Earth is on Fire! Panic or Pandering?

[PeliusAnar]

Listening very politicians and other people, I hear a lot about the urgency of climate change. I understand the climate is changing, it has been doing that since climate first existed. My issue is that there have been many claims over the years. Decades of Claims. I personally remember Al Gore claiming there would be no ice caps by 2013 and he had a movie called an Inconvenient Truth. The only thing inconvenient about it was that it was a failed prophecy.

In regards to Freedom of Speech, there is a clear limit on calling out fire in a crowded building causing a panic. My issue with how climate change is portrayed is that feels like climate change is telling me the Earth is on fire. Should there be consequences when these people are wrong and inciting panic over the years? Every time I hear someone saying that we need to act NOW due to climate change, I roll my eyes and mentally ask 'what are you trying to sell me.'

There are a laws that prohibit fortune telling. The spoiler has the text from the PA law against it, just read the bolded parts and they could apply to claims on climate change. Here is another question to consider, are claims about climate change a form of fortune telling? It seems just about as accurate but without the crystal ball and the cold reading to make it entertaining, just the fear.

Spoiler

A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree if he pretends for gain or lucre, to tell fortunes or predict future events, by cards, tokens, the inspection of the head or hands of any person, or by the age of anyone, or by consulting the movements of the heavenly bodies, or in any other manner, or for gain or lucre, pretends to effect any purpose by spells, charms, necromancy, or incantation, or advises the taking or administering of what are commonly called love powders or potions, or prepares the same to be taken or administered, or publishes by card, circular, sign, newspaper or other means that he can predict future events, or for gain or lucre, pretends to enable anyone to get or to recover stolen property, or to tell where lost property is, or to stop bad luck, or to give good luck, or to put bad luck on a person or animal, or to stop or injure the business or health of a person or shorten his life, or to give success in business, enterprise, speculation, and games of chance, or to win the affection of a person, or to make one person marry another, or to induce a person to make or alter a will, or to tell where money or other property is hidden, or to tell where to dig for treasure, or to make a person to dispose of property in favor of another.

 

[Marduk]

Whether one is correct or not in the alarmism is a very relative and politicized question - depending on geographical location, loyalties, economic dependencies, and degree of importance given to things like biodiversity. With different answers to these questions, one could arrive to wildly different answers on this. There are crazies who would rather see mankind go extinct than for civilization to continue causing biodiversity and wildlife habitat loss for example.

The other angle is that there is a noticeable tendency for the sort of people who should the loudest about the urgency also being the sort of people with a particular set of answers to the above questions, and also a particular set of at minimum somewhat radical solutions offered, which by pure accident happen to be completely in line with their political opinions besides anything climate change related. What a coincidence...

 

[Bigking321]

Yeah, climate alarmists are pretty annoying.

Instead of debating whatever political views they have honestly it's instead always "We have to save the planet by switching everything to my radical political views and if you disagree in anyway you're a uneducated climate denier and are a threat against humanity and thus can be attacked and ignored without any repercussions!".

 

[The Truth]

I know whats real answer to this question to yours. It ain't pretty, but it's the truth. I know because I did my research. The Elites spread the fear mongering, dumbing down the population with blind fear, while also making others become skeptics of the truth. All the while they continue to alter the Earth. Why you ask? Because it perfectly suits there need. They want ignorant blind drones for their consumerist slave empire. Drones who are either too scared to ask questions and rebel, or too skeptical of the world around them. Drones who will do nothing more than eat, sleep, shit, work, and buy the products of the various corporate overlords, most of which are just inane junk that they'll never use. It's just nature, they say. It's a cycle, they say. Well, I say bullshit. I keep a keen eye on my surroundings, so I'm not easily fooled.


Some would say the Elites are are using HAARP to do this. But I say nah. HAARP is just a smokescreen. Something the Others came up with to distract from the real operations. Secret high tech computer bunkers hidden deep within in the Himalayan mountains. Why? Because it's remote. But not that remote. Hikers go there all the time, but there's no chance of them ever discovering the truth hidden within those giant frozen rocks.


You might be asking what those bunkers are for, well heres the answer, jack: Chem Trails, which in reality are actually "Nanobot Trails". You see, those 'trails' left behind by planes don't bring about retardification in children and fetuses. They are not heavy metal chemicals autism cocktails. They're swarms of aluminium nanobots. Nanobots that can alter the Earth's atmosphere.


Where'd they get this tech? I don't know, but I have my suspicions. I suspect it came from the same source as PCs and 3D printing.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Kinda off-topic, but man I gotta say Isaac Arthur's got better solutions for climate change, real or imagined, manmade or natural

New technologies rather than simply restricting use, all while making a buck out of it

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

I wonder how that law gets enforced on religious claims as is. We all hear about doomsday cults and the like all the time, but never really that they are getting hit with this or a similar law. Although I wouldn't be surprised if this law does see stern use against religious claims and had someone like AOC had use religious terms instead of climate change she would be facing repercussions.

 

[Navarro]

Yeah, climate alarmists are pretty annoying.

Instead of debating whatever political views they have honestly it's instead always "We have to save the planet by switching everything to my radical political views and if you disagree in anyway you're a uneducated climate denier and are a threat against humanity and thus can be attacked and ignored without any repercussions!".

Watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside.

Honestly, why not do stuff like use trash as fuel or plant new trees or make genetically modified trees that can take up all the smoke

Or make greenhouses full of GMOs that grow quickly

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

Well I mean we have company startups that are working on a new method of pulling C02 out of the air like Carbon Engineering.

Fact is they are actual alternatives the government and the DNC could be pushing right now if to combat the effects of climate change. The problem is that these methods if they worked would neatly side step the social and economic changes they desire, and wouldn't be filling their pockets but someone else.

 

[Navarro]

Honestly, why not do stuff like use trash as fuel or plant new trees or make genetically modified trees that can take up all the smoke

Or make greenhouses full of GMOs that grow quickly

Because those solutions don't allow for radical government control over the economy. Ironically both Chernobyl and the recent coronavirus show pretty demonstrably that totalitarian states are particularly bad at dealing with the sorts of crisis these people say justify such measure.

 

[Morphic Tide]

I think it's more accurate to say that totalitarian statism has issues with crises, as there's a long history of absolute power being rather nimble if it's left rarely exercised. When everything's in the bureaucracy to begin with, making that bureaucracy move is utterly hopeless, but if the government has the needed power and declines using it as a standard, then you get the swift, sweeping action that has been the usual justification for such government structures.