A new Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll gauged how U.S. teenagers feel about climate change. Nearly all — 86 percent — believe in the near-unanimous conclusions of the scientific community. Fifty-seven percent of teens say climate change makes them feel afraid. Fifty-two percent feel angry. Forty-three percent feel helpless. Only 29 percent feel optimistic. Anger, fear, helplessness: These are the sorts of feelings so many of the nation’s recent leaders — and those who elected them — will increasingly elicit."..."Curse" is as close as it gets to "hate."
[C]limate change, the greatest self-imposed long-term threat facing humanity, offers... clarity. Today’s youths will curse their forebears for failing to accept the truth.
Top-rated comment: "No! I'm sorry, but it is not 'baby boomers,' it is Republicans." It's a prediction about the future. When the children of today grow up, what will they say? The Democrats were fine but we hate the Republicans? If climate change turns out to be what the children of today are being told that's already making them feel angry, afraid, and helpless, they're going to say that no one did enough. The Democrats won't be off the hook just because they expressed more belief in the coming disaster and used the issue to excoriate their perennial political opponents. That will look like a sick joke!
पोस्ट्स
१७५ टिप्पण्या:
May I blunt here, at the risk of losing friends, colleagues, my family members, and my job?
I don't give a flying fuck about Climate Change.
And when the climate doesn't change in the coming years any more than it always has, will there be hatred toward the Democrats for traumatizing their childhoods? Will Republicans deserve equal hate then?
No, because the threat will never be acknowledged to be over. If failed predictions were enough to debunk the scam, it would already be over.
But climate change, the greatest self-imposed long-term threat facing humanity, offers that clarity. Today’s youths will curse their forebears for failing to accept the truth.
Oh, f!ck these people.
The actual science, such as it is, suggests some annoying and relatively cheap mitigation will "fix" climate change in terms of human effect.
The world will not end even if not a damned thing is done. Nor will the human race end, nor civilization.
The IPCC worst-case scenario is not actually that bad, and the requirements for it are so ludicrous we won't come close - and that's if you trust the IPCC to not exaggerate, and the models to predict!
Some coastal cities will slowly flood some over the next century, and maybe - maybe - some crop patterns will also slowly shift.
Thunberg-style "I am terrified and thus it is correct that I am terrified and you must be to" thinking is actively harmful.
It seems like there's a trend lately of headlines that pose a question they don't actually answer.
Headline: "Why X happens."
Story: "Meandering shower thoughts and anecdotes about occurrences of X. Quotes from scientists who agree that X does in fact happen. No actual causation is ever proposed or explained in any substantive way."
Headline: "How to learn to love X."
Story: "Meandering shower thoughts and anecdotes about people who struggle with hating X. Quotes from psychologists who agree that some people do in fact hate X. An anecdote from someone who learned to love X, but who doesn't really have a transferable method or process - or if they do, it doesn't make it into the story. No actual instructions for how to get over hating X."
What then when climate hoax collapses
I think they are more likely to hate the people who lied to them when the realize the predictions of a climate disaster never came true. Imagine having your childhood ruined by such a lie.
WaPo has gone full retard and celebrates AlGore's evil lies. They are demanding a combined Church and State that will crush all freedoms for everybody forever.
And Trump laughs.
The bigger, more appropriate question is what will they say in 20 years when none of the dire predictions have come close to being true, and they realize that they were fed a line of total bullshit by their parents, academia, and the media who were only interested in furthering their political goals?
The greatest political evil in American history is slavery. One party justified it, nurtured it, sustained it, fought to retain it by force of arms, worked to undermine its abolition, bemoaned it's loss.
The other party formed to eliminate it.
150 years later, a vast majority of people don't know which party is which. There is precious little likelihood that people will even remember this particular political fight, and when they do, most will be wrong.
A household survey of old farts showed that nearly all — 100 percent — believe that teenagers should be quiet.
Psychological Effects of the Threat of Nuclear War (1986)
"Systematic studies are emerging on the prevailing harmful psychological effect of the threat of nuclear war. ...
Many studies have focused on children, finding that anxiety about social issues is high, but that cynicism and apathy set in rapidly. Conclusions from such studies show that denial and avoidance are some of the worst results, since they are a barrier to meaningful reaction."
So with any luck the "teens" won't attempt any meaningful reactions.
1. These kids need a new religion to replace the ones that they don't believe and that their loser grandparents followed.
2. The people in DC and NYC, esp the types who comment at WaPo and NYT, are a strange bunch. I am compelled to oppose the people they support for elected office.
There are people who first heard warnings of climate apocalypse 50 years ago, complete with long past dates of doom. Nothing as minor as experience will overcome the arrogance that protects these people from ever admitting they were ever wrong or misled, even as children.
What they will end up being mad about is that their grandparents borrowed from them to fund their own lives via entitlements and other deficit spending.
Many predictions have already been proven false, yet no one seems to catch on that the whole thing is bunk worse than the idiot on the street corner holding up a sign saying The End is nigh! or Those freak religious fanatics who claim that the rapture is going to happen Tuesday or the idiots that thought some Mayan calendar that ran out of space meant the world was going to end on that date.
NB: The Repub Pols in DC are still refusing to refute the CO2 Hoax. And DJT himself is the only Whitehouse person that is bold enough to challenge that Big Lie. That means we are still being governed by a Army of totally corrupt thieves and murderers in the FBI, DOJ, the State Department and the NSA.
The Boomers may piss off their grandkids for a buncha other reasons besides the climate change hoax.
Call again when property values crash on Nantucket and Marthas Vinyard.
" ... offers that clarity."
Clarity, it seems, is all the rage. Are your part of the solution or part of the problem -- that is everyone's question on pretty much every issue. Clarity of that sort makes conversation impossible. Where is Torquemada now that he's needed more than ever.
"Rather, my thought was -- and still is -- that future generations of Americans will hate the current ruling generation for saddling them with crippling national debt."
They just won't pay it, Chuck, like is always done. The debts for the New Deal, WWI and II, and the Great Society were defaulted on in the 70s for all intents and purposes, and the same will be done for the debts added since 2001 at some point (I would argue that point has already arrived, but that is an argument for a different day).
believe in the near-unanimous conclusions of the scientific community
You mean the one where the scientific community says there's no evidence severe weather is getting more severe or more frequent? That one?
"near unanimous conclusions"?
