# Do politicians actually believe global warming is a real treat in the near future?



## ErrForceOnez (Jul 3, 2021)

Does anyone actually believe that politicians in the US or Europe actually buy into the narrative that 'man made' (preventable) global warming will have a catastrophic effect in the near future (say the next 30 to 40 years)?
None of these people (as far as I am aware, certainly not the big names in the US at least) are ever publicly critical of outsourcing manufacturing. If you produce a product in the US/Europe (even before we had a push to clean up emissions with legal restrictions) you are typically producing less carbon emissions (and pollution in general) than if you produce that same product in China (or India or Indonesia or wherever in the third world, but specifically China because they have grown their economy so much from this). This is before you even factor in whatever carbon impact shipping products across the ocean on a boat has. Creating laws that make it more expensive to produce products in the US is effectively just pushing companies (that can afford to) to shift their production to the third world, where there is no reason not to do it a cheap and dirty as possible (this also puts their smaller competition in a position where they are priced out of the market, as now domestic production becomes prohibitively expensive and they can't afford to ship their operation overseas - which means their market share will now be taken over by the competition which means even more volume produced in the higher-emission environment).

Another political belief that you tend to see these same people push for is third world migration into the US/Europe (in the US mostly through wanting to allow illegal immigrants to become naturalized and in Europe through wanting to take in more 'refugees'). There are obviously financial motives behind this (in the US it drives down the cost of what labor remains in the US, in Europe they seem to think that it will solve their low birthrate issue, which makes some of their socialized policies unsustainable long-term), but it is completely incompatible with a view that the world will potentially be uninhabitable in the near future. A human living in the third world has a much smaller carbon footprint than that same person living in the US/Europe. These people also tend to come from cultures that have a far higher birthrate (as in more children per household) than the nations they are migrating into, which means an exponentially larger population generation over generation (and in turn a much much larger future carbon footprint).

I am not trying to argue against the validity of 'man made' global warming, nor am I even arguing for/against any doomsday timescale, I am saying that there is no reason to ever definitively believe that any modern politician believes a word of this (unless you choose to believe that they are sociopaths and just do not care). They should not be taken seriously and any laws aimed at global warming pushed by these people should be outright rejected until they are willing to address immigration and outsourcing of labor.


----------



## Niggernerd (Jul 3, 2021)

Lol no but they know it'll put more money in their pockets via donations from useful idiots who want to feel morally superior to others.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Jul 3, 2021)

No, stupid ideas are for the proles.


----------



## Alkaline Cab (Jul 3, 2021)

I'd think so - at the very least in terms of hurricanes, floods, desertification, and other things that don't effect the first world.
They're just paid to look the other way.


----------



## Chilson (Jul 3, 2021)

No, because if they did care they would actually address the major causes instead of attacking the auto industry and pushing ineffective green energy, both of which don't do dick to actually curb emissions.

The five largest super cargo ships produce more emissions in a year than all cars on the planet, but no one ever talks about it. The oceans reefs are dying not because of global warming, but we massively over fish the nautical animals that maintain the reefs.

The list goes on and on and the only unifying factor is that the major causes are all major industries with a mind-bogglingly massive lobbying presence on Capital hill (and within NGO's/non-profits).


----------



## Ghost of Wesley Willis (Jul 3, 2021)

Probably the only ones that do are the hippie types in Green Parties across the world, but the average one that holds power probably doesn't behind closed doors because they know it's a good tool of control.


----------



## Niggernerd (Jul 3, 2021)

Ghost of Wesley Willis said:


> Probably the only ones that do are the hippie types in Green Parties across the world, but the average one that holds power probably doesn't behind closed doors because they know it's a good tool of control.


Even that would be a stretch. A lot of those hippie types that have protests/events are ones who leave the biggest mess.


----------



## byuu (Jul 3, 2021)

Greed and corruption override any actual belief they might have.


----------



## No. 7 cat (Jul 3, 2021)

I highly doubt it. Most 'green' measures are designed to enrich their rent seeking friends or their corporate / TBTB patrons. There was a point with emissions, say, where there was an issue with public health, but in most places, green measures are notably only for piously presented corruption and impunity.


