Bill Gates: Rich nations should shift entirely to synthetic beef

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Your climate hoax is over. There is no crisis and your chickensh1t it causing wide spread suffering.

Take you scared little bones and go scare a baby...I'm sure that will give you a nice sense of power, accomplishment and a momentary sense of importance.

But I will oppose you destructive freaks with reality and common sense.

There is no hoax. And if you mean to say that you think you're merry band of know-nothings is "winning" the climate change debate I'm doing to have to reset the bar for "dumbest claim ever."

Climate deniers have done nothing but lose ground. Published science is nearly unanimous. The world has never been more certain and galvanized.

You flat-Earthers are, at least worth a good, hearty laugh. And now you want to declare victory too!🤣

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2024 by Hodad

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

• .

 

That's not vague, it's a scathing indictment of political faux-science and some direct comments stating that "there’s disagreement and uncertainty about the most consequential issues".

According to Dr. Curry, climate alarmists have all overplayed their hand, and they're doing it at the whim of politicians. She's saying that politicians are behind the drive to come up with this so-called "science". 

Do you understand that? It was from 4 days ago. It's not old. It's not vague. She's not a layman. Her opinions carry weight. 

What's vague is the connection between what she says and your claims of a hoax. 

There's no hoax here. She believes that humans cause global warming to a degree. 

Do you agree with that or not? 

I never got into this to debate whether alarmism is a thing or not. If that is what you mean by hoax, you're not using the word correctly. 

In your post here, you are backing a scientist who believes in climate change. 

 

Edited May 9, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, Hodad said:

There is no hoax. And if you mean to say that you think you're merry band of know-nothings is "winning" the climate change debate I'm doing to have to reset the bar for "dumbest claim ever."

Climate deniers have done nothing but lose ground. Published science is nearly unanimous. The world has never been more certain and galvanized.

You flat-Earthers are, at least worth a good, hearty laugh. And now you want to declare victory too!🤣

 

 

 

 

 

Germany has brought coal-fired power plants back online. Same with Italy, Austria and Holland. Portgal is buying LNG from Russia, as is the EU.

In Canada Polievre is about to become PM and will "axe the tax" among other rational decisions concerning oil and gas.

In the USA, Trump is set to win back the Whitehouse and "drill baby drill".

So you see...your little "feel good" charade is coming to an end. Once Trump turns the taps back on, it'll be over.

The moral? Don't let panicked little Libbies make stupid decisions. They don't operate within the confines of reality.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

"vague"

I listened to the full half hour video, given to the annual GWPF lecture recently.  She doesn't say anything about a hoax, more about risk response, policy setting and priorities.

Sure there's lots in there you would agree with but lots you wouldn't either such a prioritizing global poverty via the UN.

I asked how you would make all of the politics better and you said honesty is the key.  Well, to me, you should be honest with yourself first.  Everyone should.  That's why I spent over an hour this week considering my position.  

So terms like hoax and "bankrupting Canada" Are, to me, every bit is exaggerated as talking about a climate crisis.

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

"vague"

I listened to the full half hour video, given to the annual GWPF lecture recently.  She doesn't say anything about a hoax, more about risk response, policy setting and priorities.

Sure there's lots in there you would agree with but lots you wouldn't either such a prioritizing global poverty via the UN.

I asked how you would make all of the politics better and you said honesty is the key.  Well, to me, you should be honest with yourself first.  Everyone should.  That's why I spent over an hour this week considering my position.  

So terms like hoax and "bankrupting Canada" Are, to me, every bit is exaggerated as talking about a climate crisis.

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What's vague is the connection between what she says and your claims of a hoax. 

There's no hoax here. She believes that humans cause global warming to a degree. 

Do you agree with that or not? 

I never got into this to debate whether alarmism is a thing or not. If that is what you mean by hoax, you're not using the word correctly. 

In your post here, you are backing a scientist who believes in climate change. 

 

Let me get this straight.

You believe man is causing global warming "to a degree".

Yet you do not want to discuss whether that "degree" warrants all the impositions being made in its name?

If that's true, and I think it is, in your opinion, do you believe the measures taken and the suffering being imposed on the public these measure have caused, are justified?

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

1. Yet you do not want to discuss whether that "degree" warrants all the impositions being made in its name?

2. If that's true, and I think it is, in your opinion, do you believe the measures taken and the suffering being imposed on the public these measure have caused, are justified?

1. Yeah if you want to talk about what Curry is saying, let's talk about it. But the discussion starts out with somebody saying global warming is a hoax. It's not happening... Or at least that's the inference anyone would get from it. Then it turns into well... We should implement a new kind of politics that is more amenable to risk management discussions. And the UN should take the lead on that. Do you see how the conversation switched there? 

2. Suffering... You have to factor in the enjoyment people get from exaggeration online.

[Nationalist]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yeah if you want to talk about what Curry is saying, let's talk about it. But the discussion starts out with somebody saying global warming is a hoax. It's not happening... Or at least that's the inference anyone would get from it. Then it turns into well... We should implement a new kind of politics that is more amenable to risk management discussions. And the UN should take the lead on that. Do you see how the conversation switched there? 

2. Suffering... You have to factor in the enjoyment people get from exaggeration online.

1. The "hoax" Mike, is that this issue is being called a "crisis" worth imposing suffering on the population. That's the "hoax". The political wing (UN et al) are the liars here. Even all those government paid scientists will not call this a "crisis". Curry's presentation is sensible and fact based. The politicians are warping the data and the presentation of the data in order to cause alarm...fear...in the public. For that alone, they should be caged. From the transcript:

Quote

In 2015, the world’s nations agreed on a set of 17 interlinked Sustainable Development Goals to support future global development.  These goals include, in ranked order:

1. No poverty
2. No hunger
3. Affordable and clean energy
4. And development of Industry, innovation & infrastructure
5. Climate action

Why should one element of Goal 13, related to net-zero emissions, trump these higher priority goals? International funds for development are being redirected away from reducing poverty, and towards reducing carbon emissions. This redirection of funds is exacerbating the harms of weather hazards and climate change for the world’s poor. Efforts to restrict the production of oil and gas is hampering the #1 goal of poverty reduction in Africa, and is restricting Africa’s efforts to develop and utilize its own oil and gas resources. The #2 goal of no hunger is being worsened by climate mitigation efforts, including restrictions on livestock and fertilizer. Industry and infrastructure require steel and cement, which are currently produced by fossil fuels.

So why are they lying Mike? Why are they turning a mole hill into a mountain? Can they make a course correction? Not without exposing their lies they can't. So why? Power? Money? Why?

2. Suffering - People ARE suffering as a result of this "hoax". Are you ignoring poverty and hunger increases as a direct result of this lie?

Edited May 9, 2024 by Nationalist

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What's vague is the connection between what she says and your claims of a hoax. 

There's no hoax here. She believes that humans cause global warming to a degree. 

"To a degree" isn't the standard that you're looking for MH. It's basically nothing.

Your side says that MMCC is gonna kill everyone for sure by 2021 or 2023 or 2024 or 2030 or 2040... it's a rolling death date. 

She also states unequivocally that politicians are driving the fear behind it all. 

Quote

I never got into this to debate whether alarmism is a thing or not. If that is what you mean by hoax, you're not using the word correctly. 

My word isn't hoax.

Even if only 33% of scientists believe what they're saying it isn't a "hoax". It would be a hoax if no one believed it.

Quote

In your post here, you are backing a scientist who believes in climate change. 

I'm backing a scientist who says that natural factors are likely the main drivers of climate change, which is the main climate skeptic POV.

I don't know anyone who denies that the climate on earth changes. The planet has been much hotter than it is now, it has been covered in ice, etc. It absolutely changes.

We went from an ice age, where the ice sheet over NA was over a mile thick, to the end of the ice age, while humans had nothing more than a few campfires going. 

Can you imagine the panic when the ice over Boston was down to only 100 metres thick?  "Put out your campfire Gronk! We're all gonna die!"

[WestCanMan]

18 hours ago, Goddess said:

Having worked in risk management and not being a person prone to panic, I prefer the rational risk assessment method 🤣

My understanding is that climate science is mostly founded on "models".

In medical, hired modelers generally are asked to model a "worst case" scenario.  Rational risk assessment will then determine how likely that "worst case" scenario is.

Unfortunately, basing all decisions made in any situation on a "worst case" scenario model, generally leads to.......very bad decisions and very often "the cure being worse than the disease."  As we saw with covid.

I see the same hair-on-fire panic, alarmism, worst case scenario modeling, rushing to implement measures with NO thinking about long-term impacts.....that I saw during covid.

I see the same thing happening in a lot of situations because, for some strange reason, we have put an inordinate amount of bureaucratic chicken littles in charge of everything.

Immigration is another example - hair-on-fire, panic OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!! Canada's population is aging so bring in masses numbers of people.  Zero thought given to housing.  Zero though given to hospital overload, ZERO thought given to feeding people, ZERO thought given to jobs or the economy.  Zero thought given to societal impacts.

I hope at some point very soon, we stop giving in to the chicken littles - they're destroying us on every level.

 

Unfortunately you will never get any respect from the leftists here because you dared to offer a dissenting opinion on the covid thing, but that's a solid, informative post which gives a lot of insight into how these doomsday POVs keep sprouting. 

You're a huge asset to this forum. Don't let the naysayers slow you down. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

1. The "hoax" Mike, is that this issue is being called a "crisis" worth imposing suffering on the population. 

2. So why? Power? Money? Why?

3. Suffering - People ARE suffering as a result of this "hoax". Are you ignoring poverty and hunger increases as a direct result of this lie?

1. I appreciate this clarification.

2. Because there's not much action and as much disinformation from Deniers as the UN, to be generous.  Just look at the arguments on here.

3. I'm not aware of actual impacts there, but ok.  Curry talks about potential impacts.

[Nationalist]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I appreciate this clarification.

2. Because there's not much action and as much disinformation from Deniers as the UN, to be generous.  Just look at the arguments on here.

3. I'm not aware of actual impacts there, but ok.  Curry talks about potential impacts.

1. Good.

2. Not much action? Expand on that please?

3. You're unaware of the cost of gas? The cost of groceries? The lack of selection? That's here in the land of "haves". In Africa, The West is now busily bribing African nations with billions of dollars in return for replacing what electricity generation they have (mostly coal) to "green" energy. The same ideas that have already failed in...The West. Coal plants happen to be effective and cheap. If there's no real climate "crisis", as we know there is not now, then why are we choking this unreliable and more expensive technology on Africa? Why not let them develop...THE WAY THE WEST DID? If we were to, a lot of Africa's problems would begin to remedy themselves naturally.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Nationalist

[Goddess]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So... if there's consensus... IF... How do we proceed?

That's the question, isn't it?

I believe here is only the illusion of consensus.  Same thing happened with covid.  When you silence, censor, discredit, deplatform, and defund any expert who diverges from the accepted (money-driven) narrative - that's not consensus.

During covid, the world's TOP experts in virology and vaccinology from places like Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, etc - were silenced, fired and deplatformed.  NOW, they have all been proven to have been telling the truth.

Follow the money - always.  (The video I linked you to explains "the consensus", so I know you didn't watch it because you don't address the valid points in there).

The fact that there ISN'T true consensus would make me less inclined to make policies that dramatically affect people's lives in a negative way.

Same stance I took with covid.  Unless you were 90 years old and had multiple comorbidities - very few people were in danger.  This was known early on - long before there was a vax.  Yet we devastated lives, devastated economies, devastated societies.  

I see the same progression with climate alarmism.

 

[Michael Hardner]

46 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. "To a degree" isn't the standard that you're looking for MH.

2. It's basically nothing.

3. Your side says...

4. ...that MMCC is gonna kill everyone for sure by 2021 or 2023 or 2024 or 2030 or 2040... it's a rolling death date. 

5. My word isn't hoax.

6. I'm backing a scientist who says that natural factors are likely the main drivers of climate change, which is the main climate skeptic POV.

1. I asked for what I wanted 

2. Cite?

3. Not interested in your idea about sides.  I'm talking to you respectfully, there are no sides.

4. Cite?

5. Good.

6. Cite?

If you exaggerate or use scare words yourself, can you see how that would undercut your points?  Not saying that you do.

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 

Yet you do not want to discuss whether that "degree" warrants all the impositions being made in its name?

 

Where did you get that idea anyway?

[Michael Hardner]

47 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

1. Not much action? Expand on that please?

3. You're unaware of ...

1. 30 years for a treaty from the time the issue was brought forward? That's not much action. 

2. I was talking about the Africa example.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Goddess said:

That's the question, isn't it?

I believe here is only the illusion of consensus.  Same thing happened with covid.  When you silence, censor, discredit, deplatform, and defund any expert who diverges from the accepted (money-driven) narrative - that's not consensus.

During covid, the world's TOP experts in virology and vaccinology from places like Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, etc - were silenced, fired and deplatformed.  NOW, they have all been proven to have been telling the truth.

Follow the money - always.  (The video I linked you to explains "the consensus", so I know you didn't watch it because you don't address the valid points in there).

The fact that there ISN'T true consensus would make me less inclined to make policies that dramatically affect people's lives in a negative way.

Same stance I took with covid.  Unless you were 90 years old and had multiple comorbidities - very few people were in danger.  This was known early on - long before there was a vax.  Yet we devastated lives, devastated economies, devastated societies.  

I see the same progression with climate alarmism.

 

You didn't answer my question. I asked what would happen if there were a consensus, not if there actually is one.

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You didn't answer my question. I asked what would happen if there were a consensus, not if there actually is one.

I thought we had discussed this - if there were a consensus, which there isn't, risk management strategies would be important.  Rationality would have to prevail.

There are some who strongly believe that since man is the #1 cause of climate change, then population must be reduced by a factor of billions.

I wouldn't want those people in charge of making policy.

 

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You didn't answer my question. I asked what would happen if there were a consensus, not if there actually is one.

Whether there actually is a consensus or not is more important, IMO, than other factors.

Again - case in point, covid.

The extreme and unscientific measures imposed by the chicken littles did far more damage than the actual virus.

For the majority of people, the actual virus impacted their lives very little.  The measures imposed had far more impact.

I find a difference between covid crisis and climate crisis is the climate crisis people seem even more willing to sacrifice actual lives and many more of them.

[Nationalist]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 30 years for a treaty from the time the issue was brought forward? That's not much action. 

2. I was talking about the Africa example.

1. Why is this treaty necessary if we know there is no crisis? What would you do? Punish folks for wanting heat, transportation and electricity? Oh wait...that's already being done.

2. Ok so what would you do to help Africa industrialize?

[WestCanMan]

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I asked for what I wanted 

2. Cite?

3. Not interested in your idea about sides.  I'm talking to you respectfully, there are no sides.

4. Cite?

5. Good.

6. Cite?

If you exaggerate or use scare words yourself, can you see how that would undercut your points?  Not saying that you do.

Where did you get that idea anyway?

Your argument does not deflate mine. Dr Curry supports my stance to a tee. 

You can go on believing what CNN told you and I'll go on believing what Dr Judith Curry said. Are we good? 

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

gives a lot of insight into how these doomsday POVs keep sprouting. 

There's a VERY, VERY strong trend happening right now that many are referring to as "safetyism".

Here's just one article that addresses it:

(and this was back in 2020, so 4 years later it's even stronger, IMO.  The chicken littles of the world got validation and more power from the covid crisis.)

YOU CAN SUSTITUTE "CLIMATE CRISIS" FOR THE WORDS "PANDEMIC" OR "VIRUS" IN THE ARTICLE AND SEE THE SAME PROGRESSION.

The danger of safetyism - UnHerd

 

Safetyism is a disposition that has been gaining strength for decades and is having a triumphal moment just now because of the virus. Public health, one of many institutions that speak on behalf of safety, has claimed authority to sweep aside whole domains of human activity as reckless, and therefore illegitimate.

 

I suspect the ease with which we have lately accepted the authority of health experts to reshape the contours of our common life is due to the fact that safetyism has largely displaced other moral sensibilities that might offer some resistance. At the level of sentiment, there appears to be a feedback loop wherein the safer we become, the more intolerable any remaining risk appears. At the level of bureaucratic grasping, we can note that emergency powers are seldom relinquished once the emergency has passed. Together, these dynamics make up a kind of ratchet mechanism that moves in only one direction, tightening against the human spirit.

Acquiescence in this appears to be most prevalent among the meritocrats who staff the managerial layer of society. Deferring to expert authority is a habit inculcated in the “knowledge economy”, naturally enough; the basic currency of this economy is epistemic prestige.

Among those who work in the economy of things, on the other hand, you see greater skepticism toward experts (whether they make their claim on epistemic or moral grounds) and less readiness to accept the adjustment of social norms by fiat ­– whether that means using new pronouns or wearing surgical masks. 