Just imagine how mad they'll be when they figure out they were raised to be terrified and manipulated by a bunch of lies.
Virtually no climate scientist is half as shrill as the political activists.
I’d pay more attention to the global cooling.. I mean global warming.. I mean climate change, sorry “climate chaos” people if any of the models or predictions proved true.
I’m old enough to remember Ted Danson telling us the poles would be melted by now. But alas, we still have the poles and the polar bears.
No, I’m not scared of climate change. I’m scared of the BS massive redistribution of wealth and programs designed to control me and my fellow Americans.
And, as others have said before, I might start caring more about this issue if those screaming about it the loudest starting acting as if they care... like not flying any more, not using A/C, not driving combustion engine cars, not eating meat, etc. etc.
As with most things Dem, I usually start with “how can they believe this crap they’re spewing” and move through “oh, right, they don’t believe it, they just want me to believe it” and then right into “they don’t even care if I believe it, they just want to control everything about my life.”
Fuckers
I made a prediction on Kevin Drum's site almost 15 years ago that when the world refused to end in two decades due to climate change, the left would become even more deranged on the subject, and the voters less concerned. What the children of the times think about it never actually changes, but the children themselves eventually have skin in the game and also become unconcerned as adults. The actual evidence of ones eyes matters, but only when it is your money on the line.
"No! I'm sorry, but it is not 'baby boomers,' it is Republicans." It's a prediction about the future.
And like all previous predictions about Climate change, it will be wrong.
Wait! Wait! I've read that science fiction story before. Oh, yeah: "Robert F Young's 'The Courts of Jamshyd' (Infinity SF for September 1957) shows our resentful, resource-starved descendants ritually excoriating past greed: 'Our ancestors were pigs!' "
I would guess that the vast majority of the then grown adults will believe/disbelieve the lie that "We have always been at war with global/cooling/warming/climate change/climate catastrophe" based solely on their political views.
Science will continue to have nothing whatever to do with it.
And when the climate doesn't change in the coming years any more than it always has, will there be hatred toward the Democrats for traumatizing their childhoods? Will Republicans deserve equal hate then?
A small percentage will continue to believe but most won't think about it one way or another. Nuclear weapons actually exist, but I've never heard a young person express any anxiety about their use.
"What they will end up being mad about is that their grandparents borrowed from them to fund their own lives via entitlements and other deficit spending."
From the headline, that's exactly what I thought the article was going to be about ...
"We wasted trillions on feel-good measures and virtue signaling that now dooms you to decades of low economic growth. Oops. Sucks to be you."
When I was a child at St. Mary School in the 60's we had regularly scheduled nuclear attack drills. My school building was designated a fallout shelter, complete with those odd and ominous signs on the walls. We would assemble in lines and then file to the basement and huddle for awhile. Bonus: we got out of the classroom for 30 minutes or so. The Sisters were usually ruthless in imposing silence and discipline but not in these drills.
I never hated my parents or their generation for that. There were plenty of other reasons to hate them, such as the monthly trip to Ficco's barbershop for a buzz cut.
Maybe when these kids grow up the hysteria will have reverted to the upcoming Ice Age.
Then, these grown ups will tell their kids, "Yeah, I remember when we were all gonna fry from Global Warming, it's all bullshit".
I wish I could agree, but even IF the climate hysteria were ever admitted to be a hoax, my experience says the hoax will be attributed to Republicans. "The parties switched" in the 2030s or something.
I think they'll be more upset when entitlements bankrupt the government, which then debases the currency and taxes them senseless.
Apocalyptic religions can be great tools for keeping the believers in line in societies where life is precarious, for economic reasons or otherwise. In safe, affluent societies such religions generate little true virtue, but a shitload of hypocrisy.
There has always been crazy people wandering around proclaiming that the world was ending. We just never used to take them seriously.
Nuclear weapons actually exist, but I've never heard a young person express any anxiety about their use.
Any Carter, you have a call on Line 1!
They will hate us more for spending so much money that THEY are going to have to pay back. Bigger government = more tax dollars taken. They can hate us, but they also want this...hence "climate change" needs TRILLIONS more!!!
I don't give a flying fuck about Climate Change.
Be careful BAG.
Big Brother is watching and denialism will be punished.
The climate is always changing, but sloooooooooooooooooooooooooly, usually, and has since our planet first had an atmosphere. Is natural.
Narayanan said...
What then when climate hoax collapses
It won't. It will just slowly morph into the next delusion. Remember scarcity of resources, peak oil, zero population growth?
I expect that some sort of economic collapse, sort of like 2008, will occur and probably be inflated out of consciousness.
Buy gold. And junk silver because gold prices will be so high it is unspendable.
Civilization did not cause climate change. Climate change caused civilization.
2.5 million years ago, the current ice age (yes we are in an ice age), the Quarternary, began.
300 thousand years ago, modern man appeared and wandered around in small bands of hunter-gatherers for 290,000 years.
12,000 years ago, the Holocene, an interglacial period, began and the Earth began to warm.
10,000 years ago, man developed agriculture. Agriculture produced a surplus. Surplus led to specialization. Specialization led to cities. Cities led to civilization.
5,000 years ago, history began.
All of human existence has taken place in an ice age. All of human history has taken place during an interglacial in that ice age.
All evidence points to the end of the Holocene and the return of glacialization.
Or...they'll realize this entire thing is crap that is based on bad-science/partial science that never panned out to be anything like they were painting it. Instead of looking for Miami underwater, they'll still be jetting to South Beach to play. Instead of wondering if the Arctic will still be there, they'll be wondering why it's expanding.
They made the youth scared and fearful of their world for what? For no reason other than to take or keep power and keep those grants flowing.
The Yoots will wake up one day and indeed be pissed. But not for the reasons stated in the article. They'll be stuck with tons of turbine wind blades to dispose of and nowhere to put them.
They should curse us for leaving a world vastly poorer than the one we were born into decades ago, a world of shortened life expectancy and acid rain and a shrinking ozone layer.
What? Huh? You are kidding me. You aren’t?
Oh.
Never mind.
Boomers passed through the population boom and the global famines of the 70's while dodging acid rain, holes in the ozone, the total depletion of natural resources, and an upcoming ice age. Climate change is a walk in the park.
"Nearly all — 86 percent — believe in the near-unanimous conclusions of the scientific community."
I wonder what percentage of those could state clearly and correctly just what it is the "scientific community" is near-unanimous about.
It turns out climate science is a lot more complicated than the narrative peddled by the alarmists. Even if you accept the premises of AGW (as I do in their most mundane, least-hyped form), you are left with nothing like unanimity on, say, the role of human vs natural contributions so far, or whether water vapor feedbacks will be negligible, small, or massive.
But, you know, details. The important question is, Whose team are you on?
Just imagine how mad they'll be when they figure out they were raised to be terrified and manipulated by a bunch of lies.
What makes you think they will figure it out? The average Democratic voter hasn't.
I am so confused. I thought "the science" claims the world will end in 12 years- that means these kids will never really group and you can't be angry if you are dead.
"what will they say in 20 years when none of the dire predictions have come close to being true..."
Nothing. You can already look back 20,30 years and see that the dire predictions have not come true. That has made no difference whatsoever in the level of hysteria.
"I think they are more likely to hate the people who lied to them when they realize the predictions of a climate disaster never came true"
No. Religion is based on faith, and if the End of Days hasn't come yet, that doesn't mean it will not come.
"And when the climate doesn't change in the coming years any more than it always has..."
After we allow the hysterics to wreck the industrial economy, and the climate then doesn't change, they will say: See?!? It worked!
I am skeptical about skepticism about global climate changes, but I also think Humans are really very adaptable to what might occur in the future. And, as noted, although there is, per NPR, a climate emergency, not a lot of people are changing their lifestyles as a result. That says something.
There are several related questions:
1. Has the earth warmed? There is strong evidence that it has, to some degree.
2. To what extent is the observed warming due to the activities of humans? There is no scientific consensus whatsoever on that question.
3. What should be done? There is no consensus whatsoever on that question, except that those who always call for greater government control over human activity are calling for greater government control over human activity.
4. Should we listen to the advice of teenagers when contemplating the issues of the day? The answer to that is NO. NEVER.
When Climate Change doesn't happen, I don't expect today's kids will remember how much they feared it---no more than when we were kids and people like Paul Ehrlich, Barry Commoner and the Club of Rome were scaring the bejeebus out of us over the Population Bomb, looming environmental catastrophe resulting from a New Ice Age, and dwindling natural resources.
People shrug and then get on with their lives.
There’s good money to be made in the fear mongering racket. Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars fear mongering, all the while living a lifestyle that emits more CO2 than dozens of families. Climate researchers depend on grants and they know that money will dry up is they don’t toe the line. The kids have been and continue to be lied to by their teachers. It’s a great racket for those getting the juice.
Ah, I very fondly remember "Duck and Cover!". Great times.
So the grandchildren will voluntarily give up their electronic devices, air conditioning, cars, airplanes, travel, procreation, standard of living, etc. to save the planet from climate change. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.
Let's please return toy theory.
Polls are not meant to reflect what we believe. Instead, they are meant to influence what we believe.
Keeping that in mind, this poll has zero to do with the children. It's meant to influence the adults. Hey, do you want to be hated by the next generation? No? Then get on board and do what we say!
The good thing is that their grandchildren will feel the same way about them. With Social Media this is "water is wet" journalism.
I'm still celebrating making it to 70 without a nuclear war.
Had I only known, I would have done something with my life.
Imagine my surprise when earlier today my plants confessed to me the climate change hoax was actually their idea and all it took to initiate the hoax was to find a sufficiently gullible set of humans to go along with it.
Oh how my plants laughed and laughed.....
They are definitely going to hate the Boomers but climate change is not why
but the post has a lenin apologist aaron friedman, on staff,
Yancey Ward said...
I made a prediction on Kevin Drum's site almost 15 years ago
That must have been right about the time I was banned because I did not agree that single payer was the best way to reform health care. The commenters sort of went nuts around the 2004 election.
Kevin is still a level headed lefty. I hope he is in remission with his lymphoma. I was not even allowed to wish him well.
Dear childrens --
Humans did not cause the huge cooling effect where we had glaciers, sometimes a mile thick in what we now call the United States of America, and humans did not cause those glaciers to melt, if you can't understand that, then FOAD!
NASA recently came out and said solar cycles is the biggest contributor to 'climate change' here on earth. Will these skulls full of marxist mush grow up and try to extinguish the sun?
The actual poll indicates that "teens" are more concerned about the economy, health care, and "gun policy" than about the climate:
8/5/19 -- Summary table among teens
--- More important --- ------ Less important ------ No
NET Extremely Very NET Somewhat Not so impt opinion
a. The economy 73 32 41 27 21 6 *
b. Health care 74 38 36 26 20 6 *
c. Immigration 58 27 31 42 30 12 -
d. Climate change 61 34 26 38 27 12 1
e. Renewable energy 57 27 30 43 32 11 -
f. Gun policy 64 35 28 36 24 13 *
(Note that those are in a funny order...)
President Trump's exit from the Paris Accords is the best hope for addressing Man-caused Climate Change. He made a great case that the accords did NOTHING to fix the problem. It frees everyone to think again, explore real solutions that our Elite One-World Supremacists have refused to consider.
If the Coup Plotters, Hoaxers and Whores at NYTimes achieve their current aims, the grandkids will be live such a miserable existence the past won't matter, just get me through this grey day.
If Trump can hold through 2024, the grandchildren will thrive in a way like no other generation. to their #GoldenAge, Salud.
Why would they blame me? I've never even flown on a private jet.
Remember, these are the same people who told you that your heath insurance would go down by $2500/year, that Trump was a Russian spy, that Hillary was a slam dunk, that college was worth it no matter what field you major in or how much it cost, that there are over 100 genders, and on and on. Just remember who lied to you virtually every day of your life, including how fast the temperature and the seas would rise at the same time they chose to buy property on the shore. Remember who did that lying, becuase so far you don't seem to remember any of it, even the stuff that just happened.
As a young adult, almost everything I thought my parents were wrong about was really just my inexperience and general naivete.
"baby boomers’ grandchildren"
There must be boomers' great grandchildren around by now.
"The Democrats won't be off the hook just because they expressed more belief in the coming disaster and used the issue to excoriate their perennial political opponents."
This is the left's justification for anti-democratic behavior.
Top-rated comment: "No! I'm sorry, but it is not 'baby boomers,' it is Republicans."