----------



## “Fun”times (Jul 3, 2021)

Pfffft, fuck no, a lot of them buying up beach front property and lobbying against the big bad alternative power source that is nuclear (because every nuclear power plant is a piece of shit Chernobyl and we totally haven’t developed  cleaner and more efficient techniques since then) proves otherwise. If a politician is pushing “green” energy look at who’s sponsoring them, if they or someone related to them has their fingers in the pie. Otherwise they’d bitch at the chinamen for overfishing the ever loving shit outta oceans and stop sending shit overseas for a cheap buck.


----------



## Save the Loli (Jul 3, 2021)

I'm sure a few of them genuinely do (Greta Thunberg does, for instance), but by and large the global elite simply intends to use the actual problem of global warming as a tool to get their agenda pushed forward and solidified both now and in the future. Never let a crisis go to waste, after all. We all know that man-made or not, they could step in at any moment and start taking it seriously, and I mean _serious seriously_, and make it so environmental laws aren't just "pay the 50 cent carbon tax to park your car" but using the actual resources of the government to start building serious energy infrastructure like nuclear power plants and giant solar farms hooked up to pumped-storage reservoirs and other means of updating the grid. It shouldn't matter the cost or if the government can only bomb 49 weddings in the Middle East instead of 50, we are told it's a matter of life and death and that means the government absolutely must do something just like a couple extra fat boomers dying meant everything had to close down.

This is why all of the "save the planet" measures are passed on to the plebs. It isn't these giant corporations's job to save the planet, it's YOUR job, citizen. Enjoy the insignificant dent you and your fellow plebs make in greenhouse gas emissions as you eat a diet of soy and bugs and ride cramped public transit (since you had to sell your car because the carbon taxes were too high), and stay at home in a dark house where the AC, heat, and electricity run only 15 minutes an hour because of the ongoing climate lockdown (better sell your house too, since only the pods are exempt from climate lockdowns). This is why "eat the bugs" and "we need more climate taxes and lockdowns!" are what the media pushes for instead of more common sense ways to have an impact on emissions like "require landfill gas capture at landfills" and "do something about how cargo shipping lines use international waters and flags of shitholes like Liberia and Panama to get away with insane amounts of pollution and emissions." But that would require actual journalism which might offend corporations and might require government regulators to do something instead of collect a salary and browse Facebook all day.

Basically it will be like 2020/2021 but played out over the course of decades in terms of how they will use misguided "environmental" laws to reshape the global economy and how labor works. I think they're hoping for climate change to get really bad and actually cause shit like megadroughts in India and floods of refugees everywhere which they can use for cheap labor, destabilizing countries, and replacing/subjugating native populations to finalize their master plan of turning the world into a mass of cultureless serfs indebted to major corporations.


----------



## Joe Swanson (Jul 3, 2021)

If global warming was a real threat like the alarmists portray, there would be a hard push by the elites for nuclear power as it's the only power source within our grasp that can actually offset fossil fuels


----------



## Not Really Here (Jul 3, 2021)

If they did they wouldn't own beachfront property or islands.


----------



## Pixy (Jul 3, 2021)

Depends on which politicians you're talking to. The ones from small island nations that stand the most to lose from it most likely do.

Of course, they don't command as much sway on the international stage as larger nations might, unfortunately.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Jul 3, 2021)

I think you'll find no more than a dozen politicians in America who genuinely give a fuck. It's not a matter of belief at all. That's small people talk. There's a talking point that could keep them in power indefinitely if they play their cards right. All they have to do is talk big and then throw a few grand towards making prisoners clean up more medians along the road.

I really shouldn't have to say this, but if politicians were in the business of getting shit done, shit would get done, or at least there would be an outcome at some point. The truth is, they don't try, they're too busy fucking children and marketing themselves for those sweet, sweet, campaign donations/corporate bribes/war economy dollary-doos. Don't be fucking naive.


----------



## Bad Gateway (Jul 3, 2021)

*shakes magic 8 ball*

"Ask again when electric cars fail"?

That's oddly specific.


----------



## Chilson (Jul 3, 2021)

Ghost of Wesley Willis said:


> Probably the only ones that do are the hippie types in Green Parties across the world, but the average one that holds power probably doesn't behind closed doors because they know it's a good tool of control.


The hippie types in green parties are utter fucking morons. They are also bought and sold by corporations the same as the other political groups, they are often too stupid to know it though.


