Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Chippy, your 'side' isn't full of facts, the view of the vast majority of scientists is that the current rate of climate change is man made. It shouldn't be about 'sides' this isn't a football game, we all need to work together.
Threads about Brexit were closed down, that's why they disappeared.
I don't have a side. There are many people saying one thing as there are saying the other. What you choose to believe is down to you.
What I find amusing is the notion that, and it is the same people on every thread, that they have some superior knowledge than everyone else, and their sources of information is right and far superior than anyone else.
Unlike most people on here, I actually work with scientists, some advise Euroatom and sit on the same committee. They can tell the viscosity of the jam but don't know how to open the jar., and they try and tell me how to run our plant. Which I am in charge off and get paid to do.
Get my drift.
I'll remind you of what you said in your post at 10.02 this morning:
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
You were the one talking about sides, not Chippy! Chippy was just quoting what you had said about "sides"
Ha ha, I feel I must congratulate you and Chippy on the flexibility of your arguments. Olga Korbut with a feather up her bum couldn't do as much wriggling as you two.
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Chippy, your 'side' isn't full of facts, the view of the vast majority of scientists is that the current rate of climate change is man made. It shouldn't be about 'sides' this isn't a football game, we all need to work together.
Threads about Brexit were closed down, that's why they disappeared.
I don't have a side. There are many people saying one thing as there are saying the other. What you choose to believe is down to you.
What I find amusing is the notion that, and it is the same people on every thread, that they have some superior knowledge than everyone else, and their sources of information is right and far superior than anyone else.
Unlike most people on here, I actually work with scientists, some advise Euroatom and sit on the same committee. They can tell the viscosity of the jam but don't know how to open the jar., and they try and tell me how to run our plant. Which I am in charge off and get paid to do.
Get my drift.
I'll remind you of what you said in your post at 10.02 this morning:
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
You were the one talking about sides, not Chippy! Chippy was just quoting what you had said about "sides"
I know I shouldn't bite, but I did not mention sides' until Chippy did.
Apologies, you actually didn't specifically mention the word "sides".
But you have implied aplenty that myself, Chippy and people with similar views on the Political Right, are somehow too thick not to be taken in by "disinformation", when I spend multiple hours every day reading specifically about American Politics and current affairs, from multiple sources, not just "The Guardian" or the "BBC" as most of you seem to. Likewise Chippy is far better informed on UK Politics than I am.
The fact is, when comes to which side of Politics is more easily taken in by BS lies and disinformation, the exact opposite is true.
It is those on the Political Left who were taken in by the Media's lies, dishonesty and Disinformation, because they were too damn lazy to check for themselves, or to read source documents, as I did.
The Media made you believe that Trump Colluded with Russia. They made you believe that Hunter Biden's Laptop was just "Russian Disinformation".
They made you believe that Biden was "as sharp as a tack".
The Left got roped in, and ended up with egg all over their faces. Tomorrow they will see the result.
They made you believe that Trump was a useless joke of a President who didn't have a hope in hell of getting re elected🤣
They desperately tried to label him "Convicted Felon", thinking that would somehow tip the scales. It didn't of course, because the majority of US voters saw right through the manufactured bullshit. That message unfortunately doesn't appear to have got through to my CL comrades just yet.
They made you believe that the vaccines were perfectly safe, because, as Zuckerberg has now finally recently revealed, he was pressured by the Biden Government not to publish anything that even dared to question their safety or efficiency. Just as he was also pressured not to publish and suppress anything about Hunter's Laptop (Election Interference much !)
People were kept in the dark and their minds were manipulated, but eventually the truth always prevails and the public wakes up, as they fortunately have, in the US, Argentina, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands etc.
How does this relate to Climate change? People need to be allowed to state their case and not be shut down just for having a differing view.
Everyone wants the same outcome.
For me it's pretty simple, we need to reduce the population quickly by incentivising people not to have more than 2 children, not encouraging them to have more by offering generous welfare incentives.
Action begins at home, get our own house in order first, set an example, in the hope that eventually it is replicated all over the world. Underpopulation shouldn't be a problem if our goal is to save the planet. And rebuilding the population in the future, if needed, shouldn't be any problem, seeing as that is our natural inclination and pleasure😀
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Chippy, your 'side' isn't full of facts, the view of the vast majority of scientists is that the current rate of climate change is man made. It shouldn't be about 'sides' this isn't a football game, we all need to work together.
Threads about Brexit were closed down, that's why they disappeared.
I don't have a side. There are many people saying one thing as there are saying the other. What you choose to believe is down to you.
What I find amusing is the notion that, and it is the same people on every thread, that they have some superior knowledge than everyone else, and their sources of information is right and far superior than anyone else.
Unlike most people on here, I actually work with scientists, some advise Euroatom and sit on the same committee. They can tell the viscosity of the jam but don't know how to open the jar., and they try and tell me how to run our plant. Which I am in charge off and get paid to do.
Get my drift.
I'll remind you of what you said in your post at 10.02 this morning:
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
You were the one talking about sides, not Chippy! Chippy was just quoting what you had said about "sides"
I know I shouldn't bite, but I did not mention sides' until Chippy did.
Apologies, you actually didn't specifically mention the word "sides".