Isn't the partisan divide -- for and against -- clearer on fracking, the major reason the US actually leads the industrial world in CO2 emission reductions?
What are they talking about?
What tests of reason or what political processes might we use to incorporate science into our political will and to refute such incorporation when it is not proven science?
A recent study lists the predicted calamities which have failed to materialize.
Each in its time was bludgeoned into our political discourses as if it were an emergency. And each had as its solution a forfeit of treasure and freedom.
I'm old enough to have been taught duck and cover. To have heard of mass food shortages and mass starvation due to over population. To hear of peak oil. Coming ice age. Global warming. On lesser notes, eggs bad, eggs good; coffee bad, coffee good; polyunsaturated fats good/ bad; red meat, lots of carbs, cell phone cancer, ...
I don't want to ignore science but I'd like some more rigorous reason checking.
The current climate change thing seems more fraud than science.
I remember being mobilized in the mid 70s to protest the "energy crisis" by an elementary school teacher. We spent quite a bit of time talking about the quite scary things that would happen and how we had to write to our politicians and do all kinds of things to make sure we didnt run out of oil
You can see why i dont get too worked up about the current disaster after that.
This whole meme resembles how children of my generation used to talk about nuclear war. I don't think any of us who were teenagers or college students in the late 70s and early 80s think much about nuclear war anymore, or "curse" people who opposed a nuclear freeze, or give thanks for the women of Greenham Common, or anything like that. We weren't really traumatized, we just like attention and melodrama, like all young people.
The dream of communism will shift as always.
I'm not changing anything I'm doing because of some dimwit jailbait from Europe. She can rot on a train to nowhere waiting for the wind to blow and get power.
I will combust things (hydrocarbons in particular) for my personal gratification.
When the children of today grow up, what will they say?
They'll say "remember those people who told us the world would end - weren't they idiots?". And then half will vote for them anyway. We know this because half of America votes for Dems now even though:
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."
Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb.
Radicals need to create fear so people don't notice their policies won't have any impact on the problems they supposedly address. For another example see the Green New Deal plan to support those "unwilling to work". None of the left's plans will have any impact on emissions or the environment. They will destroy our economy as a byproduct of giving complete control to a pack of fools who have never produced anything in their lives.
Kids believe the hysterics because they haven't learned from experience just how untrustworthy adults are when they think they're heroes. But when they are 50 they will know this was all a scare tactic just as everyone now recognizes Paul Ehrlich was just trying to make some money from his book.
Again I ask, if our goal is to 'defeat' climate change, how or when will we know if we've been successful?
I have to say, I certainly have some strong, negative feelings about the idiots who bought African slaves and brought them to this continent, just so they could turn a few bucks. What a bunch of assholes. Talk about fucking things up for posterity!
The funny thing is, the Left Fascists don't even believe the vastly important "end" justifies the somewhat repugnant "means". They are desperately seeking an end, any end, to justify the means they have already selected.
"What they will end up being mad about is that their grandparents borrowed from them to fund their own lives via entitlements and other deficit spending."
That's where I thought the column's headline would lead. Climate change didn't occur to me. If climate change really is driving children's fears, you've got to give the indoctrinators credit for a thorough job well done.
At least when atomic war drove my nightmares, I could point out that nuclear weapons and the means to use them actually exist.
The climate change debate is not a scientific discussion, it's a political discussion that's being argued as if it were scientifically premised. The 'tell' reveals itself whenever truly scientific things enter the conversation: For example, the sharing of one's data for examination, or the repeatability of one's experiments, or the cut-and-dried study of scientific conclusions. Science isn't a democracy - a single person with the truthful answer backed by data, evidence of results, and repeatability is the one who is right. Our young'uns will figure it out when they start to see the dire predictions fall, and realize that all such appeals to action are emotionally based and have an inevitable shelf life before they are no longer credible. Now, a quiz: Name 5 predictions about climate that actually came true. Having trouble with the first one?
Didn't many of us grow up with the threat of nuclear annihilation? Didn't we get over it?
Man-made global warming is a hoax. I tell that to my grandkids all the time but, at ages 1, 2, 4, and 6 I feel like I’m not getting through to them. They don’t hate me now but they will absolutely love me when the future arrives with the GW hoax unmasked. “My grandpa knew all along” they will brag to their friends with me, if I’m still alive and kicking, nodding sagely in the background.
If the Democratic statists running for office get their way, and the collectivist chickens come home to roost (as they inevitably do) so that the USA becomes Venezuela del Norte, a lot of the young people are going to curse not just the Democrats who dragged us down the road to serfdom, but the "me-too" Republicans and RINOs who collaborated in the process.
Ha ha I don't have any grandchildren, and none are likely.
Narr
Maybe someone else's grandkids can hate me
What's going on?!
The Sunday Seattle Times featured some young woman climate change warrior. They showed her with a slew of climate conference ID badges as evidence of her virtue.
Stumbling around youtube, and I find another young woman in an advertisement warning me that climate change is real.
Green Peace came knocking on my front door yesterday.
Too many coincidences. I wonder who's pushing this agenda??
"When the children of today grow up, what will they say?"
They will be very angry in 2050 as it was all a SCAM and they paid $5-6 per gallon gas for nothing. Where do they get their money back. Global Warming SCAM reparations will be needed.
FDR in his zeal to win WWII gave the okay to construct the atom bomb. This bomb would never have existed were it not for the fact that FDR allowed its development. If the world ends in nuclear conflagration, I hope the few dozen survivors take time from their busy schedules and hate FDR........Why is climate change hate directed solely at climate change unbelievers and none of it at carbon pigs. I have a teeny weeny carbon footprint. I travel by subway don't even fart that much, but consider all those Hollywood types with their huge yachts and mansions and private planes. Shouldn't some hate be directed at them? Leo should offer Greta a ride back to Sweden on his yacht even if he's not going that way. I can think of no better way to raise climate awareness.
When one is running a scam, put the end of the world in 2100 so that few alive today will know they got scammed. First rule of scams: predictions about events in the distant future.
If.
When today's young people grow up and look back on this they will say, "Why did they make us feel so bad and afraid about something that they didn't understand, couldn't predict, and mostly got wrong?"
Or, words to that effect.
Yes:
https://mobile.twitter.com/omriceren/status/1174319134336831490
This is part of the concerted media assault on the western world with climate scare stories. We are seeing it everywhere.
