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

Lemmingwise

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Fek

Menotaur

kiwifarms.net
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

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
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.
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?
 
Last edited:

Menotaur

kiwifarms.net
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

Bomber Harris Do It Again!
kiwifarms.net
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

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
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.
 

Menotaur

kiwifarms.net
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.
 

NiggerRespecter

kiwifarms.net
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

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
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?

Even with me having read the studies
They did not do the study - they collected the data for the study
So who did the study/studies?

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.


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

(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.
 

Menotaur

kiwifarms.net
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?



So who did the study/studies?


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.




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


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.
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.
 

Question Mark

kiwifarms.net
Politicians are midwits. AI is a way bigger threat than global fucking warming.
apocalypse chad.png
 

Lemmingwise

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
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

War is epic, freedom is cringe, ignorance is based
kiwifarms.net
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.
 

Painters

kiwifarms.net
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?
 

Synthetic Smug

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
Top