But you have implied aplenty that myself, Chippy and people with similar views on the Political Right, are somehow too thick not to be taken in by "disinformation", when I spend multiple hours every day reading specifically about American Politics and current affairs, from multiple sources, not just "The Guardian" or the "BBC" as most of you seem to. Likewise Chippy is far better informed on UK Politics than I am.
The fact is, when comes to which side of Politics is more easily taken in by BS lies and disinformation, the exact opposite is true.
It is those on the Political Left who were taken in by the Media's lies, dishonesty and Disinformation, because they were too damn lazy to check for themselves, or to read source documents, as I did.
The Media made you believe that Trump Colluded with Russia. They made you believe that Hunter Biden's Laptop was just "Russian Disinformation".
They made you believe that Biden was "as sharp as a tack".
The Left got roped in, and ended up with egg all over their faces. Tomorrow they will see the result.
They made you believe that Trump was a useless joke of a President who didn't have a hope in hell of getting re elected🤣
They desperately tried to label him "Convicted Felon", thinking that would somehow tip the scales. It didn't of course, because the majority of US voters saw right through the manufactured bullshit. That message unfortunately doesn't appear to have got through to my CL comrades just yet.
They made you believe that the vaccines were perfectly safe, because, as Zuckerberg has now finally recently revealed, he was pressured by the Biden Government not to publish anything that even dared to question their safety or efficiency. Just as he was also pressured not to publish and suppress anything about Hunter's Laptop (Election Interference much !)
People were kept in the dark and their minds were manipulated, but eventually the truth always prevails and the public wakes up, as they fortunately have, in the US, Argentina, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands etc.
How does this relate to Climate change? People need to be allowed to state their case and not be shut down just for having a differing view.
Everyone wants the same outcome.
For me it's pretty simple, we need to reduce the population quickly by incentivising people not to have more than 2 children, not encouraging them to have more by offering generous welfare incentives.
Action begins at home, get our own house in order first, set an example, in the hope that eventually it is replicated all over the world. Underpopulation shouldn't be a problem if our goal is to save the planet. And rebuilding the population in the future, if needed, shouldn't be any problem, seeing as that is our natural inclination and pleasure😀
And in parts of the world like sub Saharan Africa ? There are no incentives there and people have a number of children there because of the tragically high infant mortality rate. That and the long dark nights I’d expect. In fact what are the incentives to have lots of children here ? Unless you’re advocating a cull which I know you’re not then the timescales in reducing the world’s population overlaid against the climate emergency just don’t match up. What exactly is your solution.
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
We're animals that need food and water to survive. Under conditions of resource scarcity, natural wastage occurs. It's what happens in the animal world, and however intelligent we like to think we are, we're a living part of it. Our evolution has led us to the point of over exploiting the earth's natural resources. The conditions for our continued survival will be made more challenging as the climate crisis accelerates, leading to survival of the fattest, at least for a while. That's unless we can find another planet conducive to supporting life as we know it. No solution, just the unfortunate consequences.
Even if we all became net zero carbon emitters today, it wont stop the ice melting in future. It's too late for that, which means sea level rises, warmer seas, more ocean acidification, so reducing it's effectiveness as a carbon sink, leading to a higher concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere. Methane will be released that's currently trapped in the thawing permafrost, emissions from animal agriculture will rise as more cattle are reared to feed more people, so lessening the land area available for growing crops, more deforestation then needed to compensate, meaning less carbon will be absorbed by trees too.
So, as I've said before, us reducing our emissions isn't enough, but we must do it. We must also find ways to replace the carbon sink capacity being lost in the natural world too. Sequestrating greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to reduce their concentrations is our only hope of stopping global warming imo.
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
We're animals that need food and water to survive. Under conditions of resource scarcity, natural wastage occurs. It's what happens in the animal world, and however intelligent we like to think we are, we're a living part of it. Our evolution has led us to the point of over exploiting the earth's natural resources. The conditions for our continued survival will be made more challenging as the climate crisis accelerates, leading to survival of the fattest, at least for a while. That's unless we can find another planet conducive to supporting life as we know it. No solution, just the unfortunate consequences.
Even if we all became net zero carbon emitters today, it wont stop the ice melting in future. It's too late for that, which means sea level rises, warmer seas, more ocean acidification, so reducing it's effectiveness as a carbon sink, leading to a higher concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere. Methane will be released that's currently trapped in the thawing permafrost, emissions from animal agriculture will rise as more cattle are reared to feed more people, so lessening the land area available for growing crops, more deforestation then needed to compensate, meaning less carbon will be absorbed by trees too.
So, as I've said before, us reducing our emissions isn't enough, but we must do it. We must also find ways to replace the carbon sink capacity being lost in the natural world too. Sequestrating greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to reduce their concentrations is our only hope of stopping global warming imo.
I would be interested to know what your answer to my question is
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Chippy, your 'side' isn't full of facts, the view of the vast majority of scientists is that the current rate of climate change is man made. It shouldn't be about 'sides' this isn't a football game, we all need to work together.
Threads about Brexit were closed down, that's why they disappeared.
I don't have a side. There are many people saying one thing as there are saying the other. What you choose to believe is down to you.