----------



## Ghost of Wesley Willis (Jul 3, 2021)

Chilson said:


> The hippie types in green parties are utter fucking morons. They are also bought and sold by corporations the same as the other political groups, they are often too stupid to know it though.


The hippie types and the general 'activist' are nothing more than tools for the rich and powerful and have been for the past couple decades.

Extinction Rebellion making bank vandalization look pathetic is a good example of this.


----------



## HERO_V (Jul 4, 2021)

If these politicians actually believed in "climate change" they would truly lead by example and show the populace how serious this issue is. Instead, they continue living their lives with double standards and expecting peasants (us) to live one way of life, while the elite get to maintain their status and continue on with business as usual. These are the same people that fly their private jets to an award show to give a speech on the dangers of global warming and how we need to protect the environment. They are also the same people that buy large mansions that use up more fossil fuels than most people use in months, if not years. On top of that, you have people like Obama buying a home on the ocean front, despite talking about the dangers of ocean water levels rising. They don't believe in this nonsense. It's just their form of religion that they strictly hold onto for the purpose of transforming the economy, increasing the wealth gap, and strengthening their grip over foreign nations. It's all a complete farce. That's not to say that we shouldn't protect the environment and be aware of our surroundings, but we shouldn't throw away everything on studies that can easily be manipulated for the purpose of pushing an evil global agenda.


----------



## Irrelevant (Jul 4, 2021)

ErrForceOnez said:


> None of these people (as far as I am aware, certainly not the big names in the US at least) are ever publicly critical of outsourcing manufacturing. If you produce a product in the US/Europe (even before we had a push to clean up emissions with legal restrictions) you are typically producing less carbon emissions (and pollution in general) than if you produce that same product in China (or India or Indonesia or wherever in the third world, but specifically China because they have grown their economy so much from this). This is before you even factor in whatever carbon impact shipping products across the ocean on a boat has. Creating laws that make it more expensive to produce products in the US is effectively just pushing companies (that can afford to) to shift their production to the third world, where there is no reason not to do it a cheap and dirty as possible (this also puts their smaller competition in a position where they are priced out of the market, as now domestic production becomes prohibitively expensive and they can't afford to ship their operation overseas - which means their market share will now be taken over by the competition which means even more volume produced in the higher-emission environment).


They completely ignored this in 4+ years of the Brexit debate. The left wing environmentalists were suddenly all repeating capitalist theory of "comparative advantage" as a reason to stay in the EU.

But even a good capitalist can recognise that maybe food being grown, processed, and sold in three different countries is a bit excessive. Or cars where every part is made somewhere else and shipped around in multiple stages.


----------



## Wallace (Jul 4, 2021)

I'll believe they mean it when I see the Kennedy compound in Martha's Vineyard and the Bush compound in Kennebunkport go on the market at fire sale prices. Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 5, 2021)

It is a threat in the way a fire in the house is a choking hazard. There are cheap technological solutions like a chimney.

And each of the supposed irreversible climate changes have fallen flat and depend on fudged numbers on where they're recorded to build an alarmist rise of temperature rather than the expected one. But even if it were the case there would be cheap solutions.

But cheap solutions don't faccilitate massive transfers of wealth or control over every productive (non-service) activity in the world.


----------



## MadStan (Jul 5, 2021)

The more you understand the physics behind global climate change, simply put, the more damning it gets.  I brushed it off 15 years ago as "tree huggers gone wild"; but I know differently now. And yes there are immediate threats, mid range and long term. The cascade effects are so involved and widespread. While there are mostly losers, there are winners, but winning is going to a relative title.

Do leaders believe this? Some do and some do not. Will it matter? Probably not - the tipping point has already been reached and breached and there are only choices to be made that are different degrees of bad.

I can not reveal a source but I was given classified reports some time ago that were given to certain members of the United States government that outlined with high degrees of certainty what will happen in the immediate, short and long term and I can assure you it was all very, very bad.  To my knowledge the report was limited in distribution to exclude most US Senators and almost all House members.  I can't tell you why or how I got the report so do not pry. 

The authors who were paid to do the study in association with US government departments (mostly NASA and the CIA - who are actually very involved in the data collection of just about everything you could imagine) are not permitted to comment on the studies or discuss the conclusions or in fact even discuss that they did the studies.