A pandemic is a deadly serious business. But we would do well to remember that bureaucracies have their own interests, quite apart from the public interest that is their official brief and warrant. They are very much in the business of tending and feeding the narratives that justify their existence. Further, given the way bureaucracies must compete for funding from the legislature, each must make a maximal case for the urgency of its mission, hence the necessity of its expansion, like a shark that must keep moving or die. It is clearer now than it was a few months ago that this imperative of expansion puts government authority in symbiosis with the morality of safetyism, which similarly admits no limit to its expanding imperium. The result is a moral-epistemic apparatus in which experts are to rule over citizens conceived as fragile incompetents.

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

There's a VERY, VERY strong trend happening right now that many are referring to as "safetyism".

Here's just one article that addresses it:

(and this was back in 2020, so 4 years later it's even stronger, IMO.  The chicken littles of the world got validation and more power from the covid crisis.)

YOU CAN SUSTITUTE "CLIMATE CRISIS" FOR THE WORDS "PANDEMIC" OR "VIRUS" IN THE ARTICLE AND SEE THE SAME PROGRESSION.

The danger of safetyism - UnHerd

 

Safetyism is a disposition that has been gaining strength for decades and is having a triumphal moment just now because of the virus. Public health, one of many institutions that speak on behalf of safety, has claimed authority to sweep aside whole domains of human activity as reckless, and therefore illegitimate.

 

I suspect the ease with which we have lately accepted the authority of health experts to reshape the contours of our common life is due to the fact that safetyism has largely displaced other moral sensibilities that might offer some resistance. At the level of sentiment, there appears to be a feedback loop wherein the safer we become, the more intolerable any remaining risk appears. At the level of bureaucratic grasping, we can note that emergency powers are seldom relinquished once the emergency has passed. Together, these dynamics make up a kind of ratchet mechanism that moves in only one direction, tightening against the human spirit.

Acquiescence in this appears to be most prevalent among the meritocrats who staff the managerial layer of society. Deferring to expert authority is a habit inculcated in the “knowledge economy”, naturally enough; the basic currency of this economy is epistemic prestige.

Among those who work in the economy of things, on the other hand, you see greater skepticism toward experts (whether they make their claim on epistemic or moral grounds) and less readiness to accept the adjustment of social norms by fiat ­– whether that means using new pronouns or wearing surgical masks. 

A pandemic is a deadly serious business. But we would do well to remember that bureaucracies have their own interests, quite apart from the public interest that is their official brief and warrant. They are very much in the business of tending and feeding the narratives that justify their existence. Further, given the way bureaucracies must compete for funding from the legislature, each must make a maximal case for the urgency of its mission, hence the necessity of its expansion, like a shark that must keep moving or die. It is clearer now than it was a few months ago that this imperative of expansion puts government authority in symbiosis with the morality of safetyism, which similarly admits no limit to its expanding imperium. The result is a moral-epistemic apparatus in which experts are to rule over citizens conceived as fragile incompetents.

Amazing find. Thank you for that.

In a world where reasonable, decent people are the constant victims of gaslighting and governmental/MSM/Social media/pitchfork-mob abuse, that's a ray of sunshine. It sheds a lot of light on the inner workings of these hulking alarmist cults and lays it all out with more depth and precision than I ever could. 

Edited May 9, 2024 by WestCanMan

[impartialobserver]

Safetyism... simple human nature. Something that those in the higher ranks of Behavioral Economics have been talking about for decades. In short, folks prefer avoiding loss or predicted loss over possible gains. Another term is loss aversion. This is what my Phd dissertation was centered on. 

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Thank you for that.

You're welcome.  Throughout the insanity of the last few years, I feel like the quality that has served me the best is my propensity to remain level-headed and not panic.

(It saved my actual life one time, too, when myself and another person went through the ice on a quad on a river-run in winter.)

It's a rare quality.  I think you have it too.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Your argument does not deflate mine. Dr Curry supports my stance to a tee. 

She believes in human caused warming.  Policy approaches is where she differs from the IPCC.

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Another term is loss aversion.

I feel like this is such a personal thing, too.  We all take risks every day and we all make calculations on what we're willing to give up or lose, based on our own personal circumstances and as much information as we can cull.

The deliberate withholding of information so people can make their own decisions, is infuriating to me.

It happened a lot during covid and it's happening with the climate thing, too.