What I find amusing is the notion that, and it is the same people on every thread, that they have some superior knowledge than everyone else, and their sources of information is right and far superior than anyone else.
Unlike most people on here, I actually work with scientists, some advise Euroatom and sit on the same committee. They can tell the viscosity of the jam but don't know how to open the jar., and they try and tell me how to run our plant. Which I am in charge off and get paid to do.
Get my drift.
I'll remind you of what you said in your post at 10.02 this morning:
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
You were the one talking about sides, not Chippy! Chippy was just quoting what you had said about "sides"
I know I shouldn't bite, but I did not mention sides' until Chippy did.
Apologies, you actually didn't specifically mention the word "sides".
But you have implied aplenty that myself, Chippy and people with similar views on the Political Right, are somehow too thick not to be taken in by "disinformation", when I spend multiple hours every day reading specifically about American Politics and current affairs, from multiple sources, not just "The Guardian" or the "BBC" as most of you seem to. Likewise Chippy is far better informed on UK Politics than I am.
The fact is, when comes to which side of Politics is more easily taken in by BS lies and disinformation, the exact opposite is true.
It is those on the Political Left who were taken in by the Media's lies, dishonesty and Disinformation, because they were too damn lazy to check for themselves, or to read source documents, as I did.
The Media made you believe that Trump Colluded with Russia. They made you believe that Hunter Biden's Laptop was just "Russian Disinformation".
They made you believe that Biden was "as sharp as a tack".
The Left got roped in, and ended up with egg all over their faces. Tomorrow they will see the result.
They made you believe that Trump was a useless joke of a President who didn't have a hope in hell of getting re elected🤣
They desperately tried to label him "Convicted Felon", thinking that would somehow tip the scales. It didn't of course, because the majority of US voters saw right through the manufactured bullshit. That message unfortunately doesn't appear to have got through to my CL comrades just yet.
They made you believe that the vaccines were perfectly safe, because, as Zuckerberg has now finally recently revealed, he was pressured by the Biden Government not to publish anything that even dared to question their safety or efficiency. Just as he was also pressured not to publish and suppress anything about Hunter's Laptop (Election Interference much !)
People were kept in the dark and their minds were manipulated, but eventually the truth always prevails and the public wakes up, as they fortunately have, in the US, Argentina, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands etc.
How does this relate to Climate change? People need to be allowed to state their case and not be shut down just for having a differing view.
Everyone wants the same outcome.
For me it's pretty simple, we need to reduce the population quickly by incentivising people not to have more than 2 children, not encouraging them to have more by offering generous welfare incentives.
Action begins at home, get our own house in order first, set an example, in the hope that eventually it is replicated all over the world. Underpopulation shouldn't be a problem if our goal is to save the planet. And rebuilding the population in the future, if needed, shouldn't be any problem, seeing as that is our natural inclination and pleasure😀
And in parts of the world like sub Saharan Africa ? There are no incentives there and people have a number of children there because of the tragically high infant mortality rate. That and the long dark nights I’d expect. In fact what are the incentives to have lots of children here ? Unless you’re advocating a cull which I know you’re not then the timescales in reducing the world’s population overlaid against the climate emergency just don’t match up. What exactly is your solution.
I agree. If we wait for the world population to decrease (it hasn't peaked yet but will and then decline) it will be too late. It is probably too late anyway and the fossil fuel oligarchs and the vested business interests will not shift, their need for profit is short-term and they couldn't give a flying fuck about longer term benefits.
The world produces energy for consumption - it follows that the more consumers there are the greater the amount of energy that needs to be produced. The argument that solving the problem is all about reducing the population is a false argument. The solution is changing the way in which energy is produced - we can do that now, we just need to do more of it. Reducing the world's population whilst not switching to renewables and still continuing to burn fossil fuels at will is madness.
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Chippy, your 'side' isn't full of facts, the view of the vast majority of scientists is that the current rate of climate change is man made. It shouldn't be about 'sides' this isn't a football game, we all need to work together.
Threads about Brexit were closed down, that's why they disappeared.
I don't have a side. There are many people saying one thing as there are saying the other. What you choose to believe is down to you.
What I find amusing is the notion that, and it is the same people on every thread, that they have some superior knowledge than everyone else, and their sources of information is right and far superior than anyone else.
Unlike most people on here, I actually work with scientists, some advise Euroatom and sit on the same committee. They can tell the viscosity of the jam but don't know how to open the jar., and they try and tell me how to run our plant. Which I am in charge off and get paid to do.
Get my drift.
I'll remind you of what you said in your post at 10.02 this morning:
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
You were the one talking about sides, not Chippy! Chippy was just quoting what you had said about "sides"
I know I shouldn't bite, but I did not mention sides' until Chippy did.
Apologies, you actually didn't specifically mention the word "sides".
But you have implied aplenty that myself, Chippy and people with similar views on the Political Right, are somehow too thick not to be taken in by "disinformation", when I spend multiple hours every day reading specifically about American Politics and current affairs, from multiple sources, not just "The Guardian" or the "BBC" as most of you seem to. Likewise Chippy is far better informed on UK Politics than I am.
The fact is, when comes to which side of Politics is more easily taken in by BS lies and disinformation, the exact opposite is true.
It is those on the Political Left who were taken in by the Media's lies, dishonesty and Disinformation, because they were too damn lazy to check for themselves, or to read source documents, as I did.
The Media made you believe that Trump Colluded with Russia. They made you believe that Hunter Biden's Laptop was just "Russian Disinformation".
They made you believe that Biden was "as sharp as a tack".
The Left got roped in, and ended up with egg all over their faces. Tomorrow they will see the result.
They made you believe that Trump was a useless joke of a President who didn't have a hope in hell of getting re elected🤣
They desperately tried to label him "Convicted Felon", thinking that would somehow tip the scales. It didn't of course, because the majority of US voters saw right through the manufactured bullshit. That message unfortunately doesn't appear to have got through to my CL comrades just yet.
They made you believe that the vaccines were perfectly safe, because, as Zuckerberg has now finally recently revealed, he was pressured by the Biden Government not to publish anything that even dared to question their safety or efficiency. Just as he was also pressured not to publish and suppress anything about Hunter's Laptop (Election Interference much !)
People were kept in the dark and their minds were manipulated, but eventually the truth always prevails and the public wakes up, as they fortunately have, in the US, Argentina, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands etc.
How does this relate to Climate change? People need to be allowed to state their case and not be shut down just for having a differing view.
Everyone wants the same outcome.
For me it's pretty simple, we need to reduce the population quickly by incentivising people not to have more than 2 children, not encouraging them to have more by offering generous welfare incentives.
Action begins at home, get our own house in order first, set an example, in the hope that eventually it is replicated all over the world. Underpopulation shouldn't be a problem if our goal is to save the planet. And rebuilding the population in the future, if needed, shouldn't be any problem, seeing as that is our natural inclination and pleasure😀
And in parts of the world like sub Saharan Africa ? There are no incentives there and people have a number of children there because of the tragically high infant mortality rate. That and the long dark nights I’d expect. In fact what are the incentives to have lots of children here ? Unless you’re advocating a cull which I know you’re not then the timescales in reducing the world’s population overlaid against the climate emergency just don’t match up. What exactly is your solution.
Plummeting birth rates is clearly the long-term solution. It's happening, broadly, and in some cases (eg Bangladesh) spectacularly so.
The region where change has been slower is sub-Saharan Africa, but even here things are starting to move in the right direction.
What can we do in the West to accelerate this? Boosting women's education and economic opportunities is shown to have a big impact, so that's foreign aid and where possible buying stuff from Africa rather than China (but that's really difficult to do)
Discouraging migration to Europe may or may not help. I suspect that birth rates among West Afrcan women (or their daughters) is higher than among their relatives who have moved to Europe, but migration policy is clearly more complex than that. For me, the environmental impact of population increase in the UK is undeniably negative (houses, roads, etc), whatever one feels about the social and economic impacts.
There's no magic bullet on climate change, everyone has to figure out what they are willing to do personally (give to appropriate aid charities and cut back on air travel in my case). But promotion population reduction has to be part of the mix
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
We're animals that need food and water to survive. Under conditions of resource scarcity, natural wastage occurs. It's what happens in the animal world, and however intelligent we like to think we are, we're a living part of it. Our evolution has led us to the point of over exploiting the earth's natural resources. The conditions for our continued survival will be made more challenging as the climate crisis accelerates, leading to survival of the fattest, at least for a while. That's unless we can find another planet conducive to supporting life as we know it. No solution, just the unfortunate consequences.
Even if we all became net zero carbon emitters today, it wont stop the ice melting in future. It's too late for that, which means sea level rises, warmer seas, more ocean acidification, so reducing it's effectiveness as a carbon sink, leading to a higher concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere. Methane will be released that's currently trapped in the thawing permafrost, emissions from animal agriculture will rise as more cattle are reared to feed more people, so lessening the land area available for growing crops, more deforestation then needed to compensate, meaning less carbon will be absorbed by trees too.
So, as I've said before, us reducing our emissions isn't enough, but we must do it. We must also find ways to replace the carbon sink capacity being lost in the natural world too. Sequestrating greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to reduce their concentrations is our only hope of stopping global warming imo.
I would be interested to know what your answer to my question is
Wouldn't we all, but I don't have one that involves us being proactive on specifically controlling / reducing population numbers. Sorry.
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
We're animals that need food and water to survive. Under conditions of resource scarcity, natural wastage occurs. It's what happens in the animal world, and however intelligent we like to think we are, we're a living part of it. Our evolution has led us to the point of over exploiting the earth's natural resources. The conditions for our continued survival will be made more challenging as the climate crisis accelerates, leading to survival of the fattest, at least for a while. That's unless we can find another planet conducive to supporting life as we know it. No solution, just the unfortunate consequences.
Even if we all became net zero carbon emitters today, it wont stop the ice melting in future. It's too late for that, which means sea level rises, warmer seas, more ocean acidification, so reducing it's effectiveness as a carbon sink, leading to a higher concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere. Methane will be released that's currently trapped in the thawing permafrost, emissions from animal agriculture will rise as more cattle are reared to feed more people, so lessening the land area available for growing crops, more deforestation then needed to compensate, meaning less carbon will be absorbed by trees too.
