Is wokism declining?

[Harbal]

Read the first sentence of the quotation more carefully.

Which quote?

You'll figure it out. You're a bright boy.

I doubt it, I've already moved on.

[Immanuel Can]

Which quote?

You'll figure it out. You're a bright boy.

I doubt it, I've already moved on.

Okay.

[Walker]

Heat Wave Sets Off New Round Of ‘Climate Crisis’ Lies
https://issuesinsights.com/2024/06/19/h ... isis-lies/

"Sure, the data doesn’t show an increase in the number of heat waves, or hurricanes, or tornadoes, or wildfires. Yet every time one or the other strikes, the press robotically connects that event to ‘climate change.’”


Comment: The factual information in the link doesn't stand a chance against indoctrinated Wokie Belief or the ppm part of the litany that concludes humans are destroying the planet.

[accelafine]

Heat Wave Sets Off New Round Of ‘Climate Crisis’ Lies
https://issuesinsights.com/2024/06/19/h ... isis-lies/

"Sure, the data doesn’t show an increase in the number of heat waves, or hurricanes, or tornadoes, or wildfires. Yet every time one or the other strikes, the press robotically connects that event to ‘climate change.’”


Comment: The factual information in the link doesn't stand a chance against indoctrinated Wokie Belief or the ppm part of the litany that concludes humans are destroying the planet.

You need to learn the difference between science and fuckwittery (you).

[Walker]

Science says things are just ducky, which goes against the Wokie orthodoxy.

[accelafine]

Science says things are just ducky, which goes against the Wokie orthodoxy.

Where does science say that? Citations? Llinks? Peer-reviewed papers? Thanks.

[Walker]

Science says things are just ducky, which goes against the Wokie orthodoxy.

Where does science say that? Citations? Llinks? Peer-reviewed papers? Thanks.

The objective basis for scientific study is to study things as they are. The evidence of growing human population indicates that the planet is quite conducive to Life. Therefore, things are just ducky.

You may cite this "reasoning" in your future proofs that things are just ducky, Ducky.

[accelafine]

Science says things are just ducky, which goes against the Wokie orthodoxy.

Where does science say that? Citations? Llinks? Peer-reviewed papers? Thanks.

The objective basis for scientific study is to study things as they are. The evidence of growing human population indicates that the planet is quite conducive to Life. Therefore, things are just ducky.

You may cite this "reasoning" in your future proofs that things are just ducky, Ducky.

So scientific. I'm stunned by your depth of insight.

[Harbal]

Science says things are just ducky, which goes against the Wokie orthodoxy.

Where does science say that? Citations? Llinks? Peer-reviewed papers? Thanks.

The objective basis for scientific study is to study things as they are. The evidence of growing human population indicates that the planet is quite conducive to Life. Therefore, things are just ducky.

You may cite this "reasoning" in your future proofs that things are just ducky, Ducky.

Man made climate change is generally accepted, but you seem to think you are awake to the fact that it's some kind of hoax, therefore, you are the one being "woke" on this occasion.

[Walker]

It's certainly not a hoax that the climate changes. But it's not about that.

More stunning is that you miss the point of The Climate Change movement. The point of Climate Change is not the climate.

The point of the Climate Change Movement is government regulation of all human activity, seeing as how everything a human being does can be said to affect the climate.

[Harbal]

It's certainly not a hoax that the climate changes. But it's not about that.

More stunning is that you miss the point of The Climate Change movement. The point of Climate Change is not the climate.

The point of the Climate Change Movement is government regulation of all human activity, seeing as how everything a human being does can be said to affect the climate.

If the scientific consensus is that our industrial activity has adversely affected the climate, and is continuing to do so, and needs to be addressed to minimise an impending disaster, then wouldn't it be sheer stupidity for governments not to do something about it?

[Immanuel Can]

It's certainly not a hoax that the climate changes. But it's not about that.

More stunning is that you miss the point of The Climate Change movement. The point of Climate Change is not the climate.

The point of the Climate Change Movement is government regulation of all human activity, seeing as how everything a human being does can be said to affect the climate.

If the scientific consensus is that our industrial activity has adversely affected the climate, and is continuing to do so, and needs to be addressed to minimise an impending disaster, then wouldn't it be sheer stupidity for governments not to do something about it?

