Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

As we have discussed, I think Libertarianism believes too much that mankind will follow the "light" side of human nature, and that therefore, both government and laws can be kept to a minimum..........just my 2 cents worth.

Dilip: "the governments to educate the masses on what various facts are, and what the probable outcome from those facts is believed to be possible"
Me: The problem is that the powers that be, both government and non-government (Read Oligarchy), do not want the masses to know the truth. They might demand better! So the authorities mislead, challenge the truth (Fight the science - the right-wing strategy), obfuscate, and generally try to muddy the waters. In this they are assisted to a large degree by mainstream media who often just repeat the propaganda. So we "little" electors have a h*ll of a time ferreting out the truth. And so sometimes the authorities get it right, and come clean, and other times they are pursuing their own agendas, which means lots of non-transparency with the public.

In my view, they understand the climate change issue, and are willing to have some of the truth seep out. But vested interests are holding back the radical societal change required to avoid species' suicide.

This is not an argument against government.......but it is a cautionary tale that we must always be monitoring our human systems........we cannot just leave it to the experts.

But, of course, the ordinary elector is buried in his/her own life problems (Inflation, family difficulties, poor working conditions and pay, etc.) and simply is often too tired to have the energy to try to ferret out the truth. So the ordinary person often ends up saying: "Whatever.......sigh".

All of this does NOT bode well for human progress..........and I am considered an optimist!

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

As we have discussed, I think Libertarianism believes too much that mankind will follow the "light" side of human nature, and that therefore, both government and laws can be kept to a minimum..........just my 2 cents worth.

Dilip: "the governments to educate the masses on what various facts are, and what the probable outcome from those facts is believed to be possible"
Me: The problem is that the powers that be, both government and non-government (Read Oligarchy), do not want the masses to know the truth. They might demand better! So the authorities mislead, challenge the truth (Fight the science - the right-wing strategy), obfuscate, and generally try to muddy the waters. In this they are assisted to a large degree by mainstream media who often just repeat the propaganda. So we "little" electors have a h*ll of a time ferreting out the truth. And so sometimes the authorities get it right, and come clean, and other times they are pursuing their own agendas, which means lots of non-transparency with the public.

In my view, they understand the climate change issue, and are willing to have some of the truth seep out. But vested interests are holding back the radical societal change required to avoid species' suicide.

This is not an argument against government.......but it is a cautionary tale that we must always be monitoring our human systems........we cannot just leave it to the experts.

But, of course, the ordinary elector is buried in his/her own life problems (Inflation, family difficulties, poor working conditions and pay, etc.) and simply is often too tired to have the energy to try to ferret out the truth. So the ordinary person often ends up saying: "Whatever.......sigh".

All of this does NOT bode well for human progress..........and I am considered an optimist!

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

If we deny the governments the power to enforce upon us what the oligarchs want it to, then there is hope.... so continue to be an optimist, Bob!

[Dilip Panjwani]

I think Libertarianism believes too much that mankind will follow the "light" side of human nature, and that therefore, both government and laws can be kept to a minimum..........


~ Bob A (T-S/P)

On the contrary, Libertarians very much realize that the 'dark' side of human nature manifests as soon as it senses power, and hence we need to ensure that no one, not even the governments have power over others.... fair play in a world dominated by 'Natural Justice' is what Libertarianism is all about...

[Sid Belzberg]

If we deny the governments the power to enforce upon us what the oligarchs want it to, then there is hope.... so continue to be an optimist, Bob!

The largest investor in synthetic foods....Bill Gates. The largest depopulation fanatic....Bill Gates. The largest profiteer of death shots,,,,Bill Gates! The largest owner of US farmland ....Bill Gates!
"You will eat insects and be happy!!!"

[Bob Gillanders]

The largest investor in synthetic foods....Bill Gates. The largest depopulation fanatic....Bill Gates. The largest profiteer of death shots,,,,Bill Gates! The largest owner of US farmland ....Bill Gates!
"You will eat insects and be happy!!!"

I believe we have a case of BGDS, Bill Gates Derangement Syndrome.

[Bob Gillanders]

On the contrary, Libertarians very much realize that the 'dark' side of human nature manifests as soon as it senses power, and hence we need to ensure that no one, not even the governments have power over others.... fair play in a world dominated by 'Natural Justice' is what Libertarianism is all about...

I believe you don't appreciate the concept of government. Since the dawn of time, some rulers (kings, emperors, guy with the biggest club, etc.) seeks to impose his will and exploit others. Civilizations answer to that is government and democracy. The will of the people to triumph over the evil ones. It ain't easy, often goes off the rails, get abused by the evil ones. But the answer is not to throw out the baby with the bath water, it is to make government democracy work for the greater good of all.