So, as I've said before, us reducing our emissions isn't enough, but we must do it. We must also find ways to replace the carbon sink capacity being lost in the natural world too. Sequestrating greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to reduce their concentrations is our only hope of stopping global warming imo.
I would be interested to know what your answer to my question is
Wouldn't we all, but I don't have one that involves us being proactive on specifically controlling / reducing population numbers. Sorry.
What is the optimum human population? 2-3 billion is often cited but that would require international cooperation to make it work.
If each couple had one child from now then mankind would disappear in about 500 years - although the reality is that it would be much sooner than that as life expectancy would diminish rapidly as there would not be enough wealth generated to support universal healthcare. To reach the above optimum it would take about 800 years if the number of children per couple was 2.
This is illuminating when playing with different scenarios:
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Chippy, your 'side' isn't full of facts, the view of the vast majority of scientists is that the current rate of climate change is man made. It shouldn't be about 'sides' this isn't a football game, we all need to work together.
Threads about Brexit were closed down, that's why they disappeared.
I don't have a side. There are many people saying one thing as there are saying the other. What you choose to believe is down to you.
What I find amusing is the notion that, and it is the same people on every thread, that they have some superior knowledge than everyone else, and their sources of information is right and far superior than anyone else.
Unlike most people on here, I actually work with scientists, some advise Euroatom and sit on the same committee. They can tell the viscosity of the jam but don't know how to open the jar., and they try and tell me how to run our plant. Which I am in charge off and get paid to do.
Get my drift.
I'll remind you of what you said in your post at 10.02 this morning:
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
You were the one talking about sides, not Chippy! Chippy was just quoting what you had said about "sides"
I know I shouldn't bite, but I did not mention sides' until Chippy did.
Apologies, you actually didn't specifically mention the word "sides".
But you have implied aplenty that myself, Chippy and people with similar views on the Political Right, are somehow too thick not to be taken in by "disinformation", when I spend multiple hours every day reading specifically about American Politics and current affairs, from multiple sources, not just "The Guardian" or the "BBC" as most of you seem to. Likewise Chippy is far better informed on UK Politics than I am.
The fact is, when comes to which side of Politics is more easily taken in by BS lies and disinformation, the exact opposite is true.
It is those on the Political Left who were taken in by the Media's lies, dishonesty and Disinformation, because they were too damn lazy to check for themselves, or to read source documents, as I did.
The Media made you believe that Trump Colluded with Russia. They made you believe that Hunter Biden's Laptop was just "Russian Disinformation".
They made you believe that Biden was "as sharp as a tack".
The Left got roped in, and ended up with egg all over their faces. Tomorrow they will see the result.
They made you believe that Trump was a useless joke of a President who didn't have a hope in hell of getting re elected🤣
They desperately tried to label him "Convicted Felon", thinking that would somehow tip the scales. It didn't of course, because the majority of US voters saw right through the manufactured bullshit. That message unfortunately doesn't appear to have got through to my CL comrades just yet.
They made you believe that the vaccines were perfectly safe, because, as Zuckerberg has now finally recently revealed, he was pressured by the Biden Government not to publish anything that even dared to question their safety or efficiency. Just as he was also pressured not to publish and suppress anything about Hunter's Laptop (Election Interference much !)
People were kept in the dark and their minds were manipulated, but eventually the truth always prevails and the public wakes up, as they fortunately have, in the US, Argentina, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands etc.
How does this relate to Climate change? People need to be allowed to state their case and not be shut down just for having a differing view.
Everyone wants the same outcome.
For me it's pretty simple, we need to reduce the population quickly by incentivising people not to have more than 2 children, not encouraging them to have more by offering generous welfare incentives.
Action begins at home, get our own house in order first, set an example, in the hope that eventually it is replicated all over the world. Underpopulation shouldn't be a problem if our goal is to save the planet. And rebuilding the population in the future, if needed, shouldn't be any problem, seeing as that is our natural inclination and pleasure😀
And in parts of the world like sub Saharan Africa ? There are no incentives there and people have a number of children there because of the tragically high infant mortality rate. That and the long dark nights I’d expect. In fact what are the incentives to have lots of children here ? Unless you’re advocating a cull which I know you’re not then the timescales in reducing the world’s population overlaid against the climate emergency just don’t match up. What exactly is your solution.
Plummeting birth rates is clearly the long-term solution. It's happening, broadly, and in some cases (eg Bangladesh) spectacularly so.
The region where change has been slower is sub-Saharan Africa, but even here things are starting to move in the right direction.
What can we do in the West to accelerate this? Boosting women's education and economic opportunities is shown to have a big impact, so that's foreign aid and where possible buying stuff from Africa rather than China (but that's really difficult to do)
Discouraging migration to Europe may or may not help. I suspect that birth rates among West Afrcan women (or their daughters) is higher than among their relatives who have moved to Europe, but migration policy is clearly more complex than that. For me, the environmental impact of population increase in the UK is undeniably negative (houses, roads, etc), whatever one feels about the social and economic impacts.
