More
4

It's preachers are exactly like those lying pieces of shit the christtards. Indeed climate change is one of the new religions. Created by the regressive left, who insist they are the ones all about science.

Christardery - it's the end of the world and you will suffer and die and burn forever and ever amen, unless you do what we say. Oh and give us all your money.

Climate hoaxers - it's the end of the world and you will suffer and die and burn forever and ever amen, unless you do what we say. Oh and give us all your money.

Like gay faggots, godtards and the new religionfags climate hoaxers should be tossed from high buildings.
It's preachers are exactly like those lying pieces of shit the christtards. Indeed climate change is one of the new religions. Created by the regressive left, who insist they are the ones all about science. Christardery - it's the end of the world and you will suffer and die and burn forever and ever amen, unless you do what we say. Oh and give us all your money. Climate hoaxers - it's the end of the world and you will suffer and die and burn forever and ever amen, unless you do what we say. Oh and give us all your money. Like gay faggots, godtards and the new religionfags climate hoaxers should be tossed from high buildings.

19 comments

[–] jobes 1 points (+1|-0)

You're close, but I don't think you're on point. "Climate change" is being pushed because it is something that would "require" global governance to solve - in other words an unelected regulatory body with unchecked power that can have the power to shut down any industry in any country they do not like. If you don't believe me, then take a second to look a little more closely into the Paris Accord. It was the true first attempt to finish the deindustralization of the West, which makes any country abiding by its regulations an open target for future forceful takeover because they would no longer be able to produce weapons of war when the time came.
[–] smallpond 2 points (+2|-0)

A lot of people who are concerned about climate change also want a happy ending, countries working together in agreement, supporting the poorer countries to prevent human suffering, and skipping into the future hand-in-hand.

Of course that might be asking a little much of humanity. I think it's also likely that countries won't be able to cooperate, and resource stress will lead to widespread conflict and death. Killing off lots of people is also an unpopular way to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and reduce pressure on resources.

Try not to conflate your concerns about government overreach and control, with the science of global heating, now convincingly established over several decades. A one-world government certainly isn't the only solution, or future, for those who are familiar with the science.
[–] Butler_crosley 1 points (+1|-0)

The term "climate change" is a lazy sensationalist term. The climate is constantly changing. It will continue to change regardless of what humans do and the whole movement is based on human arrogance and wanting control over the natural world. As I have previously stated, it isn't possible to have full control over the climate and trying to could lead to even worse consequences. Actually destroying the planet would require some Sci-Fi level schemes that really aren't feasible.

That said, I still support the removal of a few billion people idea whether it be now or down the road when natural selection takes hold. Apparently having this view makes me a bad person but I've been called a bad person before so I'm used to it.
[–] CDanger 0 points (+0|-0)

"bad view" and "bad person", but I also agree with you; a few billion more mouth breathers and a Walmart and Home Depot on every square mile of the earth doesn't do anything to make the future better. Whatever beauty humanity is capable of (e.g. art, invention) would not be significantly impacted. All the issue of habitat destruction, overpriced realestate, conflict over resources, depleting water, and global warming would be almost irrelevant if the earth's population were < 1 billion.
[–] registereduser [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

those who are familiar with the pseudoscience

Fixed that for you. BTW, how much money do these fake news 'scientists' need to fix this shit they fucking created in the first place? Fuck off.

Also, FYI, life on earth has always flourished in warmer than present climates. That is a fact you money grubbing human scum.
[–] smallpond 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

From my other comment:

Yes, but human civilization hasn't been around for 4.5 billion years, it was built under stable climatic conditions, and rapid anthropogenic global heating is going to screw us and many other species over.

In reply to:

That is a fact you money grubbing human scum.

Have you checked just how much money/power the fossil fuel and big agriculture industries have at their disposal? They're lucky they have woke guys like you to protect them from money grubbing scum like me who want them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions - they'd be utterly defenseless otherwise!

Edit: Added "From my other comment:" and "In reply to:"
[–] PhunkyPlatypus 0 points (+0|-0)

life on earth has always flourished in warmer than present climates.

I would say that life which was adapted to colder climates probably didn't fair so well. Wooly mammoths and such wouldn't have excelled during the cretaceous period for instance.

You seem to often use the historical record to support your argument. Yet we live in unprecedented times in regards to human history. Life in some form will survive major catastrophes, but humanity is far more fragile.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae