Less than three weeks to nationwide riots....

[rob feature]

What in the everloving FUCK does this mean???

I'm not kidding, I'm fucking serious.

This is an example of people throwing out long words that sound impressive to people who don't stop and take the time to evaluate them for what they mean.

"Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities."

Soooo.... what you just said, what you LITERALLY SAID, was that the Earth is warming because... the Earth is acting like humans???

Put another way....

"Anthropomorphism is defined as the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to any other nonhuman entity in the environment and includes phenomena as diverse as attributing thoughts and emotions to both domestic and wild animals, to dressing a Chihuahua dog as a baby, or interpreting deities as human."

I'm serious. Stop throwing out big terms to sound scientific. Stop just quoting something other people say without scrutinizing it. Come on, man...

Lol, never thought that word would get under anyone's skin. Perhaps you can suggest something less offensive.

I did take a little liberty with that though where a better term might be anthropogenic. It was in geological context. In a discussion of geomorphology it would mean lasting impacts from human activity...something like a strip mine. To expand context, the Anthropocene is a proposed epoch that would begin where human influence left lasting impressions on the planet. These features are what I meant by anthropomorphic (where I really should have said anthropogenic).

Look on the bright side - you learned a new word or 2.

[rob feature]

As for global warming and climate change, you can claim all you want "every university on the planet" or "97% of scientist" bullshit numbers all you want. The bottom line is, the scientific community is just as prone to bias, pandering and self-congratulations and McCarthyism as politics or journalism. The global warming (now we redefined it as "climate change to further muddy the narrative") movement is more driven by money and power (specifically GOVERNMENT power) than it is by hard science. Dozens and dozens of examples of falsified data and marginalized nay-sayers throw increasing amounts of shade on the proponents.

The hypocrisy of the most prominent pushers of carbon credits does the rest.

Last year Leo di Caprio was crying like a little girl about the imminent death of the planet from Amazon forests burning and Australia becoming a desert wasteland. Funny... all that completely went away. Seen any pictures of regrowth in Australia this year? How about California's wildfires Nancy Pelosi was blaming on Mother Earth being angry or some shit??? Nothing to do with poor water management and poor forestry management? You know things the people on the ground have been saying for decades, about how leaving all that brush to build up and deadfalls to sit was going to bite us in the ass? Yeah, shit happens. Guess what Mother Nature does when she's left alone? She cleans house. Ain't her fault we've built communities every 5 miles in California and didn't bother to clean up the trash that accumulates.

Either way, this thread isn't about global warming or climate change bullshit numbers that are widely faked and altered to fit a narrative to generate more government funding. I'm out on this one. Simply stifling debate and marginalizing people who disagree with the "settled science" and "universal agreement" only worsens the credibility of those trying to make the point.

You don't have to believe anyone. You can go and analyze the data on your own. There's an awful lot of it and it's freely available.

[Euphonic]

You can go and analyze the data on your own. There's an awful lot of it and it's freely available.

This is the internet. You can probably find any answer you're looking for, even if it's wrong.

[Euphonic]

Anyways, what are the chances that the election isn't fully decided by the end of January, so they decide to give Pelosi Galore the keys to the car?

[rob feature]

Anyways, what are the chances that the election isn't fully decided by the end of January, so they decide to give Pelosi Galore the keys to the car?

These days? I'd say it's about as likely as anything else. Unprecedented has become the new normal.

[tRidiot]

Look on the bright side - you learned a new word or 2.

Don't flatter yourself.

[tRidiot]

Anyways, what are the chances that the election isn't fully decided by the end of January, so they decide to give Pelosi Galore the keys to the car?

#1 Possible

#2 Not a chance.

I thought about taking Nov 4th off work in the expectation there would be a lot of upheaval - then I realized, I'd have to take off the rest of the year to avoid it.

Screw that.

KCCO - Keep Calm and Carry On. In the 2A sense.

[Euphonic]

#1 Possible

#2 Not a chance.

If the election isn't decided by January 20th, they'll have to put someone in charge and I'm not sure how it'd play out if they follow the 12th Amendment.

[ckirocz28]

Only governments can make a difference at this point. It's clear that individuals are incapable of protecting our environment.

If you can't see the change, you're lying to yourself. It's incredibly obvious. It does not care about your political affiliation. Sea levels are rising. Earth is heating at an unprecedented rate due to anthropomorphic activity and will continue to do so in an exponential fashion. As predicted, weather events are becoming less predictable and more extreme. Essential reefs are dying from ocean temperature increases. Glaciers are dwindling along with species of plants and animals.

Even if you don't buy the cause presented by most scientists, the data is overwhelming. Prove me wrong. With data - not bitshoot videos.

Just some simple questions for you. What caused the end of the last ice age? What caused the end of the ice age before that? Why is there geological evidence that it has been warmer in the past? Why is there geological evidence that sea levels were higher in the past?
Humans DON'T control Earth's climate.

[ckirocz28]

What's different about the Anthropocene is the RATE of change.

Are you saying that ALL of the climate change in Earth's past happened slower than it's changing now? Seems unlikely, given that some of the major changes in the past were caused/helped by massive volcanic eruptions and cataclysmic meteor impacts.