I AGREE with your perspective. She should be in school, getting educated on how she can change the world, not lecturing people. Obvious psyop to distract and fuel the climate change propaganda.
I have given this post a 50% upvote because it has begun a discussion and brought focus to the subject of climate change.
Whether I agree or disagree with one's opinion, I can still appreciate their views (no matter how wrong they may be). This posts value, as is all content of posts, is subjective. Though I disagree with the message, there are some viable points (I am not a communist, yet I am a tree hugger).
Facts are facts and common sense will show that pollution and the throw away society that is the world today is not good for the planet or us humans. Don't believe me? Ask our friends in India! Some may deny this, President Nixon, USA (founder of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and a Conservative Republican did not.
Global warming may be just a cycle, but the first Executive Action by the US President to allow the polluting of creeks and streams by coal companies sure don't help the fish, frogs and other watery creatures. Just one of many de-regulating actions by My President (can't stand the man, yet he is my President) that is reprehensible.
I know nothing about this young girl, but what I have read. Never met her and whether she has a type of autism I know not. Hypocrite? Well, she is human and all of us humans suffer from that malady.
The arguments presented by @drakos are reminiscent of the Alex Jones Sandy Hook fiasco (my perception). Our world is in a bad way as far as the environment goes. No birds, no bees, no trees, no air! I can't breath fossil fuels or eat fiat/cryptocurrency.
The whole downvoting thing? I will just keep my mouth shut on this matter. Not my fight. Preservation of life on this planet through education and conversation is my fight. I, like our first President George Washington, am an isolationist (for a much more in-depth understanding of my views see the views of General Smedly Darlington Butler, USMC. I do believe my Country does have a responsibility to the world though. Not militarily, but in not aiding in the destruction in the world that G-D has given us. The children of the world are the ones that will be impacted by our inaction and tribalism.
Finally; this is not a simple subject and there are no simple answers... there are many factors at play. Will we, the human race, live long enough to cooperate and find answers? I am one that usually can fight both sides of an argument (I am a Gemini after all).
I would hope that this conversation would continue. It is a very emotional one, yet an important issue. No need to worry about the Zombie Apocolypse, if we don't become proactive soon even Zombies won't be able to survive on this planet!
Well thank you for the upvote on my comment @drakos. Now all my fellow tree-huggers will downvote everything I do! It is not easy being a Centrist in a polarized world. Thanks a lot! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Really appreciate your courage to speak your mind about this topic, especially when you know what kind of sanctions and punishment you will face.
The world (and Steemit) needs more people like you, who will fight this insane attempt of ideological indoctrination and heretics hunt, with heretics being anyone who even dares to question the "highest moral convictions and goals" of such ideological movements.
I don't see how is this different from religious indoctrination, since both are based purely on faith and speculations, presenting them as undeniable scientific truths.
The real danger in this particular movement is that it takes a real, scientifically proven truth (climate change), and manipulates scientific facts, magnifying the real issue by the factor of 1000. Add fear-mongering and psychological manipulation to that (anyone who disagrees or even dares to question the established dogma is instantly declared as a "crazy climate change denier", devaluated and punished), and you get a perfect recipe for success of an ideology.
Worked so many times throughout the history of mankind, it will work again if we don't stand against it and speak our minds whenever we can.
Please keep doing this, there are people who support you!
I had a lot of backlash because of this: insults, downvotes, lost witness votes, unfollows, even a whale decided to vote his arch enemy just to kick me out of the top 20! It's a testament to their indoctrination by this new religion.
Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
I can imagine, unfortunately, similar things happen to the people outside of blockchain, they're even threaten with job loss, if they dare to question this and similar ideologies.
And yes, the fact that you're punished only because you spoke your mind about certain topic, is a firm sign of an ideology which doesn't put up with the alternative opinions, or even facts.
Hopefully we won't have to address one another as "comrade" soon ;)
P.S. If you haven't read/watched Orwell's 1984, maybe you'd be interested to do so ;)
Well you still have my MV for what it is worth. You contribute currently and in the past a great deal more to STEEM than just being a witness.That is good enough for me. Hell, even @rt-international (them Russkie funded alt-news source) made a post here on STEEM about this topic. It was not even a video! It was titled: Greta Thunberg wants you afraid, and big business will make a killing off it
I disagree with you. Of course, the movement exxagerates by taking the worst case szenario as granted. BUT that does not mean that this worst case szenario is not possible.
