Jump to content

Bill Gates: Rich nations should shift entirely to synthetic beef


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

1. There is no climate crisis thus this point of yours is mute. Counter productive fear-porn.

2. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/economy-inflation-why-americans-are-so-unhappy-three-charts/

https://www.vox.com/politics/24094752/biden-trump-strong-economy-2024-inflation

Your own Libbie rags can't even sugar coat it.

1. What an amazingly misplaced sense of self importance for an ignorant layperson to simple wave your hands and dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus. -- And the word you're looking for is "moot."

2. You've literally posted an article about how American's negative sentiments are out of line with a robust economy. Which is what I've been telling--and showing with data--all along. 🙄

American economic pessimism has been bafflingly persistent despite major indicators showing that the economy is actually strong. Unemployment is low, inflation is significantly down from its 2022 peak (if sticky and ticking up in the last month), wages are up, the stock market is hitting new all-time highs, and it looks like the Federal Reserve might be able to keep the US out of a recession.

Nobody said it's a perfect economy or the best ever, but it is worlds better than what he inherited from Trump and in nearly every way equal to or better than Trump's pre-pandemic economy. In other words, an amazing recovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

1. What an amazingly misplaced sense of self importance for an ignorant layperson to simple wave your hands and dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus. -- And the word you're looking for is "moot."

2. You've literally posted an article about how American's negative sentiments are out of line with a robust economy. Which is what I've been telling--and showing with data--all along. 🙄

American economic pessimism has been bafflingly persistent despite major indicators showing that the economy is actually strong. Unemployment is low, inflation is significantly down from its 2022 peak (if sticky and ticking up in the last month), wages are up, the stock market is hitting new all-time highs, and it looks like the Federal Reserve might be able to keep the US out of a recession.

Nobody said it's a perfect economy or the best ever, but it is worlds better than what he inherited from Trump and in nearly every way equal to or better than Trump's pre-pandemic economy. In other words, an amazing recovery.

1. Your warped stats mean nothing. People see the inflation and know why it's rising.

il_1140xN.3319647461_stb5.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. Your warped stats mean nothing. People see the inflation and know why it's rising.

il_1140xN.3319647461_stb5.jpg

 

And if wages and job growth are outpacing inflation, inflation becomes a moot point. If goods are services are going to increase in price 5% next year but my salary will increase 10%, am I better off or worse off?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And if wages and job growth are outpacing inflation, inflation becomes a moot point. If goods are services are going to increase in price 5% next year but my salary will increase 10%, am I better off or worse off?

 

Dude...the economy is sh1t. Inflation is still rising. Who are you trying to convince otherwise?

Yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Dude...the economy is sh1t. Inflation is still rising. Who are you trying to convince otherwise?

Yourself?

Lol. This is a lot like the climate change conversation. You have your dogmatic religious beliefs, and no amount of facts can change you mind. A true zealot has no need of economists or climatologists. His feelings are more important than facts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Lol. This is a lot like the climate change conversation. You have your dogmatic religious beliefs, and no amount of facts can change you mind. A true zealot has no need of economists or climatologists. His feelings are more important than facts!

Actually...I've already shown that the politicians are warping the scientific reports and that the economy is sh1tty.

But you do you, freak. Its all now quite academic. 

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yup. I sense it too.

But as my wife is fond of pointing out, where can we go? The entire western world is in the grips of stupidity.

Where can we go? Do the exact opposite of what our traitorous politicians and the traitorous left wing liberal media ask us to do or go along with. Keep using ICE vehicles. Use cash only as much as possible. It's a way of telling the globalists that we like and prefer to keep and use cash for most or all purchases.

We must stand up against these sick and psycho WEF globalists before it is too late. Do not vote for any liberal, socialist, communist or green environmental political party's because they have already shown us all as to just how much they despise and have contempt we the people. If anything, this may help to slow them down until we can get an honest political party in power. Wishful thinking on my part. 😇

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Actually...I've already shown that the politicians are warping the scientific reports and that the economy is sh1tty.

But you do you, freak. Its all now quite academic. 

Lol. No, you haven't. You've shown that a handful of people (a tiny minority) held that opinion of a paper from 30 years ago. That's fine. They were entitled to that opinion. And indeed, that's a self-correcting feature of science. But in this case their objections were not meaningful to the rest of the community and the consensus now approaches unanimity. You're busy boasting about climate change response being "over" while countries and corporations around the world are actively investing in mitigation strategies. 

You will likely be dead by the time things get really bad, but your kids aren't going to thank you. They'll wonder how their crazy old dad thought he knew better than the entire scientific community and why you didn't do more. 

