QuoteThe Nationals candidate for Port Macquarie, (https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/nationals-candidate-in-crucial-seat-challenges-man-made-climate-change-20230310-p5cr37.html) local mayor Peta Pinson, has told a public meeting that her scepticism towards climate science has "solidified" since seeing a document saying that NASA had admitted that global warming was caused by changes in the Earth's orbit.
Well look at that, NASA knows, our esteemed mayor knows, so how-come no one around here mentioned this?
Global warming is caused by Earth's orbit, she has seen a DOCUMENT! :o
Praise the lord she's on the job, no one besides her and NASA seem to be, and NASA is ever at risk of lefty meddling.
She has also done "research" into the evils of fluoride, though it doesn't seem she has been successful getting it out of our water, so far.
Tragically Peta failed to get voted into state government, some leftist media conspiracy involved there I think. >:(
Silly fools, Earth doesn't even exist.
Document from what source? The Flat Earth Society? What a tool.
If you didn't laugh you'd cry.
NASA knows nothing, that's how clever they are.
I've seen ridiculous dross like this elsewhere. Some clod happens across a mention of Milankovitch cycles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles), or more usually is fed it by a duplicitous boob and suddenly science is on their side!!
My beef with the whole conversation is that there is always some talk about the causes of the changing climate and how to "un-change" it (as if that was somehow the default position, which it is not) but almost never any about whether and why I should help the changes, hinder them or do nothing.
One would think that that was kind-of important to agree on - more so, even, than whose "fault" it is.
The best thing we could do for the environment, individually and corporately, is to go extinct. We won't do that voluntarily (for the most part), so probably nature will do it for us ... sooner or later.
even if we are notcausing global warming, it is clearly happening
we need to be doing stuff
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 06, 2023, 01:12:49 AMThe best thing we could do for the environment, individually and corporately, is to go extinct.
Which environment?
If you are talking about stuff like the preservation of biodiversity, sure, but that would probably turn out worse for a monocultuire dominated environment, would it not? Disappear a city, and what will rats and pidgeons do? Disappear a farm, and what will the cattle do?
My point is; "saving" one kind of environment may very well turn out to be detrimental to another. Personally, I do not subscribe to "natural automatically equals good/better," and from this position, it's a complex problem.
NASA knows sweet-fuck-all about climate change, but you will when it hammers you.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 06, 2023, 08:47:06 AMQuote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 06, 2023, 01:12:49 AMThe best thing we could do for the environment, individually and corporately, is to go extinct.
Which environment?
If you are talking about stuff like the preservation of biodiversity, sure, but that would probably turn out worse for a monocultuire dominated environment, would it not? Disappear a city, and what will rats and pidgeons do? Disappear a farm, and what will the cattle do?
My point is; "saving" one kind of environment may very well turn out to be detrimental to another. Personally, I do not subscribe to "natural automatically equals good/better," and from this position, it's a complex problem.
OK, point taken. Let me clarify: our non-existence would be beneficial for most other species, plant and animal. We pollute the air, the seas, the ground. We kill rainforests and wipe out millions of animals. Nothing we do is overall beneficial for the earth. We are a virus. What we do may be good for us in the short-term, but we are ultimately going to kill ourselves, so we are not even really benefitting our own species, as far as its long-term survival is concerned. Our extinction would probably be welcomed, if anything else had real awareness of it.
seems like the killer whales are figuring it out
We must have complete agreement on how precisely to rearrange the deck chairs before we do anything about the sinking of the ship we're on. Hmmm.
thats quaker talk
LOL
im serious
mostly
conservative quakers will wait for a clear leading before making a decision on serious issues. if clearness is not obtained, the solution is to postpone a decision until unity is achieved.
in situations where circumstances force one outcome rather than another when undirected, we decide by not deciding.
^^^this is the strategy of the traditional slow quaker: to stop until told to go.
i am a fast quaker. i go until i am told to stop.
both are needed for genuine unity, but i have pissed a lot of people off at times
I taught at a Waldorf school (didn't drink the kool-aid) for two years. This need for unity seemed to be something they strived for, as well. Don't know if it was universal to all the schools, though.
unity does not mran unanimous
or consensus
the sense of the meeting is a weird form of group think, in which everybody agrees, or agrees not to stand against, leaving a way forward for the group.
quaker stuff.
doesnt always work very well either