As extinction of the human kind is a possibility, we should apply the precautionary principle, and this means drastically limiting CO2 emissions.
And even if you disagree with that, also the most propable developments are bad enough. These are not lies, these are science. We have to do more, or we will pay for it and the price will be far higher than the costs of precautious actions now.
So while I appreciate your dedication to science, you're siding with the wrong people (science deniers) here. Weird.
So while I appreciate your dedication to science, you're siding with the wrong people (science deniers) here. Weird.
As I already stated in my comment, manipulation of scientific facts, fear-mongering and psychological manipulation work like charm in most people, except for a small minority, including myself ;)
Unlike most of the people, defending myself against ridiculous tagging is the last thing I will spend my time and energy on.
As you decided to put me in the nonexistent or, in the worst case scenario - permille fraction of the developed countries population who really denies scientific facts, I won't bother placing firm arguments for you, since, if you really wanted (especially since you're a scientist yourself), you would use your head and would found them on your own.
Instead, I will make a useless conclusion about you, as you made one for me, since I guess that's the only way a "dialog" with ideologically possessed people is possible:
I think it's really weird AND sad that a PhD scientist and experienced toxicologist doesn't question allegedly scientific data served for him in the mainstream media, especially when it comes to prediction models based on extrapolation.
Moreover, he argues that the whole economic systems should be changed from the ground up (although developed countries are constantly decreasing CO2 emissions for the past several decades by constant improvement of technology, but I guess that's not enough for you Armageddon people), because there's a possibility (again, predicted by a very vague, ambiguous "model") that climate will backlash at us.
Shameful demonstration of serious lack of mathematical knowledge.
Dear @scienceangel, I think you got me wrong there, which has then caused this emotional backlash of ad hominem “argumentation”. For the record: I did not say that you were denying scientific facts (I think you would not do that, at least not consciously), I said that you are siding with those that are denying scientific facts, which is an important difference.
So let me start by apologizing for expressing myself in a way that could be misunderstood. I hope we can keep emotions out of this and get back to a more serious way of fact-based discussion.
Having said this, I stand by my opinion that you are wrong. Sadly, the arguments I will bring on require some research and a full post. You can expect to see it by one week or so. And I hope you are as open-minded as a researcher should be, instead of clinging to your ideology (I know that you will bristle now and say that you follow none.^^ But in my experience, everyone has his own mindset and ideals, i.e. “ideology”).
You will of course have the full right of counter-argumentation, and I will read it with care, as long as it is fact-based and follows the basic rules of logic and science. I’m living up to my credo:
If your’re bringing the better argument, I might rethink.
As a toxicologist, you should know that extrapolation - not good, and should be avoided
You should also know that models based on a simple linear/ exponential curve are useful as a substitution for a toilet paper
You should also know that if your raw data are showing values between 0,2 and 0,85 (UN report, page 50 something, find it yourself, I hope you are able to do that) are as useful as recycled kitty litter
You should also be able to distinguish between the confidence interval and probability if you are at least literate in math.
However, as I see that you are not, no wonder your research papers can't get more than 10 citations.
Also, no wonder, that you surrounded yourselves (together with other steemSTEM morons) with a Nigerian royal family, as college dropouts are creme de la creme and honorable members.
Ah, the good old argument ad hominem. The method of destroying debate by throwing smoke-balls of needless insults to spur emotions, commonly used by those why instinctively fear they stand at the weaker side of an argument.
I will not fall into that trap and answer with hot-headed anger. You see, I am not you. ;-)
It was obviously only half the truth. That stupid anti-vaxxer got me fuming, and that is why I invested time and energy to counter him. I hope you’ll make a more worthy opponent. Stay tuned.
The wicked communist adults who are using this child as a tool will face the judgement of God. Shame on the climate cult and their non scientific false religion of despair and bondage.
And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth
And that brat is a complete idiot because:
Yes, commy mom, economic growth is eternal and never-ending because there is something called science, tech and knowledge. Add some free market and you have all the ingredients
Now that was not nice at all. I care about the environment and the future of the coming generations. Those of us that have those concerns are not all Communists, or members of a cult. Plus, *whose god? Your god, my G-D?
The worship of a god is a choice. I don't speak for my G-D. Evidently you speak for your god. I perceive you a prophetess. Be careful you don't misquote. That may make your god angry.