And you are entirely clueless about economic data. I could give you all the charts and figures in the world and you'd be helpless to evaluate them. That's why you're linking to articles that directly contradict the point you'd like to make. That's not really my problem. You don't vote here. Laypeople are still shaken from the pandemic economy. Their view of the economy is emotional, like you. We'll see how many can catch up to the economic reality before the election. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Lol. No, you haven't. You've shown that a handful of people (a tiny minority) held that opinion of a paper from 30 years ago. That's fine. They were entitled to that opinion. And indeed, that's a self-correcting feature of science. But in this case their objections were not meaningful to the rest of the community and the consensus now approaches unanimity. You're busy boasting about climate change response being "over" while countries and corporations around the world are actively investing in mitigation strategies. 

You will likely be dead by the time things get really bad, but your kids aren't going to thank you. They'll wonder how their crazy old dad thought he knew better than the entire scientific community and why you didn't do more. 

And you are entirely clueless about economic data. I could give you all the charts and figures in the world and you'd be helpless to evaluate them. That's why you're linking to articles that directly contradict the point you'd like to make. That's not really my problem. You don't vote here. Laypeople are still shaken from the pandemic economy. Their view of the economy is emotional, like you. We'll see how many can catch up to the economic reality before the election. 

You are conflating an awful lot of things here. 

"community" / "consensus" / "unanimity" / "entire scientific community"

Um, at the heart of all of this is the logical fallacy of argument from authority. 

That aside, what there is, is a very tiny segment of the "entire scientific community", that specializes in so-called climate science and out of all the papers written on the subject, if you review them generally speaking, you find a consensus regarding climate change being real, generally speaking. 

Thats it. 

There is no near unanimous consent among all scientists as if every astro physicist or Nuclear Engineer agrees...  

Hell, among so called claimed scientists, there is no consensus on how bad climate change is, what should be done about it, how much humans contribute, what humans can realistically do to stop it... etc...

You boil this down, what you have is a general understanding that climate is changing, it appears to be slightly increasing and is on pace to continue to do so... and humans contribute some part to that. 

It pretty much ends right there. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Lol. No, you haven't. You've shown that a handful of people (a tiny minority) held that opinion of a paper from 30 years ago. That's fine. They were entitled to that opinion. And indeed, that's a self-correcting feature of science. But in this case their objections were not meaningful to the rest of the community and the consensus now approaches unanimity. You're busy boasting about climate change response being "over" while countries and corporations around the world are actively investing in mitigation strategies. 

You will likely be dead by the time things get really bad, but your kids aren't going to thank you. They'll wonder how their crazy old dad thought he knew better than the entire scientific community and why you didn't do more. 

And you are entirely clueless about economic data. I could give you all the charts and figures in the world and you'd be helpless to evaluate them. That's why you're linking to articles that directly contradict the point you'd like to make. That's not really my problem. You don't vote here. Laypeople are still shaken from the pandemic economy. Their view of the economy is emotional, like you. We'll see how many can catch up to the economic reality before the election. 

Like I said...you do you, freak.

In the meantime, I'll do me...and post reality.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, User said:

You are conflating an awful lot of things here. 

"community" / "consensus" / "unanimity" / "entire scientific community"

Um, at the heart of all of this is the logical fallacy of argument from authority. 

That aside, what there is, is a very tiny segment of the "entire scientific community", that specializes in so-called climate science and out of all the papers written on the subject, if you review them generally speaking, you find a consensus regarding climate change being real, generally speaking. 

Thats it. 

There is no near unanimous consent among all scientists as if every astro physicist or Nuclear Engineer agrees...  

Hell, among so called claimed scientists, there is no consensus on how bad climate change is, what should be done about it, how much humans contribute, what humans can realistically do to stop it... etc...

You boil this down, what you have is a general understanding that climate is changing, it appears to be slightly increasing and is on pace to continue to do so... and humans contribute some part to that. 

It pretty much ends right there. 

 

That's an absurd misapplication of "appeal to authority." It should be pretty obvious that people utterly lacking the intellect, training, or time to do their own scientific research on a specific subject MUST rely on authority to inform any decision. Indeed, one would have to be a brainless fool to ignore authority in the acquisition of knowledge. That's would negate the entire competitive advantage of written and oral knowledge transfer.🙄

Aside from that, what you claim is regarding AGW consensus is patently false. There IS an overwhelming consensus on human-driven climate change across all sciences, but especially scientists in the field. There is not a single major scientific body on the planet that rejects the premise.
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. 

