asdkjh345

People don't pay attention long enough. We have 20 solid years of non-stop doomsday predictions, all of which were wrong. Nobody pays any attention to this, they just go right on believing all the new baseless doomsday predictions. Meanwhile actual looming disasters are ignored.

>No, that is a take that you have been fed by those who have gigantic vested interests in stopping any attempts to challenge THEIR power and profits.

Like who? The evil oil companies who are one of the major drivers of the greenwashed consumerism that is being touted as the solution to "climate change"? They don't care about oil, they care about money. They invest in whatever they think will make them money, including silly nonsense like wind and solar.

>You are being used as a useful idiot to spread uncertainty about absolute facts about absolutely real and highly pressing threats to our entire planet.

That's a very arrogant take on it. No part of climate hysteria is absolute facts, and climate hysteria is very clearly distracting people from REAL highly pressing threats to our ecosystems. We're letting huge portions of the oceans DIE while we pretend it is because of CO2 emissions, rather than doing something about the disposable consumer culture driving the massive amount of pollution coming from Chinese rivers and causing the problem. We just want to go on causing the problem, but pretend that charging our worthless electronic garbage from a solar panel instead of a natural gas plant makes it ok.

>Stop repeating them. Stop repeating them NOW. Stop helping those who put their own profits before the needs of all of humanity. Stop helping bring about destruction. Just stop

Consider taking your own advice. You are promoting an environmentally destructive system driven by corporate greed because it is a current social virtue to do so. Are you going to come back and apologize to all the people you needlessly lashed out at in 30 years when the shambling corpse of the climate boogeyman can no longer be made to look scary? When you realize that promoting the continuation of an unsustainable global economic system CAUSED a real global catastrophe, rather than preventing one? Or will you gradually allow yourself to pretend you never really believed in global warming and always knew it was fake as that becomes the predominant opinion?

Multiple people have made every attempt at having a discussion with you, and yet you continue to ignore this and keep repeating the same red herring. Nothing in your post has any relevance to the discussion, and your statement was false, as I showed you.

Yes. Can you explain the difference for me? The only difference I can find is that colonialism was done with the support of the people in the country, while immigration in white countries today is being done against the wishes of the people in the country.

You said "for any reason". That is incorrect, and I gave you an example to demonstrate this fact.

>Wow. You went off the cliff. Paring racial discrimination with a difference of views is asinine.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. You made an objective claim, I provided an example that demonstrates it is false.

>Do you complain about balance issues for places like say, Voat as well?

As well? I don't complain about them at all. Pointing out that it exists when people deny it is not complaining.

>I seem to only hear concerns about balance when it has to do with a perceived bias against the right.

Well I see two obvious differences that could cause that. The first simply being size. Facebook, google, twitter, reddit, etc are all, as organizations, far-left. And they all use their platforms to silence things they disapprove of, and push their politics. Whatever sites do the same from a far-right perspective are tiny. So, obviously there would be far more complaining from the far larger group of people who use the biggest sites on the web.

Second, all the supposed "far right" websites I see mentioned don't appear to be far right at all, and don't appear to do much or any moderating. They are "far right" because people with left wing views choose not to participate, not because they get banned. There's a big difference between being removed from a platform for having an unapproved view, vs being allowed to post your unapproved view and then people tell you it is wrong.

When you get banned for simply posting facts that one group dislikes, while "KILL ALL WHITE MEN" is totally fine and acceptable, there's definitely a balance problem. The idea that one socio-political viewpoint is objectively correct, and another is the same as believing the earth is flat is not a reasonable analogy.

>It also increases evaporation

Which increases rain, as I said. The most highly productive ecosystems on the planet are hot. Rainforests are not scary bad things to be afraid of. California is running out of water because they draw too much water, not because of CO2. Huge portions of the planet are currently drawing water from aquifers and natural reservoirs faster than they refill, and rely on that inherently unsustainable practice to irrigate crops. In a few decades, we could see massive starvation in India as water runs out. And instead of even TALKING about this problem much less promoting sustainable agriculture, climate hysteria distracts from it so it goes unaddressed, allows these problems to continue, then blames them on CO2.

>I'm sure Jakarta would like a word.

Blaming every flood on "climate change" is precisely the problem. Has the number of floods increased? No. Has the severity? No. Has sea level rise accelerated? No. Have hurricanes increased in size or severity? No. Yet every time any of these events occurs now, we're blasted with "look its climate change how dare you deny it!" in the media.

Haskell. Despite the unsubstantiated claim to the contrary, haskell is much faster.

It isn't, it is much slower. Download them both and try a few tests for yourself, GHC produces much faster binaries.

Possibly, although as I mentioned he's not alone in his claims, he does have a fair bit of evidence, and he is most certainly not western nor is his claim new.

There is plenty of evidence, and it is not new or western. This claim was made in the 1980s, by Soviet defectors.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/700262.Ice_Breaker

>an entirely-optional war that likely wouldn't have begun if Germany hadn't decided to start it

There is a great deal of consensus among historians that it was absolutely inevitable and unpreventable. A reasonable minority even support Suvorov's claims that the USSR was planning to start the conflict and Germany only beat them to it by a couple of weeks.

The USDA recommendation is just to provide the small amount of vegetables a family normally eats, not to provide all their calories. 50 sq m is absolutely tiny, and even with the most calorically dense crops like a 300 bushel/acre corn crop, that 50 sq m is producing less than 1000 calories a day, it won't support anyone.

I think you are talking about two different things. He said "With intensive farming one would need around 200 - 500 m² to produce the calories required." You seem to be talking about producing some vegetables and still getting the bulk of your calories from the store.