My G-D made human beings stewards of the earth. Hoping all will be well is all fine and good. Taking action when there is a problem I believe is better! Old saying when I was a seminarian...
Your comment indicates you intend to apply reason to the issue at hand. The scientific method is based on reason, on experiment and observation. PCB's are shown by observation to be pollutants, and many similar chemical products of industry as well. CO2 is the opposite. It is shown to be a necessary nutrient upon which life on Earth is dependent.
If you would research CO2, you will observe this fact. Once that is known to you, you can then test the propaganda availed to the public for veracity. You don't need to break bread with Greta Thunberg to realize her advocacy of removing a vital nutrient from ecosystems based on photosynthesis is harmful to life itself.
Confirm or deny the above graphics to ascertain the facts of the matter. Proceed accordingly.
Science is not my best academic subject. Guess I need to read more of #stemgeek Tribe's posts. I remember from ecology in the 9th grade though that plants like CO2 (one molecule of Carbon, two molecules of Oxygen). That is a given.
Dumping plastic, fossil fuels and hazardous waste in the water, be it streams, lakes, or the ocean is bad! I live in Pennsylvania, United States where the Susquehanna River is the backup water source. Not long ago, loads and loads of oil from a broken pipeline were dumped into that water.
In northern Pennsylvania and our neighboring state, Ohio, earthquakes have increased and this shortly after fracking for natural gas began. Bees have decreased, birds are just dropping from the sky and dying... something is going on.
The neighbors get mad at me because I feed the birds and their cars have bird poop on them. Well I live in urban sprawl, helped to take away their natural habitat because of all the cement and less worms and plants. My apartment complex keeps manicured lawns with poison killing weeds.
Carbon Tax? I don't know, but definitely a pollution tax. I am old enough to remember being in 29 Palms California when I was stationed there with the Marine Corps watching the smog rise over the mountains from Los Angeles.
Look at what is happening in India and other areas in Asia. That ain't good. Very smokey from pollution.
I grasp the dilemma you face, but the graphs are relatively simple, and if you examine them thoughtfully, you will understand them. If you choose not to exercise your faculties and remain ambivalent about a carbon tax, you remain susceptible to propaganda that is intended to do great evil, and for that you will be responsible.
Greta does not wax irascible over PCBs, teflon cookware, or other endocrine disrupting pollution for a reason. She flogs CO2 because she is a paid shill lying about AGW, not a honest child defending people from harm, despite the easy to grasp fact that CO2 is a necessary nutrient for all photosynthetic plants, and is the foundation of Earth's ecosystems upon which we depend.
The way to combat fake science is understanding. Willfully failing to understand this matter potentiates existential risk to life on Earth, including people. If you would be a good steward, you will need to learn to separate truth from lies. CO2 is a simple thing, and the fossil record of it's abundance in our atmosphere is clear. You are responsible to society for undertaking the necessary education to oppose evil lies and support what is good and true, because you have authority, as do we all, over social instantiation.
Please responsibly undertake that responsibility and seek the necessary information regarding CO2 abundance on Earth and it's affect on plants, so that you no longer participate in harming society through acquiescence to evil acts due to nescience. You are nescient, you claim. Failing to cure that nescience in view of it's simplicity demonstrates instead ignorance.
There is no excuse for that.
Edit: the chart you posted clearly includes CO2 amongst pollutants. It is part of the fake science and fake news propaganda you lament. Seek factual sources, such as the debate undertaken by actual climate scientists at wuwt.com (watts up with that). I don't think you want to be fooled. I don't think you want to help evil people do harm. The only way to not be fooled into doing harm is to understand truth evil people want to conceal.
Many, not all, but many find scientific proof for their preconceived notions. In the case of businesses they find scientific proof to find profit.
Good example is that fat in foods causes obesity. Fake Science!
Processed sugar, which is in pretty much everything now days is the number one reason for obesity, not fat. Many years ago this myth was promulgated by Scientific Studies bought and paid for by Sugar Moguls.
Truth? What is truth? Even the Christian God stood mute when asked by Pontius Pilate. Truth is the information one believes until proven wrong with facts. Sadly sometimes that does not even work.
Is our existence a hologram? Are their aliens? Did we actually have someone walk on the moon? Was Jesus Christ actually an historical figure? Is psychic ability a real thing? Is the world flat?