And there is only one non-committal body. Yes, that's right. The Petroleum Geologists moved from "nope" to "no comment." 🙄

Every other body accepts AGW as fact. And the actual research leaves no question.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

 

You can be a flat-Earth kook, rejecting all science and sense. That's your prerogative. But you can't successfully pretend that the scientific question isn't settled. It is. Humans are driving climate change. The "if" is over. The details of how much, how bad, how soon, and what we can and should do about it are less settled to varying degrees, but everyone knows it means getting to carbon-neutral or negative ASAP.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's an absurd misapplication of "appeal to authority." It should be pretty obvious that people utterly lacking the intellect, training, or time to do their own scientific research on a specific subject MUST rely on authority to inform any decision. Indeed, one would have to be a brainless fool to ignore authority in the acquisition of knowledge. That's would negate the entire competitive advantage of written and oral knowledge transfer.🙄

Aside from that, what you claim is regarding AGW consensus is patently false. There IS an overwhelming consensus on human-driven climate change across all sciences, but especially scientists in the field. There is not a single major scientific body on the planet that rejects the premise.
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. 

And there is only one non-committal body. Yes, that's right. The Petroleum Geologists moved from "nope" to "no comment." 🙄

Every other body accepts AGW as fact. And the actual research leaves no question.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

 

You can be a flat-Earth kook, rejecting all science and sense. That's your prerogative. But you can't successfully pretend that the scientific question isn't settled. It is. Humans are driving climate change. The "if" is over. The details of how much, how bad, how soon, and what we can and should do about it are less settled to varying degrees, but everyone knows it means getting to carbon-neutral or negative ASAP.

 

 

LOL...

"AHHH!!! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!!!"

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, User said:

You are conflating an awful lot of things here. 

"community" / "consensus" / "unanimity" / "entire scientific community"

Um, at the heart of all of this is the logical fallacy of argument from authority. 

That aside, what there is, is a very tiny segment of the "entire scientific community", that specializes in so-called climate science and out of all the papers written on the subject, if you review them generally speaking, you find a consensus regarding climate change being real, generally speaking. 

Thats it. 

There is no near unanimous consent among all scientists as if every astro physicist or Nuclear Engineer agrees...  

Hell, among so called claimed scientists, there is no consensus on how bad climate change is, what should be done about it, how much humans contribute, what humans can realistically do to stop it... etc...

You boil this down, what you have is a general understanding that climate is changing, it appears to be slightly increasing and is on pace to continue to do so... and humans contribute some part to that. 

It pretty much ends right there. 

 

Al Gore once said some 30 odd years ago that by 2020, Miami would be under water. Well, where is the water? I am still waiting so i can buy a boat. 😁

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

LOL...

"AHHH!!! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!!!"

You're right. And some much sooner than others. It's good that you can laugh at your inevitable demise.

But that's not a good reason to hasten others' (like your children's') deaths. More likely from increasingly extreme violent storms.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're right. And some much sooner than others. It's good that you can laugh at your inevitable demise.

But that's not a good reason to hasten others' (like your children's') deaths. More likely from increasingly extreme violent storms.

 

Lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's an absurd misapplication of "appeal to authority." It should be pretty obvious that people utterly lacking the intellect, training, or time to do their own scientific research on a specific subject MUST rely on authority to inform any decision. Indeed, one would have to be a brainless fool to ignore authority in the acquisition of knowledge. That's would negate the entire competitive advantage of written and oral knowledge transfer.🙄

Aside from that, what you claim is regarding AGW consensus is patently false. There IS an overwhelming consensus on human-driven climate change across all sciences, but especially scientists in the field. There is not a single major scientific body on the planet that rejects the premise.
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. 

And there is only one non-committal body. Yes, that's right. The Petroleum Geologists moved from "nope" to "no comment." 🙄

Every other body accepts AGW as fact. And the actual research leaves no question.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

 

You can be a flat-Earth kook, rejecting all science and sense. That's your prerogative. But you can't successfully pretend that the scientific question isn't settled. It is. Humans are driving climate change. The "if" is over. The details of how much, how bad, how soon, and what we can and should do about it are less settled to varying degrees, but everyone knows it means getting to carbon-neutral or negative ASAP.

 

 

You might as well say 100% and get it over with, climate barbie. 

Of course, all of the volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, fires, tsunamis, hurricanes and other weather events that have been happening here on earth ever since the earth was formed did not really have any bearing on climate change at all, eh? Volcanoes alone are the biggest carbon polluters of all. 

I wonder what caused the glaciers to melt 10,000 to 12,000 years ago? That had to be a dramatic climate change alright, and humans were not even around at that time. If humans were around at that time they certainly were not driving cars back then.  

Why are you such a WEF globalist gullible buffoon anyway? Your globalist elite ilk are spreading carbon around like there is no tomorrow. I read that one private jet can produce just as much carbon as 300,000 ICE vehicles can. When the globalists have their big bullshit get together in Davos, they fly to Davos by the thousands in private jets. I think that the globalists should practice what they preach and park their private jets and big SUV'S and go take a bus or train to go anywhere. That is what they want we the peasants to do. 

