://hooktube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU
>Because it's gonna be another bullshit thing, one after another
Like all the climate hysteria predictions made based on these infallible computer models, which have a 0% accuracy rate thus far. The warming has thus far has been insignificant. The effect has been beneficial. CO2 itself is highly beneficial. All claims of disaster are based entirely on speculation. Remember, many Pacific islands were predicted to be GONE by now. They are not. Several are larger. Forgive me if I base my actions on the actual data rather than predictions made by people who have a zero percent success rate.
>Well TBH trolls like you have a net negative effect on the entire discourse and the culture here
Dismissing things you don't want to know about as "trolling" has a net negative effect. If you care about discourse, stop trying to make currently popular fads into religious requirements for talking on a website.
>stop embarrassing yourself and don't bother commenting
How many more decades of failed predictions will it take before you feel embarrassed about your blind repetition of lies about data you never bothered to look at?
There is no evidence linking the fires to "climate change". And I can find no evidence of any such famine even existing. Droughts are caused by depleting the water supply, not by warm weather. Warm weather increases rain.
>seas taking over the cities
Has not happened. The rate of sea level rise has been stable for the 120 years we have good data. It has not accelerated.
>are all demonstrable effects of climate change
None of them are. They are things people insist MUST be caused by "climate change", but do so only using "common sense", rather than any actual evidence. Demonstrable requires evidence, not "common sense".