[Dilip Panjwani]

I believe you don't appreciate the concept of government. Since the dawn of time, some rulers (kings, emperors, guy with the biggest club, etc.) seeks to impose his will and exploit others. Civilizations answer to that is government and democracy. The will of the people to triumph over the evil ones. It ain't easy, often goes off the rails, get abused by the evil ones. But the answer is not to throw out the baby with the bath water, it is to make government democracy work for the greater good of all.

Ofcourse we need a government, one which serves us, not boss over us....
One with duty to maintain peace and order, not power to subdue...
One which sees that Natural Law prevails, not one that makes laws to help their friends who use fake media to put them in power...
And unless we embrace Libertarianism, we shall never get such a government, even if we keep on holding elections for eternity...

[Bob Armstrong]

Climate Change Suicide Avoidance

1. We MUST CHANGE to save ourselves. We must be willing to make the sacrifices needed to live in a “Sustainable Society”.
2. But, individually coming to a desire to live sustainably, is NOT enough, though it is the necessary foundation.
3. What further is required? The only method of accomplishing radical change is by collective action.
4. The "US", the “Sustainables”, must affect the world's "power structure". It is the powers that be currently that are unwilling to make the radical change in society to the "Sustainable Society".
5. This requires the founding, globally, of a NEW political party (The current ones are hopelessly compromised). This new party must NOT be beholden to the Oligarchs. It must be the party accountable to only its supporters, the “Sustainables”.
6. The NEW PARTY must honestly tell the public/electors what they (The Electors) need to do to avoid species suicide.
7. It is then going to be up to the "Sustainables" to get the representatives of that party elected in all nation states.
8. Any thing less than this will fail to meet the looming "Tipping Point" deadline of around Jan. 1, 2031!!! (Only 9 years away).

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Climate Change Suicide Avoidance

1. We MUST CHANGE to save ourselves. We must be willing to make the sacrifices needed to live in a “Sustainable Society”.
2. But, individually coming to a desire to live sustainably, is NOT enough, though it is the necessary foundation.
3. What further is required? The only method of accomplishing radical change is by collective action.
4. The "US", the “Sustainables”, must affect the world's "power structure". It is the powers that be currently that are unwilling to make the radical change in society to the "Sustainable Society".
5. This requires the founding, globally, of a NEW political party (The current ones are hopelessly compromised). This new party must NOT be beholden to the Oligarchs. It must be the party accountable to only its supporters, the “Sustainables”.
6. The NEW PARTY must honestly tell the public/electors what they (The Electors) need to do to avoid species suicide.
7. It is then going to be up to the "Sustainables" to get the representatives of that party elected in all nation states.
8. Any thing less than this will fail to meet the looming "Tipping Point" deadline of around Jan. 1, 2031!!! (Only 9 years away).

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

And what if, as has happened in human history so often, and as Sid points out that there is a possibility of it, this Anthropogenic climate fear/panic is not justified, after all? If the deliberate oppression of the minority (whether it is 49% or 5% or even 65%, as the proportion of losers can be more than 50% in a multi-party system) does result in no calamity occuring, you will claim success at the expense of the oppression of the minority (remember the miserable end of Galileo?), even though a calamity was never going to happen in the first place!
Instead, let the 'majority' first change its own ways, as it sees fit, and more and more from the 'minority' may eventually join willingly, for their own good, if they are not antagonistically forced into doing so...or the 'majority' only will unnecessarily suffer (out of their own choice), till such time as their 'fear and panic' is realized to have been unjustified...
And remember, if the fear/panic was demonstrably and unequivocally true, any half-sensible government of today would have already acted as you want them to...

[Sid Belzberg]

Climate Change Suicide Avoidance

1. We MUST CHANGE to save ourselves. We must be willing to make the sacrifices needed to live in a “Sustainable Society”.
2. But, individually coming to a desire to live sustainably, is NOT enough, though it is the necessary foundation.
3. What further is required? The only method of accomplishing radical change is by collective action.
4. The "US", the “Sustainables”, must affect the world's "power structure". It is the powers that be currently that are unwilling to make the radical change in society to the "Sustainable Society".
5. This requires the founding, globally, of a NEW political party (The current ones are hopelessly compromised). This new party must NOT be beholden to the Oligarchs. It must be the party accountable to only its supporters, the “Sustainables”.
6. The NEW PARTY must honestly tell the public/electors what they (The Electors) need to do to avoid species suicide.
7. It is then going to be up to the "Sustainables" to get the representatives of that party elected in all nation states.
8. Any thing less than this will fail to meet the looming "Tipping Point" deadline of around Jan. 1, 2031!!! (Only 9 years away).

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Bob, your apocalyptic predictions are as nonsensical as your views are that the injections are "safe and effective." https://twitter.com/rotor_motor13b/s...03993037086723 Here is an article on the track record for apocalyptic
climate predictors for the last 50 years. It is all bullshit! Al Gore was the best most of the beaches in New York should be wiped out by now!

\https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-yea...lypse-is-nigh/

Just repeating the same rhetoric, again and again, is pointless

Refute the paper I posted here and show me where the sea levels have risen. I am all ears!!!!!