There's no magic bullet on climate change, everyone has to figure out what they are willing to do personally (give to appropriate aid charities and cut back on air travel in my case). But promotion population reduction has to be part of the mix
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Chippy, your 'side' isn't full of facts, the view of the vast majority of scientists is that the current rate of climate change is man made. It shouldn't be about 'sides' this isn't a football game, we all need to work together.
Threads about Brexit were closed down, that's why they disappeared.
I don't have a side. There are many people saying one thing as there are saying the other. What you choose to believe is down to you.
What I find amusing is the notion that, and it is the same people on every thread, that they have some superior knowledge than everyone else, and their sources of information is right and far superior than anyone else.
Unlike most people on here, I actually work with scientists, some advise Euroatom and sit on the same committee. They can tell the viscosity of the jam but don't know how to open the jar., and they try and tell me how to run our plant. Which I am in charge off and get paid to do.
Get my drift.
I'll remind you of what you said in your post at 10.02 this morning:
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
You were the one talking about sides, not Chippy! Chippy was just quoting what you had said about "sides"
I know I shouldn't bite, but I did not mention sides' until Chippy did.
Apologies, you actually didn't specifically mention the word "sides".
But you have implied aplenty that myself, Chippy and people with similar views on the Political Right, are somehow too thick not to be taken in by "disinformation", when I spend multiple hours every day reading specifically about American Politics and current affairs, from multiple sources, not just "The Guardian" or the "BBC" as most of you seem to. Likewise Chippy is far better informed on UK Politics than I am.
The fact is, when comes to which side of Politics is more easily taken in by BS lies and disinformation, the exact opposite is true.
It is those on the Political Left who were taken in by the Media's lies, dishonesty and Disinformation, because they were too damn lazy to check for themselves, or to read source documents, as I did.
The Media made you believe that Trump Colluded with Russia. They made you believe that Hunter Biden's Laptop was just "Russian Disinformation".
They made you believe that Biden was "as sharp as a tack".
The Left got roped in, and ended up with egg all over their faces. Tomorrow they will see the result.
They made you believe that Trump was a useless joke of a President who didn't have a hope in hell of getting re elected🤣
They desperately tried to label him "Convicted Felon", thinking that would somehow tip the scales. It didn't of course, because the majority of US voters saw right through the manufactured bullshit. That message unfortunately doesn't appear to have got through to my CL comrades just yet.
They made you believe that the vaccines were perfectly safe, because, as Zuckerberg has now finally recently revealed, he was pressured by the Biden Government not to publish anything that even dared to question their safety or efficiency. Just as he was also pressured not to publish and suppress anything about Hunter's Laptop (Election Interference much !)
People were kept in the dark and their minds were manipulated, but eventually the truth always prevails and the public wakes up, as they fortunately have, in the US, Argentina, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands etc.
How does this relate to Climate change? People need to be allowed to state their case and not be shut down just for having a differing view.
Everyone wants the same outcome.
For me it's pretty simple, we need to reduce the population quickly by incentivising people not to have more than 2 children, not encouraging them to have more by offering generous welfare incentives.
Action begins at home, get our own house in order first, set an example, in the hope that eventually it is replicated all over the world. Underpopulation shouldn't be a problem if our goal is to save the planet. And rebuilding the population in the future, if needed, shouldn't be any problem, seeing as that is our natural inclination and pleasure😀
And in parts of the world like sub Saharan Africa ? There are no incentives there and people have a number of children there because of the tragically high infant mortality rate. That and the long dark nights I’d expect. In fact what are the incentives to have lots of children here ? Unless you’re advocating a cull which I know you’re not then the timescales in reducing the world’s population overlaid against the climate emergency just don’t match up. What exactly is your solution.
On this specific point is that not an ambition of Bill Gates Foundatiin and his malaria / vaccine work?
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
I really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend. But when you quote and read the likes of the guardian and listen to one trick ponies like JOB it's easy to be taken in.
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
I really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend. But when you quote and read the likes of the guardian and listen to one trick ponies like JOB it's easy to be taken in.
What's your view on how best to tackle the climate change crisis, chippy? I know you won't be so arrogant as to claim you have all the solutions - because you've told everyone that arrogance is astonishing.
But, as you really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend, would you be happy to share what you believe to be the best way to reverse the on-coming Armageddon? What would a chippy solution look like?
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
I really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend. But when you quote and read the likes of the guardian and listen to one trick ponies like JOB it's easy to be taken in.
What's your view on how best to tackle the climate change crisis, chippy? I know you won't be so arrogant as to claim you have all the solutions - because you've told everyone that arrogance is astonishing.
But, as you really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend, would you be happy to share what you believe to be the best way to reverse the on-coming Armageddon? What would a chippy solution look like?
Any response would need to agree that there is an “oncoming Armageddon”.
Climate change is a reality, the inevitability of our demise is nonsense.
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
I really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend. But when you quote and read the likes of the guardian and listen to one trick ponies like JOB it's easy to be taken in.
What's your view on how best to tackle the climate change crisis, chippy? I know you won't be so arrogant as to claim you have all the solutions - because you've told everyone that arrogance is astonishing.
But, as you really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend, would you be happy to share what you believe to be the best way to reverse the on-coming Armageddon? What would a chippy solution look like?