Well, there's no "scientific consensus," outside of the assurances of our mass media that there should be. Climatologists are very divided on the actual mechanics of what's going on. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article ... ore-issues.

But let's say that's not the case. Let's say there's 97% agreement (the figure Obama wanted us to believe).

Where is "man made climate change" being "made"? It's not in the UK, which is responsible for less than 2% of the world's carbon emissions. It's not in Australia or Canada, where climate change ideology is having its biggest effects on policy: Oz's contribution is vanishingly small, and Canada is the most "green" country per capita in the entire world, by far. So where is it?

Three places: China first, then India, then the remaining developing world, particularly Africa and South America. In fact, the climate contributions of the entire Western world will never offset these zones, no matter what the West does.

Any Western effort will swiftly be sucked up by the expanding industrial economies of these developing nations, where there are no controls, no "green" programs, and no intention to hold back their people in poverty while we chide them for doing what we did in the 18th-20th centuries already, and which produced our own affluence.

So what does this tell us? It tells us that there are NO SERIOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE THAT DO NOT BEGIN WITH THE WORDS "CHINA" AND "INDIA." None.

And any person that has any sincere intention of "fixing climate change" at all will begin every sentence with one of those two words. Anybody who does not, is merely ginning up climate panic, but not actually proposing anything that has even a ghost's chance of addressing man-made climate change. And their motives...well, not to fix the climate, obviously...but to extend control over Western democracies by rationalizing further fiddling with their economies, higher taxation, more austerity measures, greater governmental control of everything. There is no climate-relevant rationale for the West talking about climate change as if it were within the West's power to deal with it.

Those are obvious facts. One wonders why climate-change enthusiasts are so reluctant to recognize them, except that they have a megalomaniac's delusion of potency in the face of realities that actually render them entirely impotent.

China and India. Deal with them, or you can just forget about saving the globe from man-made climate change.

[Walker]

Good point. The indoctrinated can forget about saving the planet anyway, since it's not in any danger.

That's because Climate Change is a political movement, and the political influencers have declared that China and India are "developing," countries, whereas the relatively young USA is not.

[Walker]

It's certainly not a hoax that the climate changes. But it's not about that.

More stunning is that you miss the point of The Climate Change movement. The point of Climate Change is not the climate.

The point of the Climate Change Movement is government regulation of all human activity, seeing as how everything a human being does can be said to affect the climate.

If the scientific consensus is that our industrial activity has adversely affected the climate, and is continuing to do so, and needs to be addressed to minimise an impending disaster, then wouldn't it be sheer stupidity for governments not to do something about it?

Well, as was already mentioned, the scientific evidence shows that heat waves, hurricanes, tornados and forest fires are not a consequence of the Political Climate Change Movement.
https://issuesinsights.com/2024/06/19/h ... isis-lies/

So that invalidates the Henny Penny scenario.

Besides, governments can't change the climate, or stop the climate from changing, although there are metaphorical political climates.

[Immanuel Can]

Besides, governments can't change the climate, or stop the climate from changing, although there are metaphorical political climates.

Well, my point would be that either way, it doesn't change anything. China and India would be the keys, and no other kind of discussion is serious, even if we fully believe in climate change being man-made. The "men" who are going to make it are in China and India, where the vast majority of the world's population and burgeoning industry are, not in the West.

So why don't the Wokies talk about India and China? Because it's too hard to address the real problem. Wokies don't do hard work: all they do is look for the opportunity to virtue-signal, and their real ambitions begin and end there. If anybody doubts that, just take a look at the neighbourhoods in the US that were hit by the big Wokie demonstrations a couple of years back -- Portland, LA and such. And ask if they are better or worse neighbourhoods for all the attention lavished on them by the Wokies. The answer's obvious: Wokies don't actually help people; they just pose as caring and empathetic. But it's all for themselves. The real results they have are not a concern to them.

But they do believe in big government. And governments have been getting bigger lately. However, governments don't do ANYTHING well. The best one can expect from a government is an overpriced, imperfect kind of job; and that's if it's the very best kind of government. It takes people having an actual interest in things like the costs, materials and profitability of a thing to make it really work, and government cares little about such things. Its primary motive is retaining power, not delivering goods.

So Wokies actually make the world immeasurably worse, while preening as if they are saving it. The whole Cultural Marxist program is really a narcissistic exercise, one very useful to governments and big business for destroying things, including economies and freedoms, but not useful to anybody for improving things.