You will find very differing views on the questions above by very intelligent people. If I am nescience in your mind (had to look that word up, thanks for adding to my vocabularity by the way), so be it. I remind my-self everday...
Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
—Abraham Lincoln
I worry more about my character than some measurement of my intellect. I have known many smart people over the years that had absolutely no character.
I expect you do worry more about your character than IQ, which is why you are susceptible to facts. The argument you seem to be making here is that there are no facts, or no facts we can ascertain. People disagree, which is why experiment has value, to demonstrate the right of it so that reasonable people can agree, because experiment proves facts, and facts give the reasonable basis for understanding. It is factual that CO2 is an essential nutrient for plants, and there seems to be no disagreement on this matter, not even by most unreasonable people. It is also factual that plants are the primary producers of food in terrestrial ecosystems, and if plants get more CO2 than they presently do, they will produce more.
These facts aren't disputed by Greta Thunberg and her ilk. They are ignored. You can test that plants produce more yourself quite easily with a plant grown under lights in a room. When you add a bucket full of dry ice (frozen CO2) you allow to evaporate in the room from time to time, the plant grows faster. There is a limit to the beneficial effect of CO2, but it is far above any level Earth has experienced in history, and 55mya CO2 was more than ten times the level we enjoy today while life throve, including coral reefs.
I don't know about any God or gods being mute. Perhaps those listening would not have profited from anything said, in the estimation of the deities. I have no such foreknowledge, so speak when situations indicate reason is necessary. An interesting thing about CO2 is that without it, plants die. The level at which most plants in nature begin to expire from lack of CO2 is ~190ppm, a level we bounced off during the LGM. CO2 has been being locked up in coal and other rocks due to natural processes since life on Earth began, and returning that CO2 to the atmosphere where plants can use it to photosynthesize is a good idea.
Your character is revealed by your conduct. To be is to do. Should natural ecosystems be grossly harmed, people will be dependent for food, water, and air on companies that produce them. Whether that is the political purpose of those behind Greta Thunberg I do not know, but I do know how to prevent such existential power from being effected over me and mine: restore atmospheric CO2 to levels approximately an order of magnitude higher than it presently is.
You can test CO2 levels in your garage to determine by experiment that plants grow more food more quickly at those levels, and you will observe that you do not choke or strangle in that atmosphere. Those are facts, and if you remain ambivalent regarding easily provable facts in the face of lies being propagated at considerable expense by nefarious political forces, you demonstrate your character.
I seem to recall someone once stating that ambivalence is worse than lies, and recommending being either hot or cold, because those that are neither will be spewed out of His mouth as worthless. It is one thing to be nescient. It is another to be determined not to know. Nescience is excusable. Ignorance is vile, particularly when knowing is so easy.
@drakos Seriously, you are revenge-flagging now, and even ocd, impacting the payout of curators who are completely uninvolved? If you bid-bot a post containing fake news you should be prepared for downvotes. For my witness votes I don’t care about someone's political opinion as long as I agree with their on-chain politics, but I certainly don’t agree with revenge-flagging curation projects.
I'm expressing my opinion about Greta, that's fake news? Next time don't hide behind OCD/OCDB to flag others. It's not revenge flagging, I don't like daily reports like OCD does 3 times a day, it was an opportunity to flag a few of those.
What a coincidence that you downvoted exactly the same accounts that downvoted your post before. I am not against downvoting spam or when disagreeing with rewards, but revenge flagging is stupid and probably not the best idea if you are at the edge of top 20
Next time don't hide behind OCD/OCDB to flag others
I am not part of ocd, I don't have to be to be against flagging the posts of a curation project that distributes post rewards to hard-working curators who are not involved in the decision by who @ocdb flags
I'm expressing my opinion about Greta, that's fake news?
As @fraenk pointed out already, you got your "facts" wrong. Apart from that, your words ("with fake tears"), don't match the video, I think she made some good points. Your post reads to me like an opinionated news report rather than an opinion, and since the "facts" you use are wrong, it's "fake news" to me
You can say about Greta what you want, at least she stands up for an important subject and manages to bring attention to it. I generally find personal attacks regarding political opinions pointless, e.g. I don't like Trump personally, but unlike most, I don't judge his politics by his my making fun of him.
This quip I found to be a little over the top. A bit shocking to describe the young lady in this way... you think? Then again I compared @drakos post here to Alex Jones'news stories[?].