"Instigated by Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation, more than 250 media entities joined forces to foster urgency and action regarding the climate “crisis” and devote extra time to what CJR claimed was “the defining story of our time.” Partners included CBS, PBS Newshour, Bloomberg, AFP, Getty Images, Adweek, CQ and Roll Call, The Guardian, Newsweek, Rolling Stone and many more including a huge number of local media."
https://tinyurl.com/y6agqgvs
Yawn. Wake me up when it gets warmer.
I think the writer needs to explore plausible alternatives involving cooler. Cooler is going to be much worse than warmer.
If the IIPC forecast of a 1.5 degree C increase in temperature over the next 100 years comes true (doubtful) the average temperature for where I live near Philadelphia will be approximately the same as Baltimore today.
We weren't really traumatized,
The hell I wasn't. Had dreams about it all the time. All the gloomy doomy movies and TV shows didn't help.
"No! I'm sorry...."
I think that's a lie. They're not sorry to say that it's Republicans.
Fire was once regarded as a gift from the gods, now it is a world ending disaster. I'm not worried, in about a 7.5 billion years the sun will expand to engulf the earth and nothing will matter anymore.
"May I blunt here, at the risk of losing friends, colleagues, my family members, and my job?
I don't give a flying fuck about Climate Change."
Yeah, fuck the liberals and their religion of global warming, also their spoiled snowflake offspring. Liberal Fascists.
"baby boomers’ grandchildren"
There must be boomers' great grandchildren around by now.
Good point. Boomers grandchildren may be in their thirties already.
In my time I remember hype about the next ice age, the population bomb, nuclear war, nuclear winter, running out of oil, the Y2K bug, the next big earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about the Climate Crisis(tm).
Not that I don't believe that the climate changes, it's just that I don't think the consequences will be so dire that I need to give up my freedoms to a bunch of bureaucrats.
Bay Area @11:37...Yup!
Of course the climate is changing...when it stops changing, we're all in deep you know what.
Here's the thing though. We know it's a scam because the Greens didnt really get to implement their policies, and nothing happened anyway.
But if they DO get to implement their policies, and nothing happens, they'll take credit, claiming that global warming was only prevented due to their efforts. And our brainwashed kids will believe it and give them even more power.
50 years of failed Climate Change predictions:
Climate change is normal. Anthropogenic Climate Change is determined through inference and liberal, progressive injections of brown matter (a la black matter) into models in order to reach a consensus with science. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is prophecy.
Winter is coming.
The sunspots are declining, a new Maunder Minimum approaches.
Real winter is really coming.
Teach your grandchildren not to believe in pseudoscience. And teach them to fear fascists of every stripe - especially watermelons.
Big snowstorm headed for New England. Somebody didn't get the message.
When you look back at all those fake disasters of the past and who was falsely pushing them you notice a coupe things: It's the same kind of people as today's alarmists, and the ones from the past paid no real price for being so terribly wrong. In fact, most benefited quite well in wealth and fame that mostly lasted long enough to make the lying worthwhile, at least to them. The alarmist always included authority figures like scientists, professors and "experts". How many books were sold on all those false alarms, and how many are being sold today on global warming? The biggest problem of global warming may be all the trees cut down for the books, and to print all the money made. And for the record: it's not "climate change" - it's "global warming". Nobody is screaming about the temperatures just changing.
They are all exclusively warning of rising temperatures.
And right on time, the CEI has put together a list of <a href="https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions>50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions</a>
I care about global warming about the same way I care about a large meteor hitting earth. We can't do much about it, and we have lots of things we can do something about which are even more likely to hurt us. The wonderful thing about global warming is that even if it happens, it has a fair chance of being a good thing. Meteors - not so much.
Parents to College Student Child: We're going to get out of this icebox weather, and fly to Aruba. Want to come with?
Student: No! I am a climate change warrior. I will not be your CO2 accomplice!
AHAHAHAHA!
Everyone does NOT recognize Paul Erlich was wrong.
Ask virtually anyone who is planning on limiting or has limited their family to 1 or 2 kids and they will tell you that they don't want the planet to be more overpopulated.
I am more pessimistic than many here. We went fro population bomb to nuclear winter, to global cooling, to global warming, to climate change, and you have the same progs pushing each of them, in turn, and no hint that they feel the least bit concerned by their fairly blatant hypocrisy. For many of them, history starts anew every year, or even every morning.
What I found humorous is that when global warming was falsified, they moved to global warming, and when that theory was falsified, they seamlessly moved to climate change, which can’t be falsified, but then cant be science either. Sciency, yes. Science? No - that requires transparency, reproducibility, and falsifiability. Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change doesn’t even come close in any of those categories. The funny thing to me is that they use the same arguments for AGW and AGCC, with very similar predicted dire forecasts, and sometimes seem to forget that the looming catastrophe du jour is AGCC, and no longer AGW (it having even falsified). And the more the “science” falls apart, the more they crank up the panic. We used to have a couple decades to repent. Now it is maybe one decade.
What if global warming is real AND the results of all this warming amounted to a .1% of outcomes predicted?
Believing in climate change requires many levels of belief, but the most critical one isn't the temperature. It is the predicted results of the temperature increase, which is the most susceptible to inaccuracy.
1) Temperatures are increasing
2) Increases are caused by greenhouse gases
3) The percentage of greenhouse gases that is variable due to human actions is significant.
4) We can significantly reduce that portion of variable gas emissions without destroying our standard of living.
5) If temperatures do increase they will actually result in the catastrophic events predicted.
Again, the last one bothers me the most. If every day of the year 2020 were 1 degree warmer than 2019, would we notice? Would it make the world better or worse?
Narayanan said...
What then when climate hoax collapses
The scams NEVER collapse. NEVER
Erin Brokovich? Hinkeley California? That's all a lie. Hinkeley California never had a higher rate of cancer or illness than average.
Silicone breast implants cause cancer? Nope its a lie.
DDT almost wiped out the Bald Eagle? Nope population bottomed out in the early 1900's
Silent Spring. lie
The Population Bomb. lie
Peak oil, lie
CAGCH (catastrophic anthropomorphic global climate change) will never die, even as the glaciers revisit Wisconsin, CAGCH will live on.
