安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
It's more prevalent with younger people because at a point, as you get older you begin to realize the story is on repeat, and you've heard the claims, the same predictions, the same fear mongering before, and it didn't pan out as you were told the last 4 or 5 times the prediction was updated.
Do You prefer that? Probably not. And if yes You shouldn´t complain about people committing crimes or ignoring certain borders, as anything goes as people see fit.
What in the hell are you talking about? Anarchy? Strongest wins? We're talking about very corrupt people trying to control energy, and industry, and using climate as a piss poor excuse to get you on board. Is that your solution to "anarchy?" A very, very small group of people control literally the things that make the world function?
I´m not on a side - but if 97% of all scientists agree, and it´s the scientific consensus - and they have all kinds of reasonable explanations and actual evidence, then i tend to believe that. While even if i wouldn´t believe that, it´s probably clear that less pollution is better than more or the same pollution - even without any data. While pollution could also be replaced by consumption, or production, or energy consumption.
Regulations? Or is it different if it´s about regulations for energy production and consumption, which has negative effects on others - or if it´s about any other law which prevents negative effects on others? I see no difference.
And we also had this discussion before, so i didn´t want to write much and get to the point, as i already know how this discussion would end - and i don´t like to have the same conversation with the same person twice.
Well I for one believe it to be entirely plausible that both sides of this debate have been manipulated by power, money, and influence. I believe the Greta Thunberg's of this world to be as dumb, as gullible, and every bit as insufferable as any right wing QAnon wack job!
Just for clarification I do think there is some truth to the argument of man made climate change. We can't pump million of metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere decade after decade and not expect there to be some sort effect on our atmosphere. I just don't buy into the whole "existential threat" nonsense, and certainly do not trust government to solve the issue
Also one would need to look at the whole processes of production, and not only on certain parts of it, so it looks better. Which doesn´t happen either. And there´s little transparency or possibilities to compare two products and alternatives, while this would be very easy to do, and would actually require very little regulations, as any costumer could decide on his own what to support and what not. But even this doesn´t happen.
That's the whole problem with the narrative though. It hinges on the idea that CO2 is some kind of toxic waste, yet, it's plant food, readily absorbed by them in any quantity we are capable of delivering. The more you put out, the more they consume. atmospheric CO2 levels are a factor of temperature, not a cause of it. As temperatures go up, gasses become less soluble, so they're not absorbed by liquids or soils as much. As temperatures go down, it becomes more soluble, more gets absorbed into soil, rocks, water, etc leaving less of it to remain residual in the atmosphere, and how much remains in the atmosphere depends on how soluble the environment is to it.
That's why millions of years of ice core samples show temperatures changing first, CO2 levels later.
Anybody who knows chemistry can tell the stories being taught about CO2 are nonsense only someone with virtually no education in any kind of field of science would believe, which is why the people who defend the narrative the most rabidly are the "but scientists said!" types.
It's like if you did not know that days get shorter as we head into winter, never paid attention to this fact, and were fairly new to the world around you, I might be able to convince you that days were getting shorter because the sun was dying. That's pretty much the climate argument in a nutshell.
See, this is how I know I'm not a Marxist, though I do lean left. I like personally owning things.
However I acknowledge that there are people now who own way, WAY more than their fair share, to the point of utter absurdity. It's not possible to work to become that rich, therefore I don't think that kind of obscene wealth is earned. They had to lie, cheat, and steal to get that kind of wealth, and they wielded their wealth as a weapon to further entrench their position and become even richer.
I don't think it's possible for a good and honest person to become so insanely wealthy except through inheritance.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
or things get better and they totally fix it, and we don't all ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ die in a won session. again. from this exact problem. because the ironmen are literally robots whose skinsuit is still alive.