She gave Trump an evil look, reminiscent of a psychopath who's about to commit murder.
I have changed my vote to 100% not because I agree with the premise of this post, but because in between all the cussing, hating and such within the comments I actually learned some things and the comments made me think!
Sorry @drakos, the comments are better than the post, but kudos for being the impetus behind a really interesting debate and me learning new words to add to my vocabulary!
Totally brainwashed little bitch she reminds me of Violet Elizabeth Bott
The power of progressive emotional persuasion.
I AGREE with your perspective. She should be in school, getting educated on how she can change the world, not lecturing people. Obvious psyop to distract and fuel the climate change propaganda.
I have given this post a 50% upvote because it has begun a discussion and brought focus to the subject of climate change.
I would hope that this conversation would continue. It is a very emotional one, yet an important issue. No need to worry about the Zombie Apocolypse, if we don't become proactive soon even Zombies won't be able to survive on this planet!
Well thank you for the upvote on my comment @drakos. Now all my fellow tree-huggers will downvote everything I do! It is not easy being a Centrist in a polarized world. Thanks a lot! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
well you got a follow from me, for being polite and inquisitive as well as intelligent.
on 'climate change' (nee global warming) - others have written well, for my part:
Well thank you very much. That is nice and I appreciate the compliment.
Really appreciate your courage to speak your mind about this topic, especially when you know what kind of sanctions and punishment you will face.
The world (and Steemit) needs more people like you, who will fight this insane attempt of ideological indoctrination and heretics hunt, with heretics being anyone who even dares to question the "highest moral convictions and goals" of such ideological movements.
I don't see how is this different from religious indoctrination, since both are based purely on faith and speculations, presenting them as undeniable scientific truths.
The real danger in this particular movement is that it takes a real, scientifically proven truth (climate change), and manipulates scientific facts, magnifying the real issue by the factor of 1000. Add fear-mongering and psychological manipulation to that (anyone who disagrees or even dares to question the established dogma is instantly declared as a "crazy climate change denier", devaluated and punished), and you get a perfect recipe for success of an ideology.
Worked so many times throughout the history of mankind, it will work again if we don't stand against it and speak our minds whenever we can.
Please keep doing this, there are people who support you!
Upvoted and resteemed for visibility!!!
I had a lot of backlash because of this: insults, downvotes, lost witness votes, unfollows, even a whale decided to vote his arch enemy just to kick me out of the top 20! It's a testament to their indoctrination by this new religion.
I can imagine, unfortunately, similar things happen to the people outside of blockchain, they're even threaten with job loss, if they dare to question this and similar ideologies.
And yes, the fact that you're punished only because you spoke your mind about certain topic, is a firm sign of an ideology which doesn't put up with the alternative opinions, or even facts.
Hopefully we won't have to address one another as "comrade" soon ;)
P.S. If you haven't read/watched Orwell's 1984, maybe you'd be interested to do so ;)
Well you still have my MV for what it is worth. You contribute currently and in the past a great deal more to STEEM than just being a witness.That is good enough for me. Hell, even @rt-international (them Russkie funded alt-news source) made a post here on STEEM about this topic. It was not even a video! It was titled: Greta Thunberg wants you afraid, and big business will make a killing off it
I disagree with you. Of course, the movement exxagerates by taking the worst case szenario as granted. BUT that does not mean that this worst case szenario is not possible.
As extinction of the human kind is a possibility, we should apply the precautionary principle, and this means drastically limiting CO2 emissions.
And even if you disagree with that, also the most propable developments are bad enough. These are not lies, these are science. We have to do more, or we will pay for it and the price will be far higher than the costs of precautious actions now.
So while I appreciate your dedication to science, you're siding with the wrong people (science deniers) here. Weird.
As I already stated in my comment, manipulation of scientific facts, fear-mongering and psychological manipulation work like charm in most people, except for a small minority, including myself ;)
Unlike most of the people, defending myself against ridiculous tagging is the last thing I will spend my time and energy on.
As you decided to put me in the nonexistent or, in the worst case scenario - permille fraction of the developed countries population who really denies scientific facts, I won't bother placing firm arguments for you, since, if you really wanted (especially since you're a scientist yourself), you would use your head and would found them on your own.
Instead, I will make a useless conclusion about you, as you made one for me, since I guess that's the only way a "dialog" with ideologically possessed people is possible:
I think it's really weird AND sad that a PhD scientist and experienced toxicologist doesn't question allegedly scientific data served for him in the mainstream media, especially when it comes to prediction models based on extrapolation.
Moreover, he argues that the whole economic systems should be changed from the ground up (although developed countries are constantly decreasing CO2 emissions for the past several decades by constant improvement of technology, but I guess that's not enough for you Armageddon people), because there's a possibility (again, predicted by a very vague, ambiguous "model") that climate will backlash at us.
Shameful demonstration of serious lack of mathematical knowledge.
Dear @scienceangel, I think you got me wrong there, which has then caused this emotional backlash of ad hominem “argumentation”. For the record: I did not say that you were denying scientific facts (I think you would not do that, at least not consciously), I said that you are siding with those that are denying scientific facts, which is an important difference.
So let me start by apologizing for expressing myself in a way that could be misunderstood. I hope we can keep emotions out of this and get back to a more serious way of fact-based discussion.
Having said this, I stand by my opinion that you are wrong. Sadly, the arguments I will bring on require some research and a full post. You can expect to see it by one week or so. And I hope you are as open-minded as a researcher should be, instead of clinging to your ideology (I know that you will bristle now and say that you follow none.^^ But in my experience, everyone has his own mindset and ideals, i.e. “ideology”).
You will of course have the full right of counter-argumentation, and I will read it with care, as long as it is fact-based and follows the basic rules of logic and science. I’m living up to my credo:
As a toxicologist, you should know that extrapolation - not good, and should be avoided
You should also know that models based on a simple linear/ exponential curve are useful as a substitution for a toilet paper
You should also know that if your raw data are showing values between 0,2 and 0,85 (UN report, page 50 something, find it yourself, I hope you are able to do that) are as useful as recycled kitty litter
You should also be able to distinguish between the confidence interval and probability if you are at least literate in math.
However, as I see that you are not, no wonder your research papers can't get more than 10 citations.
Also, no wonder, that you surrounded yourselves (together with other steemSTEM morons) with a Nigerian royal family, as college dropouts are creme de la creme and honorable members.
Ah, the good old argument ad hominem. The method of destroying debate by throwing smoke-balls of needless insults to spur emotions, commonly used by those why instinctively fear they stand at the weaker side of an argument.
I will not fall into that trap and answer with hot-headed anger. You see, I am not you. ;-)
Instead, I will answer in time, with some research done and a full post. May I remind you saying the following about me?
It was obviously only half the truth. That stupid anti-vaxxer got me fuming, and that is why I invested time and energy to counter him. I hope you’ll make a more worthy opponent. Stay tuned.
to follow up with one thing... breaking news... it's actually Greta mocking Trump's tweet by changing her twitter bio ;)
i checked on achive.org - not fake news
LOL so it's just something that Trump said?
"bright and wonderful future" oh wow, lol, now that's next level.
LOL. So she thinks by repeating Trump's words she's funny? Either way, Trump makes me laugh, she doesn't.
President Trump makes me cry inside and get angry on the outside. Guess I am just one of those snowflakes... 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The wicked communist adults who are using this child as a tool will face the judgement of God. Shame on the climate cult and their non scientific false religion of despair and bondage.
Posted using Partiko Android
Stupid little brat said:
And that brat is a complete idiot because:
Yes, commy mom, economic growth is eternal and never-ending because there is something called science, tech and knowledge. Add some free market and you have all the ingredients
Now that was not nice at all. I care about the environment and the future of the coming generations. Those of us that have those concerns are not all Communists, or members of a cult. Plus, *whose god? Your god, my G-D?
The worship of a god is a choice. I don't speak for my G-D. Evidently you speak for your god. I perceive you a prophetess. Be careful you don't misquote. That may make your god angry.
My G-D made human beings stewards of the earth. Hoping all will be well is all fine and good. Taking action when there is a problem I believe is better! Old saying when I was a seminarian...
Your comment indicates you intend to apply reason to the issue at hand. The scientific method is based on reason, on experiment and observation. PCB's are shown by observation to be pollutants, and many similar chemical products of industry as well. CO2 is the opposite. It is shown to be a necessary nutrient upon which life on Earth is dependent.
If you would research CO2, you will observe this fact. Once that is known to you, you can then test the propaganda availed to the public for veracity. You don't need to break bread with Greta Thunberg to realize her advocacy of removing a vital nutrient from ecosystems based on photosynthesis is harmful to life itself.