"I remember being mobilized in the mid 70s to protest the "energy crisis" by an elementary school teacher. We spent quite a bit of time talking about the quite scary things that would happen and how we had to write to our politicians and do all kinds of things to make sure we didnt run out of oil"
Remember the blessed Government's response to that human-caused "energy crisis?" I do, I lived in coal country. The answer was... lots of coal-powered electric utilities.
I went to grade school in the 50's and early 60's. The discussion in Science class was climate change: the coming of the new Ice Age. All the scientists said wewere all going to be coverd by glaciers, even in Texas.
Later, after grad school I read Niven and Pournelle's Fallen Angels and smiled. What will be the equivalent in this case?
MAG
I blame my grandparents for the Ice Age that was predicted for us baby boomers in the 60's. Oh wait a minute!......... Never mind!!
I'm still waiting to die from DDT. Next up on the list are Alar, acid rain, hole in the ozone, nuclear winter, chem trails, the next ice age and dyspepsia. Global warmening is just going to have to wait in line.
Ah, I very fondly remember “Duck and Cover!” Great times.
It's still good advice. Not just concerning threats of nuclear brinkmanship and even war (as a new, revived Cold War II is not a particularly unlikely development foreseeable within the not-too-distant future), but also with regard to one's personal danger from meteoric impacts striking from space.
While such catastrophes may appear ludicrously unlikely, the reflex to “duck and cover” whenever one glimpses an extraordinarily bright flash out of the corner of your eye in the sky, could have avoided some thousands of human casualties (mainly from shards of glass propelled like flying knives as myriad windows shattered inward as a result of the blast) following the Chelyabinsk meteor impact. A half-dozen years ago, on February 15, 2013, a small (20 meter) asteroid encountered the Earth, disintegrating and exploding in the upper atmosphere over Chelyabinsk, Russia — producing an explosive yield of perhaps a half a megaton of TNT: which is to say, around the size of the largest nuclear warheads stockpiled today, or some 30 times the size of the atomic bomb which struck Hiroshima during World War II.
I myself glimpsed the dramatically visible atmospheric aftermath of a meteoric fireball in the vicinity of Santa Cruz, California just this last December. Such events can and do occur.
Remember the duck-and-cover algorithm: you see (or half see) a bright flash? Duck and cover! You probably only have a few seconds to do it in.
"Nearly all — 86 percent — believe in the near-unanimous conclusions of the scientific community"
This is, of course, arrant nonsense if you don't specify what the scientific community (and specifically the very small number of scientists who work in attribution) are actually near-unanimous about, and whether or not what those 86% believe is in at all in accord with that near-unanimity.
As a lukewarmer I'd like to point out that what is often called "denial" has from the start actually been lukewarmerism. In 1988 Richard Lindzen, surely the Ur-Denier, testified before Congress and made the following three claims (paraphrased:)
1) Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen significantly since the mid-twentieth century.
2) This rise is almost certainly attributable to human activity.
3) While it is impossible to find an anthropogenic "signal" in the noise of climatic variation we should expect that this rise will have had some effect on climate, and the most likely effect is some degree of warming.
Not much has changed since 1988 (I'd argue that the empirical evidence we've gathered since then should lead us to believe that a serious "climate crisis" is less likely than we would have been justified in believing it was at that time, but that's another story.)
The devil is in the details- almost everyone with any understanding of the rather technical details involved in this controversy thinks that there is likely to be some degree of global warming due to human activity. Almost no one honest, even those who think the effect will turn out to be greater than I think it will, thinks it likely to threaten human civilization (an idea not at all supported by any empirical evidence) in the way that tertiary sources like *cough* the WaPo keep advertising.
When you say that 86% of some people agree with close to 100% of other people about something it would behoove you to note that you're describing a broad range of beliefs, one that includes people who disagree rather strongly with each other. I might even fall within the WaPo's "near-unanimous" category, even if they would be otherwise happy to call me a "denier."
What are they talking about?
religion
Too many coincidences. I wonder who's pushing this agenda??
There are trillions of dollars in clean, green, renewable redistributive change at stake. Time will tell if people are so green to follow Green. Then again, the abortion chambers operate in the open, the diverse victims of social progress are, despite efforts to sequester the clumps of cells, known, and Americans are still "good" and go along to get along. Then there is diversity, political congruence, sex chauvinism, immigration reform gerrymandering, social justice adventures, and other euphemisms that people accept and operate in the narrowly constructed frame of reference ("box").
They were snowed. And it’s going to be literal snow.
86 percent — believe in the near-unanimous conclusions of the scientific community.
Words not in the poll (link above): "scien*", "unanim*".
They won’t hate you if you get absolution from your ficus.
They'll be surprised after Trump buys Greenland and they learn in US history classes that the Vikings lived there 650 years ago when it was so much warmer.
The solution to global warming is that we must elect socialists and fascists.
Winter is coming.
The sunspots are declining, a new Maunder Minimum approaches.
Real winter is really coming.
I think this is at least as likely as warming, even mild warming. Another couple of years of blank sun and we might be in trouble.
Actually, you might be in trouble. I live in Arizona and am old.
But those grandkids' kids and grandkids will hate them as well.
How hot does it have to get people to stop hating the Scandinavian schoolgirl who's bullying and lecturing and hectoring the world's legislators about climate change all the time.
I'm also inclined to wonder when it became a function of journalism to intuit what future generations might think about facts not yet in evidence in order to shame us into doing what journalists as a class want us to do.
The press has always been yellow, of course, but at least they pretended, during those few golden post-war-years, to report on observable facts. Those facts might have been carefully selected to promote a narrative, but they were at least facts.
The Post seems to have started reporting on events in the future, going so far as to read the minds of future persons in a way that would be unacceptable regarding current persons without at least some quotes (admittedly difficult to obtain from future persons.)
I've always enjoyed science-fiction, but I have also always known how to distinguish fantasies of the future from the facts of the present. I find it a bit worrying that our second paper of record seems unable to make that distinction.
Its call laphamization, after a story in harpers one month before the 2004 gop conventiom
Kim stanley robinson is all in on the skydragon, there was another david williams who made it somewhat interesting.
Young people have always had lots of goofy ideas and irrational fears, but there was once a time when newspapers did not write news stories glorifying them and lecturing adults that they needed to change their ways.
The stupidity... it’s dialed to 11.