We already have an unelected Global party the genocidal murderers known as the WEF that Trudeau is a young global leader of and his deputy
prime minister Cynthia Frieland who is deputy director of. You know, the organization that Bill Gates funds, run by Klauss Schwab son of a confidante
of Adolf Hitler and Nazi arms manufacturer. Klauss Schwabb the "nice" man who tried to procure a nuclear bomb for the racist apartheid govt of South Africa.

Do you want the species to survive? It is simple, abolish the WEF.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

From the pinko/commie/tree-hugging radical media, Bloomberg:

Climate Migration Pushes Bangladesh’s Megacity to the Brink

People in the coastal areas of Bangladesh are migrating to Dhaka to escape flooding caused by climate change, but the fast-growing city isn’t safe either.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...ation-to-dhaka

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid:

From the pinko/commie/tree-hugging radical media, Bloomberg:

Climate Migration Pushes Bangladesh’s Megacity to the Brink

People in the coastal areas of Bangladesh are migrating to Dhaka to escape flooding caused by climate change, but the fast-growing city isn’t safe either.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...ation-to-dhaka

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Bangladesh has been prone to flooding for centuries if not tens of thousands of years. https://www.coolgeography.co.uk/A-le...Bangladesh.htm Blaming it on climate change is pure climate change fear porn. Sea levels globally have not risen appreciably as I previously posted https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...807#post220807
I view Bloomberg as a propaganda partner for the genocidal; WEF https://www.weforum.org/organizations/bloomberg-lp that is more like fascism in its most insidious form, or perhaps Stalinism, it is not communism at all.

[Pargat Perrer]

And what if, as has happened in human history so often, and as Sid points out that there is a possibility of it, this Anthropogenic climate fear/panic is not justified, after all? If the deliberate oppression of the minority (whether it is 49% or 5% or even 65%, as the proportion of losers can be more than 50% in a multi-party system) does result in no calamity occuring, you will claim success at the expense of the oppression of the minority (remember the miserable end of Galileo?), even though a calamity was never going to happen in the first place!
Instead, let the 'majority' first change its own ways, as it sees fit, and more and more from the 'minority' may eventually join willingly, for their own good, if they are not antagonistically forced into doing so...or the 'majority' only will unnecessarily suffer (out of their own choice), till such time as their 'fear and panic' is realized to have been unjustified...
And remember, if the fear/panic was demonstrably and unequivocally true, any half-sensible government of today would have already acted as you want them to...

Climate change calamity is not like a massive asteroid heading to Earth, and world powers agree to fire enough missiles at it to deflect it, and afterwards we can say we dodged a bullet. So if we did act in time to avoid the worst, how do we prove or disprove that the actions we took were indeed necessary? It's just not as straightforward as the asteroid case.

The real question was posed by Clint Eastwood.... "Well? ....... Are you feeling lucky ............ PUNK?"

Except in this case, feeling lucky equates to doing nothing to change the future. Just moving along in our SUVs as if we have an eternal right to be here.

Are we feeling lucky? Ready to gamble the futurity of humanity?

Yes, I believe we are overall, even if many of us are not. And as Brad has said many times, we are just not good enough to save ourselves. Which would prove we aren't deserving of saving in the first place.

[Sid Belzberg]

Climate change calamity is not like a massive asteroid heading to Earth, and world powers agree to fire enough missiles at it to deflect it, and afterwards we can say we dodged a bullet. So if we did act in time to avoid the worst, how do we prove or disprove that the actions we took were indeed necessary? It's just not as straightforward as the asteroid case.

The real question was posed by Clint Eastwood.... "Well? ....... Are you feeling lucky ............ PUNK?"

Except in this case, feeling lucky equates to doing nothing to change the future. Just moving along in our SUVs as if we have an eternal right to be here.

Are we feeling lucky? Ready to gamble the futurity of humanity?

Yes, I believe we are overall, even if many of us are not. And as Brad has said many times, we are just not good enough to save ourselves. Which would prove we aren't deserving of saving in the first place.

Are you feeling lucky ............ PUNK?".

So let's close down agricultural production and starve to death in the hope that we may or may not change the weather. Are you out of your mind????

[Pargat Perrer]

So let's close down agricultural production and starve to death in the hope that we may or may not change the weather. Are you out of your mind????

Sid, no need to put words to me that I never wrote or even hinted at. If someone is saying let's shut down agricultural production, it wasn't me.

Personally, I think the "feeling lucky" path is the one we will stay on, and I'm not doing anything to prevent that. I just know that either way, a huge swath of the Earth's population has to die prematurely.

What I'd like to see is a formal debate between the best scientists who say rising CO2 isn't a problem and the best scientists who say it is. The whole world should tune into that debate and make up their minds, and the majority can decide which way we go: limiting CO2 or not limiting it.

Maybe you could organize such a debate, Sid?