Instead of asking other posters to give their view on how best to tackle climate change crisis how about you give us yours
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
I really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend. But when you quote and read the likes of the guardian and listen to one trick ponies like JOB it's easy to be taken in.
What's your view on how best to tackle the climate change crisis, chippy? I know you won't be so arrogant as to claim you have all the solutions - because you've told everyone that arrogance is astonishing.
But, as you really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend, would you be happy to share what you believe to be the best way to reverse the on-coming Armageddon? What would a chippy solution look like?
Instead of asking other posters to give their view on how best to tackle climate change crisis how about you give us yours
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
I really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend. But when you quote and read the likes of the guardian and listen to one trick ponies like JOB it's easy to be taken in.
What's your view on how best to tackle the climate change crisis, chippy? I know you won't be so arrogant as to claim you have all the solutions - because you've told everyone that arrogance is astonishing.
But, as you really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend, would you be happy to share what you believe to be the best way to reverse the on-coming Armageddon? What would a chippy solution look like?
Any response would need to agree that there is an “oncoming Armageddon”.
Climate change is a reality, the inevitability of our demise is nonsense.
Well that's positive, at least. How do you think it can be prevented?
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
I really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend. But when you quote and read the likes of the guardian and listen to one trick ponies like JOB it's easy to be taken in.
What's your view on how best to tackle the climate change crisis, chippy? I know you won't be so arrogant as to claim you have all the solutions - because you've told everyone that arrogance is astonishing.
But, as you really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend, would you be happy to share what you believe to be the best way to reverse the on-coming Armageddon? What would a chippy solution look like?
Instead of asking other posters to give their view on how best to tackle climate change crisis how about you give us yours
It's better to listen than to preach.
In other words you don't have the answer. But neither do I. The answer to the problem has to be found with all the world's leaders coming together with an open mind to the problem. I very much doubt anyone on a football forum will provide you with the answers so it's pointless asking.
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
Education, public health and women’s rights are I believe the key things show to reduce the birth rate.
Do you think that would be sufficient to halt and reverse the climate crisis? I think you're absolutely right in terms of reducing the rate of population growth. But I think it would be far too little to have a big enough effect on the climate, soon enough.
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
We're animals that need food and water to survive. Under conditions of resource scarcity, natural wastage occurs. It's what happens in the animal world, and however intelligent we like to think we are, we're a living part of it. Our evolution has led us to the point of over exploiting the earth's natural resources. The conditions for our continued survival will be made more challenging as the climate crisis accelerates, leading to survival of the fattest, at least for a while. That's unless we can find another planet conducive to supporting life as we know it. No solution, just the unfortunate consequences.
Even if we all became net zero carbon emitters today, it wont stop the ice melting in future. It's too late for that, which means sea level rises, warmer seas, more ocean acidification, so reducing it's effectiveness as a carbon sink, leading to a higher concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere. Methane will be released that's currently trapped in the thawing permafrost, emissions from animal agriculture will rise as more cattle are reared to feed more people, so lessening the land area available for growing crops, more deforestation then needed to compensate, meaning less carbon will be absorbed by trees too.
So, as I've said before, us reducing our emissions isn't enough, but we must do it. We must also find ways to replace the carbon sink capacity being lost in the natural world too. Sequestrating greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to reduce their concentrations is our only hope of stopping global warming imo.
I would be interested to know what your answer to my question is
Wouldn't we all, but I don't have one that involves us being proactive on specifically controlling / reducing population numbers. Sorry.
What is the optimum human population? 2-3 billion is often cited but that would require international cooperation to make it work.
If each couple had one child from now then mankind would disappear in about 500 years - although the reality is that it would be much sooner than that as life expectancy would diminish rapidly as there would not be enough wealth generated to support universal healthcare. To reach the above optimum it would take about 800 years if the number of children per couple was 2.
This is illuminating when playing with different scenarios:
The world birth rate has fallen from 2.4 to around 2.2 in the last seven or eight years following a trend established way back in the seventies. So it will almost inevitably be below 2.0 in ten years time.
Selecting 2.0 as "the birth rate" for the next 50 years doesn't seem realistic to me especially when the birth rate in Europe and the US is currently around 1.5 and as low as 1.0 in China! It is 2.0 in India and falling dramatically in India.
Only in Africa does the birth rate remain above 2.0 It is declining but not as rapidly as elsewhere!
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
Education, public health and women’s rights are I believe the key things show to reduce the birth rate.
Do you think that would be sufficient to halt and reverse the climate crisis? I think you're absolutely right in terms of reducing the rate of population growth. But I think it would be far too little to have a big enough effect on the climate, soon enough.
Not its own. No one measure will be enough.
We need to slow/reverse population growth.
We also need to focus less on economic growth as a consequence of consumption.
We need use less fossil fuels.
We need to use less ‘stuff’ we need to fly less we need to use more public transportation (ideally it should be free) and less private/personal transportation in the form of cars. We need to eat less meet we need to invest heavily in researching efficient, high capacity battery storage on large scales.
All the tiny things we can do as individuals are useful as they build a bit more momentum and general mindset change.
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
I really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend. But when you quote and read the likes of the guardian and listen to one trick ponies like JOB it's easy to be taken in.
