Topic: The Chit-Chat Thread

Expand

@ThanosReXXX Penguins is a perfectly fitting racist epithet for those degenerate ethic-Canadians. I don't hide my disdain for those Pengs. Everyone knows ethnic Canadians are genetically inferior as a race. They all smell of used maple syrup. They lie and deceive the world with their perverted mutilation of what they call "bacon." They relentlessly show aggression with unprovoked attacks at their Southern border, with wave after wave of "clipper systems" to disrupt the economic activity of neighboring states. Not a day goes by when we don't receive an update on the "Canadian front." How can we stand for this?! Down with the Pengs! I propose the global confinement of all ethnically pure Canadians for the betterment of human society! I plan on starting a political campaign with my close advisors, Mr. K. Broflovski and Mr. S. Marsh to begin this movement.

(inb4 someone reports this as real )

As for weather, I remain skeptical of most of the direct claims about immediate effects of that. It has taken on a life of its own in public consciousness like a religion. I don't doubt the concept and possibility, but there's too much research that isn't done, abut something too new to have a complete picture of when we already understand too little about the long term cycles of the planet. It's a valid theory, it warrants study, but I'm skeptical that that study can be anywhere close to complete or even useful in our lifetime, not matter what is trotted around by politicians, paid off science organizations, etc. For now, the original scientists that proposed the theory have already said numerous times that their theory was about long term effect, changes over centuries that would occur. But once money was introduced into the conversation, and they were sidelined in their own research things changed. It became "immediate threat, and everything must be controlled and managed to save the earth! Immediate effects will happen!" Notice every proposition to save the world involves transferring power, wealth, and control of something from individuals to governments, transferring massive wealth from wealthy nations to "developing" nations, investment in technologies made only by company X that is invariably always a major campaign donor or the law's proposer's wife's cousin's friends' brother's third cousin twice removed (who later turns out to be his mistress?) Unfortunately due to political extremism anywhere we're unable to filter out "good theory in need of research", "original scope of the long term effects in the theory", and "they all say this is true and showed numbers to prove it (while some of them were caught red handed being modified, and all numbers not showing it were silence, burried, threatened or hidden away.)" Once science enters politics, it's never science again. Well, it is, but the ones doing real science will never be heard from. TL;DR, I don't doubt there is a long term effect of humans, I also doubt that sudden dramatic effects like these swings would be the result, just as the original scientists who put the theory forward did not. Over 200, 300, 800 years? Yes. Worth preventing? Sure. Worth lying about other phenomenon being related because it's convenient to get the masses to do what you want them to do? Not so much. Worth using as a money making scheme? That should face execution.

More immediately, there's the weather warfare aspect, there's the solar cycles, there's the repeated attempts of magnetic polar reversal which opens up holes in the atmosphere allowing some pretty nasty radiation in. And on the topic of weather warfare, I doubt we have even a fraction of an idea what messed up things they are trying or were trying. The US military was at one point going to nuke the moon as a show of force.....not really considering what might happen to the tides....or large debris. Didn't matter. The same US government via Truman decided to go ahead with nuclear tests after Albert Einstein went into the Oval Office to warn him against doing it based on the possibility of igniting the entire atmosphere, and incinerating earth and all breathable air. Truman overrode Einstein and ordered the testing anyway. Fortunately it was the odd case of physical science: Einstein 0, Professional Politician 1. Truman's reasoning wasn't devoid of reason. If we weren't going to test it, the Soviets surely would, so if the atmosphere would be ignited, one or the other was going to do it either way, and if it didn't ignite the atmosphere, whoever tested first had the advantage. He was right. But also horribly wrong. If Einstein was right, we'd never have been born, and Earth would be a weird, brown radioactive ball in space, like an uglier version of the moon. That was a 50/50 shot of being reality in the 40's. Push the button, find out if there's an Earth.

Now given modern weather manipulation tools, both militaristically and "hey what if there were never hurricanes again?" Do you honestly believe the US government would not have tried to test various mechanisms? And if we didn't, do you honestly believe no other government has? And do you honestly believe it's impossible for any of those experiments to have gone so catastrophically wrong as to irrevocably damage the weather patterns? Or at least damage them severely for a long time until they can naturally correct? There's so much that goes into this that gets shoehorned into "it must be cause A (and we absolutely can never, EVER mention possibility B) even if both A and B are contributors....can't many money off B anyway. And they'd b e telling the (half) truth anyway. It would be man-made either way. It doesn't have to be soemthing they're doing now, It could be something they did in 1949....huge systems on a planetary scale have a way of compounding and operating on delays, it could all be the effect of damage that was already done ages ago. Something the Soviets did for that matter.

Of course if it's all 100% due to human interaction with earth ,and not the sun, not the military, not the magnetic inversion in progress, we have another problem. "Alternative energy" at the moment is a great money sink, but not very practical at scale. If you have an idea, you can be the next trillionare. Bezos can do your housekeeping for you. You can let him clean your toilets. If he behaves. We can return to agrarianism and forego modern convenience and industry....but then we have to return to heavy animal husbandry....which produces methane which is worse than carbon. Some argue we can't eat meat anymore, it's all the animal methane killing the earth! We're carnivores. It's what we are. If we need synthetic existence via food-science to exist on the world...something is wrong. It goes back to #MeatAndGreet. The only actual solution to the problem if human activity is the problem.....is to eliminate large quantities of humans. Every time they complain about human activity heating the planet, get your howitzer ready. Every ten thousand you can remove, means a more sustainable world! Will burning the corpses increase carbon? How about ocean dumping? Might create a shark overpopulation though. This ecology thing is hard. Either way we need mass extermination, and if it's as dire as they say, we need it right now.

We can always start with the Pengs.

Though for some reason, all proposals to change human activity usually involves schemes to massively reduce the standards of living in the US, Europe, Korea, Japan, etc, while allowing that cyclical smog locale you mentioned to actually increase their smog. Funny, that.

That's the problem. Once you take what might be a real science scenario. Then try to drill it into the public, as a cover for a thousand hairbrained political schemes. Then alter some of the research to support the idea's correlation to said hairbraiend political schemes. What are you left with?

And when do I get the greenlight to catch me a Peng?

(I should know better to mix political hot button issues, social commentary, and satire on an internet forum....but....oh well, there it is.... )