Children are impressionable. Put them into the hands of ninnies nagging them non-stop for a decade (weekends and summers plus two weeks for "winter holidays" and one week for debauchery at the beach off), and this is what you get: Spoiled brats enjoying modern comforts and technical wonders brought to them by people they've been taught to despise. But, lo, we're constantly told of the saintliness of teachers carrying out their wonderful works for low pay! Ingrates creating ingrates. Sad. Sadder still is that many of these teens have been tricked and brainwashed - with full intention of the tricksters and brainwashers - into terminating their family lines. That's a form of genocide per UN documents:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* * *
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* * *
Ask one of the promoters what the correct population reduction is and from which groups such numbers shall be taken. Will they mention Nigerians with one of the highest fertility rates in the world or keep picking at children with zero siblings or one sibling (and thus of a sub-replacement rate cohort that has a definitionally declining population)?
"Its call laphamization, after a story in harpers one month before the 2004 gop conventiom"
I remember that, but tbh I don't think Lapham deserves to be remembered with that epithet- they went wrong in that case, but I think Lapham was an honorable man. A partisan, blind to his partisanship in many respects, but at least concerned with the truth as he saw it. As long as we have a very partisan press I would be happy to have more Laphams in it.
Most people still think that Rachel Carson was right....
There will be no backlash(in part because I have faith we will not embrace the Green New Deal to any substantial degrees).
I dont, now his successor editors are manifestly worse, i mean they commissioned a piece where they compared orban to the vandals
Hopefully, the vile child abuse being visited on the young by the hysterics and fanatics will feed a backlash against this truly insane twisting of the implications of science, which is anything but settled and anything but extreme in its conclusions and expectations. A truly monstrous distortion is being inflicted and kids, sadly, are the least able to protect themselves against it.
I've spoiled my kids with apathy.
We're restoring an old farmhouse that's been a summer vacation house for almost a century. The bathroom and kitchen are pretty primitive - wood stove, hot plates, one bathroom. I love the place as is but the entire younger generation will not enjoy summers there as I did unless we add more bathrooms, washing machines, big kitchen with all mod cons, heat, air conditioning. They all believe in climate change and I do not but we get along because they don't point out my moral rot for refusing to believe in climate change and I don't point out that they are demanding six or seven major energy-eating appliances as basic to human life. Theirs anyhow. So I doubt if those who are kids now will condemn grandpa for destroying the planet because I think as adults they'll see that they aren't willing to give up modern appliances or heating or air conditioning - and that there was and is no need to do so.
PS. As for the debt, which we mostly owe to China, we'll get it back as they buy more of our oil from fracking. It will take a hundred years of saying thank you to thank Donald Trump for what we owe him. (Apparently 44 left our Army without bullets as well as crushing our energy sector.)
Mirrored skies, had a space elevator and a cold war between western power, russia and thr asian bloc 1984 in the 22nd century
Climate changes. Always has, always will.
We are in the crazy years:
https://mobile.twitter.com/peterjhasson/status/1174511586960166912
wildswan said:
"and I don't point out that they are demanding six or seven major energy-eating appliances as basic to human life."
And this is really the point- I don't want to get into the details here, but it's important to understand that the direct forcing from CO2 is not linear in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (this is uncontroversial, and a matter of basic physics, though the effect of that forcing is a matter of some controversy.) The upshot, though, is that the _earliest_ increases in CO2 will have the greatest effect, and later increases will have less effect- we'd have to cause a continuing exponential increase in CO2 levels to maintain a linear increase in the direct forcing from CO2, and we aren't going to do _that_.
What this means is that Jonathan Franzen is at least right that we're going to see as much warming from CO2 as is reasonably possible (I think he doesn't understand exponential and logarithmic functions well enough to know why he's right, but he's right about that bit.) There's no realistic way around this, and anyone honest has known this for a long time.
I happen to think that the empirical evidence we have so far indicates that the warming from human CO2 emissions will be slight, gradual, and probably on net beneficial. I must also admit that I could be wrong- we could see more warming than I think likely, and it could be really harmful- we just don't understand the climate very well at this point, so I could be wrong, for sure.
But unless we are going to give up every modern convenience (and your children, etc. are just one more data point that indicates we won't do that) we are going to find out who is right in this argument, though I imagine I'll be dead by the time we do.
But whatever it turns out to be we are going to see it. The logarithmic shape of the forcing assures that, and trying to restrict CO2 emissions is a fool's errand. We must adapt to whatever it brings, as well as prepare to adapt to the very real changes in climate, local and global, that have always been part and parcel of living on earth, even without human intervention.
1) Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen significantly since the mid-twentieth century.
2) This rise is almost certainly attributable to human activity.
******************
Bullshit. PROVE IT.
No one can. "Almost certainly" is just a wild-ass GUESS.
At most humans may contribute 4% of the annual increase---where does the other 96% come from????
Actual experiments "almost certainly" do not require speculation using wishy-washy weaselly standards such as almost certainly.
https://principia-scientific.org/vacuum-chamber-temperature-test-debunks-climate-crisis-claims/#comment-26161
Michael Mann almost certainly took the humiliation of a dismissal with prejudice of a case he brought in Canada after a scientist wittily observed that, "He belongs in the state pen, not at Penn State," on an evaluation that:
1) his income has increased significantly since the late twentieth century due to his data and workings in constructing an artificially truncated and instantly and incessantly propagandized graph
2) the disclosure of his data and workings is almost certainly going to wreck his status and future income
You may not be interested in the skydragon, but the skydragon is interested in school, its dogma in the school, in the media, in corporate america, it doesnt matter that it is a lie they treat it as truth
Because as cortez chief of staff let out of the bag, its about reordering the economy.
I would add that Rand Simberg's joke along the lines of that delivered by the Canadian scientist Tim Ball but in reference to Jerry Sandusky was funnier. Here is Mark Steyn's post also humorously delivered that got him entangled but launched a thousand malfunctioning toilet, sewerage system, and digestive tract metaphors for the DC court system: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn/
Steyn is still carrying that ball and chain, like jacob marley.
wholelottasplainin' said:
"Bullshit. PROVE IT."
Please note that I was (accurately, I think) paraphrasing the testimony of Richard Lindzen to Congress in 1988. I happen to think he was correct on this point, but that point was not central to my argument (nor to his, at the time-) perhaps you should get in touch with him if you really want to dispute his claim.