What's your view on how best to tackle the climate change crisis, chippy? I know you won't be so arrogant as to claim you have all the solutions - because you've told everyone that arrogance is astonishing.
But, as you really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend, would you be happy to share what you believe to be the best way to reverse the on-coming Armageddon? What would a chippy solution look like?
Not to you I am not arrogant. And can't recall your view apart from your obsession with me.
Comments
But you have implied aplenty that myself, Chippy and people with similar views on the Political Right, are somehow too thick not to be taken in by "disinformation", when I spend multiple hours every day reading specifically about American Politics and current affairs, from multiple sources, not just "The Guardian" or the "BBC" as most of you seem to.
Likewise Chippy is far better informed on UK Politics than I am.
The fact is, when comes to which side of Politics is more easily taken in by BS lies and disinformation, the exact opposite is true.
It is those on the Political Left who were taken in by the Media's lies, dishonesty and Disinformation, because they were too damn lazy to check for themselves, or to read source documents, as I did.
The Media made you believe that Trump Colluded with Russia. They made you believe that Hunter Biden's Laptop was just "Russian Disinformation".
They made you believe that Biden was "as sharp as a tack".
The Left got roped in, and ended up with egg all over their faces. Tomorrow they will see the result.
They made you believe that Trump was a useless joke of a President who didn't have a hope in hell of getting re elected🤣
They desperately tried to label him "Convicted Felon", thinking that would somehow tip the scales.
It didn't of course, because the majority of US voters saw right through the manufactured bullshit.
That message unfortunately doesn't appear to have got through to my CL comrades just yet.
They made you believe that the vaccines were perfectly safe, because, as Zuckerberg has now finally recently revealed, he was pressured by the Biden Government not to publish anything that even dared to question their safety or efficiency.
Just as he was also pressured not to publish and suppress anything about Hunter's Laptop (Election Interference much !)
People were kept in the dark and their minds were manipulated, but eventually the truth always prevails and the public wakes up, as they fortunately have, in the US, Argentina, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands etc.
How does this relate to Climate change?
People need to be allowed to state their case and not be shut down just for having a differing view.
Everyone wants the same outcome.
For me it's pretty simple, we need to reduce the population quickly by incentivising people not to have more than 2 children, not encouraging them to have more by offering generous welfare incentives.
Action begins at home, get our own house in order first, set an example, in the hope that eventually it is replicated all over the world.
Underpopulation shouldn't be a problem if our goal is to save the planet.
And rebuilding the population in the future, if needed, shouldn't be any problem, seeing as that is our natural inclination and pleasure😀
Even if we all became net zero carbon emitters today, it wont stop the ice melting in future. It's too late for that, which means sea level rises, warmer seas, more ocean acidification, so reducing it's effectiveness as a carbon sink, leading to a higher concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere. Methane will be released that's currently trapped in the thawing permafrost, emissions from animal agriculture will rise as more cattle are reared to feed more people, so lessening the land area available for growing crops, more deforestation then needed to compensate, meaning less carbon will be absorbed by trees too.
So, as I've said before, us reducing our emissions isn't enough, but we must do it. We must also find ways to replace the carbon sink capacity being lost in the natural world too. Sequestrating greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to reduce their concentrations is our only hope of stopping global warming imo.
The region where change has been slower is sub-Saharan Africa, but even here things are starting to move in the right direction.
What can we do in the West to accelerate this? Boosting women's education and economic opportunities is shown to have a big impact, so that's foreign aid and where possible buying stuff from Africa rather than China (but that's really difficult to do)
Discouraging migration to Europe may or may not help. I suspect that birth rates among West Afrcan women (or their daughters) is higher than among their relatives who have moved to Europe, but migration policy is clearly more complex than that. For me, the environmental impact of population increase in the UK is undeniably negative (houses, roads, etc), whatever one feels about the social and economic impacts.
There's no magic bullet on climate change, everyone has to figure out what they are willing to do personally (give to appropriate aid charities and cut back on air travel in my case). But promotion population reduction has to be part of the mix
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
But, as you really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend, would you be happy to share what you believe to be the best way to reverse the on-coming Armageddon? What would a chippy solution look like?
But neither do I.
The answer to the problem has to be found with all the world's leaders coming together with an open mind to the problem.
I very much doubt anyone on a football forum will provide you with the answers so it's pointless asking.
But I think it also helps to consider birth rates at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN.
The world birth rate has fallen from 2.4 to around 2.2 in the last seven or eight years following a trend established way back in the seventies. So it will almost inevitably be below 2.0 in ten years time.
Selecting 2.0 as "the birth rate" for the next 50 years doesn't seem realistic to me especially when the birth rate in Europe and the US is currently around 1.5 and as low as 1.0 in China! It is 2.0 in India and falling dramatically in India.
Only in Africa does the birth rate remain above 2.0 It is declining but not as rapidly as elsewhere!
we need to fly less
we need to use more public transportation (ideally it should be free) and less private/personal transportation in the form of cars.
We need to eat less meet
we need to invest heavily in researching efficient, high capacity battery storage on large scales.
All the tiny things we can do as individuals are useful as they build a bit more momentum and general mindset change.