After reading the studies I can only say that if there is a member of the government who has read the reports and is not clamoring for urgent action it is either because their party affiliation does not permit it, or they see no point in raising alarms and see no point in making piece meal efforts. Probably the latter. 

The books you read by others about climate change warning of this-and-that have underestimated the effects by _quite a margin _and this has been confirmed since I read the reports in 2015 with about as much said by Scientists that measures have exceeded models.  A reason for the miscalculations is that some data is not being released to the public institutions and is considered classified.

One interesting aspect of the study was the contemplation of a scenario whereby countries realizing that there was no escape would in fact expand their carbon footprint dramatically in order to increase their infrastructure to have a better chance of weathering the socio and economic effects of the changes to be experienced. 

So I have found the ramping up of investment in infrastructure globally not as a coincidence, but one of survival.

If anyone is interested I can outline some of the scenarios we are go going to experience and outline some of the others that are with greater uncertainty due to models reflecting errors the further out they are timewise.

I have not even discussed the studies with members of my own family because frankly, it is fucking sickening.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 5, 2021)

Menotaur said:


> The more you understand the physics behind global climate change, simply put, the more damning it gets.  I brushed it off 15 years ago as "tree huggers gone wild"; but I know differently now. And yes there are immediate threats, mid range and long term. The cascade effects are so involved and widespread. While there are mostly losers, there are winners, but winning is going to a relative title.
> 
> Do leaders believe this? Some do and some do not. Will it matter? Probably not - the tipping point has already been reached and breached and there are only choices to be made that are different degrees of bad.
> 
> ...


When the french king wanted his population to start eating potatoes as a staple, he knew he couldn't achieve it by ordering them to do it. So instead he said: these potatoes are only for me. He set up people to guard the potatogarden... badly.

In just a couple of years everyone was eating potatoes.

I would rank the CIA just about at the bottom of the list of whom's report I would trust and NASA not so far above it. Yes between them they have more access to knowledge than almost anyone. But would they be honest about it?


----------



## MadStan (Jul 5, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> When the french king wanted his population to start eating potatoes as a staple, he knew he couldn't achieve it by ordering them to do it. So instead he said: these potatoes are only for me. He set up people to guard the potatogarden... badly.
> 
> In just a couple of years everyone was eating potatoes.
> 
> I would rank the CIA just about at the bottom of the list of whom's report I would trust and NASA not so far above it. Yes between them they have more access to knowledge than almost anyone. But would they be honest about it?


Look, say what you want and have you opinion, but data collectors at NASA and the CIA aren't college kids or goofy internet tweebs, they are often some of the smartest mutherfuckers you could ever know. You can not imagine the detail of the data that was collected. We are talking about mountains of data. They did not do the study - they collected the data for the study. You don't get to work at NASA being a retard; and even in NASA in the top niches you've got brain power that is literally the power behind the term State-of-The-Art. NASA and the CIA and the EPA all have their studies - but this was different in that they were to provide data but not conclusions.


----------



## Fanatical Pragmatist (Jul 6, 2021)

Menotaur said:


> Look, say what you want and have you opinion, but data collectors at NASA and the CIA aren't college kids or goofy internet tweebs, they are often some of the smartest mutherfuckers you could ever know.


But apparently they share their sooper-secret studies with randos on the internet.

My brother is a top-secret black-hat hacker who hacked into your IP and my cousin is an NSA agent who kept tabs on your browsing history. They both tell me that you have 50,000,000GB of gay porn on your computer.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 6, 2021)

Menotaur said:


> They did not do the study - they collected the data for the study. You don't get to work at NASA being a retard; and even in NASA in the top niches you've got brain power that is literally the power behind the term State-of-The-Art. NASA and the CIA and the EPA all have their studies - but this was different in that they were to provide data but not conclusions


They are the best of the best in brain power... so if their intent was to deceive they'd be better at it than anyone?

Or how's this for an angle: their data didn't have a single conclusion, and yet you concluded some of the scenarios we're going to experience according to that data. That they were as you say "fucking sickening".

So either the data did include conclusions, or there was a middleman adding conclusions, or you made those conclusions.


----------



## MadStan (Jul 6, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> They are the best of the best in brain power... so if their intent was to deceive they'd be better at it than anyone?
> 
> Or how's this for an angle: their data didn't have a single conclusion, and yet you concluded some of the scenarios we're going to experience according to that data. That they were as you say "fucking sickening".
> 
> So either the data did include conclusions, or there was a middleman adding conclusions, or you made those conclusions.


Data on climate change comes from tens of thousands of sources. If you want to not believe the data then you don't have to.

But when observations match data being reported it is hard to dismiss the data as prejudiced especially when the data matches despite being under multiple different administrations and different persons with multiple different belief systems over decades spanning multiple states, countries and regions.

I have one family member that automatically rejects anything from any government source or from an academic in a field so I'm used to denial of information for use in a discussion and just accept that as par of the course in talking with some people.

And I have large disagreements with others who also accept the same data I have. Example: A guy I know wants the entire world to quickly and sharply drop its carbon footprint and to urgently take the matter in hand. I on the other hand point out the size of the carbon footprint it took to get the infrastructure to the size of the USA over the course of 1.5 centuries and argue is it really fair to ask lesser developed nations to simply not develop in order to prevent a footprint from being developed? Aren't they entitled to roads, building, bridges and shitty houses?

I think the solution is to wipe out a large majority of the worlds population and would support an effort to do this. He on other hand thinks this is disgusting and not required and calls me Hitler and a cunt for saying so.  So this is just an example of where 2 people accept the data and conclusions, but think differently about solutions - so we fight as much as 2 people with one party who thinks climate change is a hoax.

Even with me having read the studies, the reason I have never much mentioned it (even though I'm a retarded lefty)
and splurged on KF about it is that I doubt it would do any good anyways.

If someone can show precise evidence about (as a pure example) a proof of corruption by Trump - even when such evidence is clear, and can not get agreement on it purely on the basis of the other party liking the guy and wanting him to be President, then good fucking luck with something as complicated as Climate Change. If I can't get a guy to read a court brief, then why would I think I can make him read a few books?

I'm not going to change any one persons opinion, and even if I did I am of a personal belief that it won't amount to a hill of beans in change anyways at this stage. But in truth there is a difference between doing something about it and not which is why I support those that do something - even if I know it probably means little in the scheme of things.

I do not think the crisis will be averted and I think we are going to have to eat it before we believe the dish sucks. So be it.


----------



## Nigger Respecter (Jul 6, 2021)

I’m sure they believe it because it is real, but they are willing to ignore their beliefs because they can get a shitload of money by doing so and because they’ll be dead soon enough that it won’t affect them. Millions of people know things to be bad yet still do them anyway


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 6, 2021)

Menotaur said:


> I have one family member that automatically rejects anything from any government source or from an academic in a field so I'm used to denial of information for use in a discussion and just accept that as par of the course in talking with some people


Look nigger, you made a big fucking claim and said you could not divulge your source. I'm giving a bit of pushback to see how you deal with it and to see if it sheds some more light on it. It is your reaction that makes me doubtful more so than the content of what you claim.

You've claimed:
1. That this is base data without conclusions
2. You attached big fucking conclusions to them

So where do the conclusions come from? Is it your interpretation? Was there a middleman interpreting the data?



Menotaur said:


> Even with me having read the studies





Menotaur said:


> They did not do the study - they collected the data for the study


So who did the study/studies?



Menotaur said:


> If I can't get a guy to read a court brief, then why would I think I can make him read a few books?


You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I read fucking court transcripts of 50 year old cases to learn more how things like roe v wade came to pass. You know what you need to do to make me drink? Show where the water is. If it's important enough that you support genocide over this information, but at the same time, will not even share the information anonymously online or even with your own fucking family, the problem there is you, not how people respond to the data. You get to complain about their (our) ignorance after you share it and it goes ignored, but not before you double nigger.




Menotaur said:


> is it really fair to ask lesser developed nations to simply not develop in order to prevent a footprint from being developed? Aren't they entitled to roads, building, bridges and shitty houses?





Menotaur said:


> I think the solution is to wipe out a large majority of the worlds population and would support an effort to do this.


So we are all entitled to technological progress and services, but not life. Weird fucking way to look at things.



Menotaur said:


> (even though I'm a retarded lefty)


If you don't start sharing either your sources or answer some of the most basic questions about them, I'm inclined to agree with this statement.


----------



## MadStan (Jul 6, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Look nigger, you made a big fucking claim and said you could not divulge your source. I'm giving a bit of pushback to see how you deal with it and to see if it sheds some more light on it. It is your reaction that makes me doubtful more so than the content of what you claim.
> 
> You've claimed:
> 1. That this is base data without conclusions
> ...


Well I find your responses interesting and in some cases mildly offensive but not enough to get twisted up about it.

My rationale is it is better to give 600 Million people a terrific way of life rather than 600 Million a good way and 8 Billion a shit way. Just my rationale.

It has been a while but the organization that did the study was the BLAND Corporation.


----------



## Considered HARMful (Jul 6, 2021)

Menotaur said:


> It has been a while but the organization that did the study was the BLAND Corporation.


But what about the mineshaft gap?


----------



## Question Mark (Jul 6, 2021)

Politicians are midwits. AI is a way bigger threat than global fucking warming.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 6, 2021)

Menotaur said:


> Well I find your responses interesting and in some cases mildly offensive but not enough to get twisted up about it.
> 
> My rationale is it is better to give 600 Million people a terrific way of life rather than 600 Million a good way and 8 Billion a shit way. Just my rationale.
> 
> It has been a while but the organization that did the study was the BLAND Corporation.


Do you mean the rand corporation? Isn't the BLAND corporation a rand corporation spoof from dr. Strangelove movie?


----------



## Finder (Jul 6, 2021)

As they say, actions speak louder than words.  They see benefit in pushing the idea the world is ending, but don’t implement the most basic of real solutions (a tax is not a solution). 

This is about power and control. 

I believe it’s a real thing happening, but the current movements to fix it are a facade for other goals.


----------



## BipolarPon (Jul 7, 2021)

They treat it like the Covid lockdowns, rules for thee not for me.


----------



## serious n00b (Jul 7, 2021)

Menotaur said:


> I can not reveal a source but I was given classified reports some time ago


Oh Q, you're so silly.


----------



## Painters (Jul 20, 2021)

I doubt it matters whether they believe it or not. Their reptile brains (politicians) don't think that way at all i.e. belief in ideas.

I know Putin doesn't believe in it - or at least he can't use it as leverage.
Chinese politicians, well...I think we know.
Leftist western politicians however are quite keen on using it as leverage it seems, whether that be to increase tax or increase immigration and whatnot.

Now to whether I believe in it or not...well. The problem is I pretty much am opposed to anything leftist western politicians promote so I am forced to disagree with it.
Do I actually believe the climate scientists? LOL no, they can't even get simple weather predictions accurate let alone a far more complex system like climate right.
So, who knows? Nobody but God. 

God obviously likes to provide us in life with choices to make, and to clean up and improve our environment we can make either :-
a) sensible efforts like taking better care of our own neighbourhoods or
b) dumb elaborate efforts like reducing carbon emissions

I wonder how many climate scientists pick up litter on their day off, and such like?


----------



## Smug Chuckler (Jul 20, 2021)

Global Warming is bs and even if it's real there is nothing you can do about it other than mass genocide.


----------



## Synthetic Smug (Jul 20, 2021)

They believe in climate change much the same way that the Borgia popes believed in salvation through Christ. Strip away the -isms and the wet paint of modernity and you're looking at the same old slapfight between barons, burghers, and bishops.

The human mind is very good in believing contradictory things, especially if they're prevented from coming into direct contact with each other.


----------



## Unyielding Stupidity (Jul 21, 2021)

Every cult loves a good doomsday prophecy, and we all know that the elites certainly love their cults. Just ask Moloch!

Jokes aside, the fact that every single elite that harps on about how "the climate crisis is going to kill us all" is perfectly fine with shipping polluting industries over to countries with no environmental regulations, enabling the explosive population growth in Africa, demonizing nuclear power in favour of "renewables" that cause a lot of environmental damage due to the way the required rare earth metals are harvested, and who usually own beachfront property or private jets themselves? Really doesn't sell you on the idea that this is something urgent, especially since they've been saying that we're 10 years from total climate collapse for well over half a century at this point.


----------



## Carlos Weston Chantor (Jul 21, 2021)

Imagine if someone stopped your car and pulled you out of it GTA style while saying "bro sorry I'm taking your car the weather is getting warm!!!". This is exactly what the politicians are doing except that they will take much more from you than your car. In fact, they will stop at nothing and take away everything you have


----------



## Irrational Exuberance (Dec 27, 2021)

Carlos Weston Chantor said:


> Imagine if someone stopped your car and pulled you out of it GTA style while saying "bro sorry I'm taking your car the weather is getting warm!!!". This is exactly what the politicians are doing except that they will take much more from you than your car. In fact, they will stop at nothing and take away everything you have


So, it's like in GTA where they take your car and run you over with it?


----------



## Zyklon Ben's Poison Pen (Dec 27, 2021)

The modern career politician will believe whatever they need to believe to get the clout they need to continue their career. They are sociopathic chameleons who will pivot on a dime to alter their "beliefs" and "principles" for power. This is the consequence of having some two faced moneyed up shitheel graduate from "grand institution" with a PHD in sphincter exploration going straight into politics. I heard somewhere for example that in the UK 30% of the representatives in parliament were from the working class/Unions in the 70's and now its not even 1%.


----------



## Male Idiot (Dec 28, 2021)

I think it is fake and just an excuse to push taxes on normies.

If they did believe it was an existential threat, they would have at least tried to seriously address the third world's pollution. The fact that somehow only whitey-s car makes the Earth go all "Inferno by 2025" does not look scientific at all.


----------



## celebrityskin (Dec 29, 2021)

Much like "because of covid", a big part of it is a psyop to get the plebs to accept a lower quality of life ("no personal car because climate change", "no more overseas holidays because climate change", "no kids because climate change" etc.)


----------



## Skitzels (Dec 30, 2021)

They don’t, and if you want a prime example of this look no further than Canada’s PM Justin Trudeau.






He’s fanned the flames in regards to “muh climate change”, and has slapped on a carbon tax which is causing everything in this godforsaken country to become three to ten more expensive as it was in 2015. 

Meanwhile, he gets to fly around the world and the country which costs far more fuel than any Canadian would burn in a lifetime.


----------



## Weeb_Killer (Dec 30, 2021)

250 million years ago a series of volcanos went off in Siberia that resulted in the temperature of the earth increasing by 5c over the span of a hundred thousand years. The result? 97% of all species went extinct.

The temperature of the earth has increased by 1c in the past 140 years alone. If life struggled to adapt with that kind of change in the space of 20,000 years, what chance do we have? Now it's debateable to what extent that is down purely to humans or the result other natural processes, I'm not educated enough to have any concrete opinion on that. My guess however is that we are responsible. Either way, we're at the mercy of nature's folly and as a species, I don't think we can do anything about it. We especially can't make a dent in the problems when smelly pajeets and low-brow chinks insist on burning more coal annually than everyone else in history combined. If we were smart, we'd shore up our flood defenses now where we could and perfect indoor farming at all costs. Instead people have the hubris to believe we can terraform this planet in a way that we can effectively control.

One thing I am certain of is people in authority and high finance using this for their own ends. Whether it be profiteers, great reset technocrats, or simply used as another excuse for the professional classes to pour scorn on the lowly underlings of society. They don't want you to own property. They don't want you to have holidays, or even opinions for that matter. They don't want you to have any creature comforts, and they certainly don't want you owning your own car. 

Only thing anyone can hope for is that you live long enough to see it all collapse, using forums like this to laugh and lament as we all slowly dissolve into the abyss together like the mummified citizens of Pompeii. It's thoughts like that which keep me warm at night.


----------



## Male Idiot (Dec 30, 2021)

itsfullof_stars said:


> 250 million years ago a series of volcanos went off in Siberia that resulted in the temperature of the earth increasing by 5c over the span of a hundred thousand years. The result? 97% of all species went extinct.
> 
> The temperature of the earth has increased by 1c in the past 140 years alone. If life struggled to adapt with that kind of change in the space of 20,000 years, what chance do we have? Now it's debateable to what extent that is down purely to humans or the result other natural processes, I'm not educated enough to have any concrete opinion on that. My guess however is that we are responsible. Either way, we're at the mercy of nature's folly and as a species, I don't think we can do anything about it. We especially can't make a dent in the problems when smelly pajeets and low-brow chinks insist on burning more coal annually than everyone else in history combined. If we were smart, we'd shore up our flood defenses now where we could and perfect indoor farming at all costs. Instead people have the hubris to believe we can terraform this planet in a way that we can effectively control.
> 
> ...