But since I agree with Lindzen about this, if you'd like some evidence in support of that position I'll ask you to look at the CO2 measurements we've been taking at Mauna Loa for a few decades. It's clear that atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising, and that the the only good explanation for that rise is human activity.
The only good explanation? What's wrong with the one for the causes of 5X or 10X current not long past? Higher levels than today during glacial maxima? The hot-ass 1930s?
One might think that the concentration of gases near an active volcano might fluctuate regardless of human activity.
"The hot-ass 1930s?"
I'm talking very specifically about atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and not about surface temperatures, global or local. I do not think there is much serious argument about the fact that human activity has raised the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I agree with you that at least in the US it was probably warmer in the 30s.
How about;
"They HATE us NOW, on account of because they were Told To, and they're (currently) Too DAMN STUPID to see things for what they are"?
Maybe in 12 years, they'll Realize that they've been LIED TO
Doomsdays that didn’t happen: Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions
and people like Paul Ehrlich, Barry Commoner and the Club of Rome were scaring the bejeebus out of us over the Population Bomb,
People shrug and then get on with their lives.
You got on with YOUR LIVES
My bleeding heart Liberal Mom (President of Cedar Rapids League of Women Voters, 1969); Still, TO THIS DAY thinks that the Population Bomb was ABSOLUTELY TRUE (Including the parts about world wide famines by the 1980's).
She's convinced that the reason WHY there are over 300 million americans now, is because of "ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE '70's HAVING MORE THAN 2 CHILDREN"
She's convinced that the reason WHY there is man made global warming is because of over population
She's convinced that soon (VERY SOON!) the population of the earth will be Over 4 BILLION people;
which WILL RESULT in MASSIVE DIE OFFS
Most of the people in her (wildly liberal, geriatric, do gooder) cohort TOTALLY AGREE with her, in EVERY WAY.
And, it's not that she's senile; she's been this way as long as i've known her (57 years)
Yes its dogma not facts.
Was Jacob Marley under court compulsion too?
I am literally the Greenpeace child. I was probably the first child ever featured in a Greenpeace television advertisement, actually (I've always been photogenic.) I remember it well- my line was "Please help stop the mass murder of whales." I looked into the camera and said my line, but I remember turning to my mother and asking "Mommy, what language is 'mass' from?" We were in Quebec at the time, and I was linguistically confused.
I got dragged around and used as a prop in a lot of protests as a kid. I remember the protest in D.C. to let draft dodgers come home particularly vividly. Without taking a position on that I will say that I resent how I was used by activists. I was too young to have much of a position on anything, after all.
I don't think I've ever met Paul Erlich, but I know the people he blurbs, and the people who blurb him, pretty well. Much as I love a few of them, what a bunch of assholes they are when it comes to things like facts and truth. It took me a while to understand that about them, because I grew up around them, but I eventually figured things out, to my own satisfaction, at least.
I'm talking very specifically about atmospheric CO2 concentrations
Yet disregarded two of three points of inquiry in purporting to respond.
The disciples of Malthus did a spellbinding job on the ladies of the Midwest, despite the total failure of his predictions.
https://gilderpress.com/2019/09/04/time-the-anchor-of-monetary-values/
OK, but you started your post with "The only good explanation?" with an outraged tone. I think if you read my post you'll find that my use of the phrase "only good explanation for" was specifically in reference to the recent increase in atmospheric CO2.
But let's see if we can find three points to address in your post:
1) Yes, humans probably have increased levels of atmospheric CO2- in fact we have almost certainly done so
2) Yes, temperatures were probably higher in the US in the 30s than they are now
I can't find another coherent point in your post, but if you'd like to make one I'd be happy to address it- in fact, I suspect we largely agree.
The Standard Oil Company had already saved the whale by that time, at least among God-fearing shame-susceptible Christians of Northern Europe and Northern European descent of whaling nations and their legislatures, and agnostics, atheists, and Gaia worshippers that borrowed apparently unwittingly some but not all of their moral code without underpinning. Today, the exempted nations of Eskimos and remnants of other North American tribes hunt whales and overfish streams without limit, planning, or concern for maintaining stocks though without much technical proficiency, and by the talkers nothing is said. But the Japanese hunters get an earful. It's of a sort with the genocide in South Africa about which by the talkers nothing is said. It's a control thing.
Powell did a good job yesterday. Regular media however scored an F for all the ‘in the face of a slowing economy’ propaganda. Fed forecast over 2 percent, housing starts spiked last month (‘unexpectedly’). It’s like the media is trying to encourage a recession for some reason...
Seeing outrage says things about you. Investigate. Inability to comprehend does not incoherence make.
Unwillingness to comprehend also.
Any climate change proposal that does not:
- start with nuclear power is not serious
- Does not address the India and China is not serious
Such plans are just attempts to achieve global government
Like Instapundit Glenn Reynolds says, I'll believe there is a crisis when the people telling me there is a crisis, act like there is a crisis.
Most of the exhortations saying "we" need to cut back whatever, mean "you regular folk" need to cut back, not the elite.
It's been warmer than this in recorded history (ca 800 - 1000).
but I eventually figured things out, to my own satisfaction, at least.
Thank you for disclosing your early years' indoctrination and childhood activities in the business. Those things you've figured out don't include awareness that others can see the fakery of using faux solemnity to make half an argument, no?
Once the citizens of the world, despite having the media and academia weaponized and pointed at them, realized that vanguard-empowering, nomenklatura-enriching socialism worked by enslaving and impoverishing the citizenry, the vanguard had to come up with something new; they came up with climate change.
It's just the WaPoo WaPooping!
Our culture has become so stupid and self destructive that we will basically deserve it when it collapses.
By the way, the Wash Post needs to inform Obama about the coming calamity. Poor guy just dropped $15 mil on oceanfront property.
Now this is a novel concept? Take a poll of teenagers and according to the pollsters the result has real meaning. What utter nonsense - who pays for these polls - and why are they taken? Hell, when I was 16 I did stupid things and believed in Marx - because I didn't know any difference. Then went to war and came back got an education - also worthless - started my own business and saw that Marx was full of sh*t. End of story!
About all of that oceanside and delta property and continuing ample financing thereof. https://youtu.be/hL8V5kyBK6c
In the distant future, when the sun begins to burn out, our progeny will hate us for not creating more co2 which could have prevented earthlings from freezing to death.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा