Timmy
Gold Member
- Oct 2, 2015
- 22,432
- 2,836
Bit cynical, don't you think? I do believe it's also wrong. The human race has fought environmental and biological treats before and won. Even global warming is being fought and some countries are actually on target to become carbon neutral over the next 20 years. As more of the effects of global warming start to hit the incentive to do something about it will also become more pronounced. I don't claim it'll be easy. I don't even claim it will be completely reversed. But using" it's to late so we don't need to address it" as a line of reasoning is wrong from both a moral and pragmatic standpoint.Scientists and liberals alike portray global-warming as man-caused. Okay, sure, let's say that's true. George Carlin once said "we won't destroy the Earth. Earth will shake us off like flees".
Point is, this business may simply be Earth's rejection of human population. It's HIGHLY possible the "Earth's intent" is to reduce or eliminate the human population. That's just how shit works.
We can talk man-caused global warming 24-7, but it's a wasted effort to assume we'll do anything about it, and be sure we won't. Liberal Hollywood is a prime example. They adamantly shriek man-caused global warming, playing the victim roll, all while they warm up their yachts, 10,000 square ft. homes, pools and private jets. In other terms, as long as human population isn't addressed, which it won't be, whether it's global warming, disease or otherwise, humans are fucked and we've earned it.
carbon neutral? Ha!............... I'll believe that when I see it. Doesn't matter if they do, which they won't, because it doesn't address the primary problem.
Only liberals would demonize elements on the periodic table, talk about anti science.
Should we pour mercury into our water supply ??? Is just an element !