Come on, woke the phuk up, will you. Approx. 90 % of the earth is uninhabitable to live on. So just how can humans cause all that much harm to the environment? Either you are a spokes thingy for the globalists or you are one big brainwashed dummy. Which is it, climate barbie? 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're right. And some much sooner than others. It's good that you can laugh at your inevitable demise.

But that's not a good reason to hasten others' (like your children's') deaths. More likely from increasingly extreme violent storms.

What are you talking about?

Deaths from natural disasters have decreased as our technology and ability to mitigate them, avoid them, and respond to them as increased. 

Never mind, vastly more people die from cold than heat... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's an absurd misapplication of "appeal to authority."

Not really. You are throwing it around in leu of any kind of actual argument to support your position. 

 

20 hours ago, Hodad said:

You can be a flat-Earth kook, rejecting all science and sense. That's your prerogative. But you can't successfully pretend that the scientific question isn't settled. It is. Humans are driving climate change. The "if" is over. The details of how much, how bad, how soon, and what we can and should do about it are less settled to varying degrees, but everyone knows it means getting to carbon-neutral or negative ASAP.

I never offered a position here other than criticizing your use of conflating terminology and pushing the argument from authority. So, your mocking is ignorantly done here. 

Regarding your comment that the "scientific question isn't settled,"... that is not a position of science. Science is built on continuing to ask questions and challenges. You are pushing a dogma, not science. 

There certainly is climate change, and it is ever so slightly increasing, but the extent to which we are contributing, how bad it is, and what we can even do to stop it are all but nowhere near being "settled," as you like to use the term. 

No, everyone doesn't know that about being carbon-neutral, but that certainly is the fanaticism being pushed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2024 at 10:31 AM, Hodad said:

And if wages and job growth are outpacing inflation, inflation becomes a moot point. If goods are services are going to increase in price 5% next year but my salary will increase 10%, am I better off or worse off?

 

But they aren't outpacing inflation, hell CNN even admitted to that in the interview with Biden, real wages are down and people are putting more on the credit card and spending more of their savings.

People are seeing their debt rising and the savings dwindling to live a lifestyle where their savings were increasing and their debt was decreasing while Trump was President.

There is a reason why people balk at the idea the economy is doing great. Even if the numbers look good on paper its pretty simple, if the people aren't feeling it then they aren't believing it and the more you tell them the economy is great the more they get pissed off and the less likely they are going to vote for you because to them you are lying to their face and you don't want to see their struggles.

Biden is Mr Empathy though ,the old man who feels their pain by making their tragedies about himself and telling bs stories about things that never happened to relate to them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2024 at 12:23 PM, User said:

Not really. You are throwing it around in leu of any kind of actual argument to support your position. 

 

I take it that logic is not your strong suit. lol. No, citing authoritative sources as reason for action is not fallacious. The "argument" is that if you go and see 10 doctors and they all tell you that your cholesterol is dangerously high and you better adjust your diet, you should adjust your damn diet. 

Or, you could play the fool and pretend like those are just 10 random opinions because you don't recognize the value of authority. Really dumb, but go for it in your personal life. Just don't expect policymakers to be as shortsighted. 

 

 

On 5/11/2024 at 12:26 PM, Fluffypants said:

But they aren't outpacing inflation, hell CNN even admitted to that in the interview with Biden, real wages are down and people are putting more on the credit card and spending more of their savings.

People are seeing their debt rising and the savings dwindling to live a lifestyle where their savings were increasing and their debt was decreasing while Trump was President.

There is a reason why people balk at the idea the economy is doing great. Even if the numbers look good on paper its pretty simple, if the people aren't feeling it then they aren't believing it and the more you tell them the economy is great the more they get pissed off and the less likely they are going to vote for you because to them you are lying to their face and you don't want to see their struggles.

Biden is Mr Empathy though ,the old man who feels their pain by making their tragedies about himself and telling bs stories about things that never happened to relate to them.

 

Except that they are.

image.thumb.png.7821bea5e36bdb4e009d72380da7b7b4.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I take it that logic is not your strong suit. lol. No, citing authoritative sources as reason for action is not ...

Or, you could play the fool and pretend like those are just 10 random opinions because you don't recognize the value of authority

 

Gee...you sure like authority. Hmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Gee...you sure like authority. Hmm...

I do. As it turns out, treating every chain email, tweet and random YouTube video as if they are as credible as experts is a very fast way is a good way to form bad judgments--and look like a complete fool to boot. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I do. As it turns out, treating every chain email, tweet and random YouTube video as if they are as credible as experts is a very fast way is a good way to form bad judgments--and look like a complete fool to boot. 

 

Ya...only approved sources eh?

The ones the authoritarian government approves of right?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...