Five of swords

I'm just a guy informing you that you are failing at the basic logic level. Climate change is not the only possible cause of a fire...and climate change does not imply that every city is going to burn down. Based on those two very simple and painfully obvious observations, your op has nothing. You have departed the realm of rudimentary logical thinking. Without basic logic, information is useless...if you even have any information...which I doubt.

Really? If those people actually discussed scientific theory on the subject I would love to see a citation. It certainly is not part of popular culture. In popular culture i only know 'drill baby drill'. They will call climate change a scam, but won't delve into the nuts and bolts of how it is. That is my general impression.

Conservatives won't say anything about atmospheric science, actually. They don't care. They correctly recognize that only weirdos even give a crap about such stuff and candidates do not get elected on it. In that respect they are more clever than you are, lol

Dude...this is 'accepted fact' among your trusted scientists. If the oxygen content is 25%, as it has been once before in earth's natural history, the result is constant and rampant forest fires. You can look this stuff up. You are just low info.

You have to apply some logic and common sense to what you are being told. When someone is telling you a lie, it always reveals itself with internal contradictions and ridiculous epicycles. You can often extract a lot of the truth from observing such contradictions and what they really mean. How do the elite benefit from this narrative? Why did they pick this particular narrative? Who is being harmed by it? Why? Etc But I get the feeling you didn't read my post...cause I pointed out that even if we do trust you experts, then your own hysteria is still absurd. So you can go ahead and trust them...I don't care...just be rational about the conclusions Like...if this is such a life and death issue...have you even read ipcc reports? Do you know what the scientists actually predict? I have. And whether the ipcc can be considered credible or not I can state quite confidently that it does not predict an existential threat to humanity.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Iran is not a danger to me. Most of the women in Iran are doing just fine. Most sane people don't actually care very much about what clothing they need to wear, but they would have an issue with being under foreign rule. It is quite clear that the usa simply cannot tolerate Iran existing, even if Iran just minds its own business. If war breaks out then China and Russia may be dragged into it, because it is clear that the us empire is si ply insane and needs to be removed from power. Hopefully it is.

This whole thread just looks like climate change derangement syndrome. People trust 'experts' way too much and when the 'experts' use fear mongering rhetoric over some politicized issue, it actually screws up the normie brain and they enter a state of panic where calm rational approaches to an issue are no longer possible. Ultimately there is a cost benefit analysis to be made here. If you say 'we must do x to prevent y' then it is logical to look at the cost of x and y and determine which is worse. Either way there is a cost. And even if we assume all the scientists are correct about their predictions...which is an absurd assumption because scientists are usually wrong even about issues that are not political...but even if we grant that. The scientists are not actually predicting that climate change will be an existential threat to all humanity. In fact, if you are worried about the extinction of the human race, you should be far more worried about asteroids than climate change. So logically you should be obsessed with space travel and colonizing planets like elon musk. But this is a totally neglected endeavor and nobody blocks highway traffic over it. Why? Because humans are stupid and deserve to go extinct.

I find it hilarious that your experts lie to you about this when thr politicians themselves have openly laughed about how they never even Intended to follow the Minsk agreement

Whose idea was that? It is just a fact that the higher the oxygen content the more likely fire is. If the air was 30% oxygen then we couldn't survive.

No, it won't. Do you think this politician thinks it would? Actually forest fires are more frequent if there is a higher oxygen content in the atmosphere. So it does something.

Dude...even if that were true it still shows zero hypocrisy on her part. She can absolitrly still hope jasper is not one of the cities bursting into flames. What % of cities does the ipcc predict will be destroyed by natural disaster? Lol...cause not even your own experts are predicting such a thing. This is all in your own head.

So I guess you mean not literally every city? But that is the only way to make the logic work. If some cities survive it makes perfect sense for you to hope your own city survives...right? Lol. Natural disasters are older than the industrial revolution. This particular 'Russian roulette' has always been true.

FYI, Russia labels the west as 'agreement incapable'. Ukraine openly admits it never intended to honor the Minsk agreement, for example. Know what that means? No reason to trust Ukraine would accept any terms of surrender. Meaning no surrender.

You think that would just happen to every city on earth...

...because increasing oil production will cause every city to burst into flames. Right?

Actually no. White nationalists don't necessarily care what race is okay to be. White people just happen to be White. They were born into it. And they have a common legacy as white people and they will have a common destiny. So they really ought to have control over their own destiny which is known as self determination. That means we need a country. We do not currently have a country.

So according to you, anyone who wants to use oil to produce energy just wants the whole world to burn down. Is that in fact what you are saying? I'm not trying a ridiculous strawman or anything but it does in fact seem like the gist of your argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert "is also seen as one of the root causes for the later Crusades, in that the First Crusade of 1095 was originally a western response to the Byzantine emperor's call for military assistance after the loss of Anatolia.[51] " Okay? Also, Austria absolutrly did ask to be part of germany...at least 97% of them did...there was a referendum. Same with sudenteland. The rest of Slovakia begged to become a puppet state of Germany out of fear that hungry or Romania would swallow them (and Germany had by far the best economy in the region) Danzig was supposed to be 'independent according to the Versailles treaty but poland occupied and took it. It was of course a german city. Hitler actually desperately wanted a peaceful resolution as he had achieved with sudebteland and austria. And memel..but poland refused, no doubt emboldened/demanded by the western powers who made that pact right after Germany acquired surenteland. Anyway, Hitler was of course just trying to unite the German people and for some reason the uk and france hadan issue with that. At face value itshould have been none of their business, but of course they were worried at how much of a success Germany was and how it fought against jewish power.

No, constantinople fell twice and the first crusade happened a year after it first fell. Also, of course, after they had conquered Spain and made encroaches on italy.

Huh? I'm not suggesting anyone is lying. This is the actual official story. The uk declared war on Hitler to stop him from getting danzig...that's the normie version of history...

The conclusion should be the exact opposite. Ww2 was caused by people refusing to let Hitler unite the germans. News flash, thr uk declared war first, not Germany. The sident3land was annexed peacefully fyi, the fighting started when poland refused to hand over danzig. Russia also could have annexed the donbass peacefully also, nato just didn't allow it. The crusades, which you randomly threw in there, were inspired by the Turkish militant expansion and fall of Constantinople. So can you think of any example that supports your point instead of mine?

Most of what you are saying just seems Ike fluff, but I feel like you don't understand what a nation state actually is...and the decision to end nation states occurred with the second world War. The fascist movement t already tackledand basically solved the problems you act like you are concerned about. The problem was that it isn't very good for jews.

The university of the current day focuses on following orders and conformity and doing work diligently. This is something women tend to excel at...it is basically in their dna. If instead you want universities to produce revolutionary ideas and scientific breakthroughs, then you need to have a lot of tolerance for antisocial behavior. But this can also produce a lot of political instability, especially if the state is based upon a lot of glaring internal contradictions.

Literally every country until very recently was focused on a single race and religion. It worked fine. Wars only occurred when diversity was introduced.

Democracy is stupid. You also can simply remove the other ethnicities and inform them this country is not for them.