Those were more toxic and honestly it was like "Russia is now lava" . 

But I for one, welcome our new Krieg way of life. The gasmask only makes it cuter.


----------



## The Nothingness (Dec 31, 2021)

They obviously don't given the continued use of private jets, mega yachts, and giant beach homes. The only way they'll move away from places that supposedly are going to be underwater years from now and inland is if the elites separate themselves from the "little people". They will settle in towns/cities with high real estate they can afford or build luxurious mansions like the Biltmore House far from the plebs.


----------



## Ser Prize (Dec 31, 2021)

itsfullof_stars said:


> 250 million years ago a series of volcanos went off in Siberia that resulted in the temperature of the earth increasing by 5c over the span of a hundred thousand years. The result? 97% of all species went extinct.
> 
> The temperature of the earth has increased by 1c in the past 140 years alone. If life struggled to adapt with that kind of change in the space of 20,000 years, what chance do we have? Now it's debateable to what extent that is down purely to humans or the result other natural processes, I'm not educated enough to have any concrete opinion on that. My guess however is that we are responsible. Either way, we're at the mercy of nature's folly and as a species, I don't think we can do anything about it. We especially can't make a dent in the problems when smelly pajeets and low-brow chinks insist on burning more coal annually than everyone else in history combined. If we were smart, we'd shore up our flood defenses now where we could and perfect indoor farming at all costs. Instead people have the hubris to believe we can terraform this planet in a way that we can effectively control.
> 
> ...


If they felt really threatened they'd stop buying beachfront property. Barring yellowstone exploding I don't think we're in danger of another Hell Earth scenario.


----------



## Gender: Xenomorph (Dec 31, 2021)

Unyielding Stupidity said:


> shipping polluting industries over to countries with no environmental regulations


Global warming can't affect us if it's all the way in China.


----------



## frozenrunner (Dec 31, 2021)

No. They are only incentivized to think short term about everything, and global warming is a foolproof way for them to get what they want: wild, unaccountable claims about the far future that indicate you have to give them more money and power now. No refunds.

I remember pointing out to a leftie former friend that the Obama administration had all three branches of government under their control early in his first term and, instead of passing the _planet-saving climate legislation_ leftists said we urgently needed, they just forced through Obamacare instead. Who needs healthcare if the planet is doomed without us taking action? She just got mad at me


----------



## Ser Prize (Dec 31, 2021)

frozenrunner said:


> No. They are only incentivized to think short term about everything, and global warming is a foolproof way for them to get what they want: wild, unaccountable claims about the far future that indicate you have to give them more money and power now. No refunds.
> 
> I remember pointing out to a leftie former friend that the Obama administration had all three branches of government under their control early in his first term and, instead of passing the _planet-saving climate legislation_ leftists said we urgently needed, they just forced through Obamacare instead. Who needs healthcare if the planet is doomed without us taking action? She just got mad at me


Serves you right for arguing politics with women.


----------



## Enceladus (Dec 31, 2021)

Given how environmentally destructive globalism is by its very nature I don't think they care. The incentive structure rewards manufacturing things with slave labor and then transporting it across the planet to sell in rich countries using the dirtiest fuels imaginable. 

You have global shipping that is massively subsidized by the Chinese government. Fossil fuels massively subsidized by pretty much all governments. Shutting down nuke plants and using coal instead. Your $30 pair of Walmart shoes have an epic environmental cost that is completely hidden from the consumer. We are all complicit in it. And it is all going to go up in flames eventually.


----------



## RayBlue123(TransRights) (Jan 1, 2022)

I just want to ask = What is your opinion on the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and the EPA? I oppose deforestation, pollution, and I love American nature.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jan 1, 2022)

I hope evil doesn't succeed in making a one-world tyranny using climate change - real or not - as an excuse.


----------



## Sanshain (Jan 1, 2022)

Menotaur said:


> I can not reveal a source but I was given classified reports some time ago that were given to certain members of the United States government that outlined with high degrees of certainty what will happen in the immediate, short and long term and I can assure you it was all very, very bad.



Did the whole office clap, too?


----------