Confirm or deny the above graphics to ascertain the facts of the matter. Proceed accordingly.
Science is not my best academic subject. Guess I need to read more of #stemgeek Tribe's posts. I remember from ecology in the 9th grade though that plants like CO2 (one molecule of Carbon, two molecules of Oxygen). That is a given.
Dumping plastic, fossil fuels and hazardous waste in the water, be it streams, lakes, or the ocean is bad! I live in Pennsylvania, United States where the Susquehanna River is the backup water source. Not long ago, loads and loads of oil from a broken pipeline were dumped into that water.
In northern Pennsylvania and our neighboring state, Ohio, earthquakes have increased and this shortly after fracking for natural gas began. Bees have decreased, birds are just dropping from the sky and dying... something is going on.
The neighbors get mad at me because I feed the birds and their cars have bird poop on them. Well I live in urban sprawl, helped to take away their natural habitat because of all the cement and less worms and plants. My apartment complex keeps manicured lawns with poison killing weeds.
Carbon Tax? I don't know, but definitely a pollution tax. I am old enough to remember being in 29 Palms California when I was stationed there with the Marine Corps watching the smog rise over the mountains from Los Angeles.
Look at what is happening in India and other areas in Asia. That ain't good. Very smokey from pollution.
Image Source: Wikipedia
I am not a scientist, yet I am learning. Hard to learn today. Fake science, fake news...it all leaves me in a quandry.
I grasp the dilemma you face, but the graphs are relatively simple, and if you examine them thoughtfully, you will understand them. If you choose not to exercise your faculties and remain ambivalent about a carbon tax, you remain susceptible to propaganda that is intended to do great evil, and for that you will be responsible.
Greta does not wax irascible over PCBs, teflon cookware, or other endocrine disrupting pollution for a reason. She flogs CO2 because she is a paid shill lying about AGW, not a honest child defending people from harm, despite the easy to grasp fact that CO2 is a necessary nutrient for all photosynthetic plants, and is the foundation of Earth's ecosystems upon which we depend.
The way to combat fake science is understanding. Willfully failing to understand this matter potentiates existential risk to life on Earth, including people. If you would be a good steward, you will need to learn to separate truth from lies. CO2 is a simple thing, and the fossil record of it's abundance in our atmosphere is clear. You are responsible to society for undertaking the necessary education to oppose evil lies and support what is good and true, because you have authority, as do we all, over social instantiation.
Please responsibly undertake that responsibility and seek the necessary information regarding CO2 abundance on Earth and it's affect on plants, so that you no longer participate in harming society through acquiescence to evil acts due to nescience. You are nescient, you claim. Failing to cure that nescience in view of it's simplicity demonstrates instead ignorance.
There is no excuse for that.
Edit: the chart you posted clearly includes CO2 amongst pollutants. It is part of the fake science and fake news propaganda you lament. Seek factual sources, such as the debate undertaken by actual climate scientists at wuwt.com (watts up with that). I don't think you want to be fooled. I don't think you want to help evil people do harm. The only way to not be fooled into doing harm is to understand truth evil people want to conceal.
SOURCE: GIF created by @sgt-dan using GIMP Software
Many, not all, but many find scientific proof for their preconceived notions. In the case of businesses they find scientific proof to find profit.
Good example is that fat in foods causes obesity. Fake Science!
Processed sugar, which is in pretty much everything now days is the number one reason for obesity, not fat. Many years ago this myth was promulgated by Scientific Studies bought and paid for by Sugar Moguls.
Truth? What is truth? Even the Christian God stood mute when asked by Pontius Pilate. Truth is the information one believes until proven wrong with facts. Sadly sometimes that does not even work.
Is our existence a hologram? Are their aliens? Did we actually have someone walk on the moon? Was Jesus Christ actually an historical figure? Is psychic ability a real thing? Is the world flat?
You will find very differing views on the questions above by very intelligent people. If I am nescience in your mind (had to look that word up, thanks for adding to my vocabularity by the way), so be it. I remind my-self everday...
—Abraham Lincoln
I worry more about my character than some measurement of my intellect. I have known many smart people over the years that had absolutely no character.
I expect you do worry more about your character than IQ, which is why you are susceptible to facts. The argument you seem to be making here is that there are no facts, or no facts we can ascertain. People disagree, which is why experiment has value, to demonstrate the right of it so that reasonable people can agree, because experiment proves facts, and facts give the reasonable basis for understanding. It is factual that CO2 is an essential nutrient for plants, and there seems to be no disagreement on this matter, not even by most unreasonable people. It is also factual that plants are the primary producers of food in terrestrial ecosystems, and if plants get more CO2 than they presently do, they will produce more.
These facts aren't disputed by Greta Thunberg and her ilk. They are ignored. You can test that plants produce more yourself quite easily with a plant grown under lights in a room. When you add a bucket full of dry ice (frozen CO2) you allow to evaporate in the room from time to time, the plant grows faster. There is a limit to the beneficial effect of CO2, but it is far above any level Earth has experienced in history, and 55mya CO2 was more than ten times the level we enjoy today while life throve, including coral reefs.
I don't know about any God or gods being mute. Perhaps those listening would not have profited from anything said, in the estimation of the deities. I have no such foreknowledge, so speak when situations indicate reason is necessary. An interesting thing about CO2 is that without it, plants die. The level at which most plants in nature begin to expire from lack of CO2 is ~190ppm, a level we bounced off during the LGM. CO2 has been being locked up in coal and other rocks due to natural processes since life on Earth began, and returning that CO2 to the atmosphere where plants can use it to photosynthesize is a good idea.
Your character is revealed by your conduct. To be is to do. Should natural ecosystems be grossly harmed, people will be dependent for food, water, and air on companies that produce them. Whether that is the political purpose of those behind Greta Thunberg I do not know, but I do know how to prevent such existential power from being effected over me and mine: restore atmospheric CO2 to levels approximately an order of magnitude higher than it presently is.
You can test CO2 levels in your garage to determine by experiment that plants grow more food more quickly at those levels, and you will observe that you do not choke or strangle in that atmosphere. Those are facts, and if you remain ambivalent regarding easily provable facts in the face of lies being propagated at considerable expense by nefarious political forces, you demonstrate your character.
I seem to recall someone once stating that ambivalence is worse than lies, and recommending being either hot or cold, because those that are neither will be spewed out of His mouth as worthless. It is one thing to be nescient. It is another to be determined not to know. Nescience is excusable. Ignorance is vile, particularly when knowing is so easy.
One can be a good steward of the earth without submitting to the UN plan to subdue us all in the name of their unscientific, political agenda.
Posted using Partiko Android
She will be a meme
Katy Newman is Isak Newton for this one
@drakos Seriously, you are revenge-flagging now, and even ocd, impacting the payout of curators who are completely uninvolved? If you bid-bot a post containing fake news you should be prepared for downvotes. For my witness votes I don’t care about someone's political opinion as long as I agree with their on-chain politics, but I certainly don’t agree with revenge-flagging curation projects.
I'm expressing my opinion about Greta, that's fake news? Next time don't hide behind OCD/OCDB to flag others. It's not revenge flagging, I don't like daily reports like OCD does 3 times a day, it was an opportunity to flag a few of those.
What a coincidence that you downvoted exactly the same accounts that downvoted your post before. I am not against downvoting spam or when disagreeing with rewards, but revenge flagging is stupid and probably not the best idea if you are at the edge of top 20
I am not part of ocd, I don't have to be to be against flagging the posts of a curation project that distributes post rewards to hard-working curators who are not involved in the decision by who @ocdb flags
As @fraenk pointed out already, you got your "facts" wrong. Apart from that, your words ("with fake tears"), don't match the video, I think she made some good points. Your post reads to me like an opinionated news report rather than an opinion, and since the "facts" you use are wrong, it's "fake news" to me
You can say about Greta what you want, at least she stands up for an important subject and manages to bring attention to it. I generally find personal attacks regarding political opinions pointless, e.g. I don't like Trump personally, but unlike most, I don't judge his politics by his my making fun of him.
This quip I found to be a little over the top. A bit shocking to describe the young lady in this way... you think? Then again I compared @drakos post here to Alex Jones' news stories[?].
You've got DRAMA. You are going to be a Whale!
To view or trade
DRAMAgo to steem-engine.com.I have changed my vote to 100% not because I agree with the premise of this post, but because in between all the cussing, hating and such within the comments I actually learned some things and the comments made me think!
Sorry @drakos, the comments are better than the post, but kudos for being the impetus behind a really interesting debate and me learning new words to add to my vocabulary!