Maybe it is time to give up on being "normal" and start thinking more about how to keep the earth alive. I think we have run into a lot of problems because of what we see as "normal". In too many instances that would mean being white, male, rich, living in North America. If we didn't concern ourselves with being normal, we might stand a better chance of building a world that works better for everyone. I just read an article describing people who were "devastated" that 3 Taylor Swift concerts had been cancelled. Where is the devastation about the climate crisis, about Palestinians being murdered, about the threat of nuclear war? I can see being disappointed that a concert was cancelled, money and time were lost, but devastated seems a little over the top given all the other things happening in the world.
You make some good points, except for drawing in "Climate Change". As long as the Earth has existed the climate has changed and it will keep changing till the end of time, that is the only constant.
The climate has NOT been changing abnormally, and all the BS about CO2 levels, just know that in the context of geologic time, i.e. over the past 500 million years, we are in pretty low levels of CO2, in fact our current 400 ppm of CO2 is not far from the catastrophically low level of 150 ppm when all live chokes to death.
Earth has experienced periods of up to 7000 ppm and life was extremely abundant. But hey, don't take my word for it, watch this fact-based documentary: https://youtu.be/A24fWmNA6lM
I promise you won't regret it and will come away a whole lot better informed about the topic, honestly.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of climate change, the focus should be on how governments run by incompetent, corrupt and self-interested politicians and managers, squander billions on waging stupid wars instead of mobilizing taxpayer dollars in order to mitigate, if not prevent, the kind of environmental disasters that we've been experiencing, be they floods, wildfires, heat waves, decrease in biodiversity, loss of species, etc. We simply cannot continue our profligate ways and our obsessive pursuit of endless growth; anyone who thinks we can with the magic help of technology is living on another planet!
You are absolutely right about that, Diane. What you are leaving out of the equation is that in order to expose the incompetence, corruption and all the rest of our disgusting politicians and non-leaders, we have to know what we are talking about so we can confront them head-on.
Knowing what we are talking about means presenting real facts that can and will nullify their endless stream of mendacious narrative.
One such mendacious narrative is "Climate Change", which is a Rockefeller project based on naught. - see my last comment to Susan T.
Another mendacious narrative was/is Covid, the real facts and lies have started to come out. If I am not mistaken, you agree that Covid was fake. If so, why do you believe the CC narrative, for which there is no real back-up.
In another comment to Susan T, I linked to a very interesting fact-based documentary about CC.
My only reference to COVID was that during the pandemic nothing seemed normal anymore and people became polarized into vaxxers and anti-vaxxers. That's it.
Oh I see, so after the planned scamdemic you did not hear anything about after-effects, such as turbo cancer, or top sporters dropping dead on the football pitch, or perfectly healthy youngsters getting heart attacks, even babies in the womb having heart attacks?
Wow, that is remarkable when even mainstream media even report about it, at times.
Have you already watched it? Nahhh, I doubt it. You have an opinion about it because it goes against the narrative you have imbibed, so it is wrong by default, as I am ... in your eyes.
So, tell me please what makes climate change real. In other words, what makes the current climate change any different from what has been happening over time, i.e. place it in the right context.
I doubt you will answer me because you have no answer other than to tell me look at the forest fires, the storms , the floods, etc. But that's anecdotal, put some real data behind it, or link to a fact-based documentary that refutes the one I linked to.
I have friends who live near the fires. Others who have experienced flooding. I cannot surprise you because you have your mind made up. I would be happy if climate change were a hoax, but it is not. We have not had these extreme weather events so often in the past. Also the ice in the arctic is melting, although you probably think that is "anecdotal" too.
Perhaps there are people making money off the threat of climate change, but there are a lot more people who make money by denying that it exists. Think tar sands, cars, munitions, wars
In the climate change arena, the Rockefellers call the shots. The whole thing was their idea: they took a silly but interesting theory and amped it up with $100s of millions. They founded institutions and linked the survival of those institutions to promoting climate change and population reduction. They adopted one likely politician after another.
If that is simple fact not enough of a red flag for you, here is the rest.
The Green Movement emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. Its growth was driven by popular and scientific concerns about local and global degradation of the physical environment.
By 1998, the Rockefeller family had swept the table clean of any opposition to this one idea.
Any scientist not on board with the agenda was imperiled. Any university department not working towards this one artificial goal was in danger of being marginalized. Infiltration had begun into every media organization, every entertainment division of every major corporation.
Sure, you are right on both counts, but that does NOT mean that the alleged abnormal climate change is real.
The fact that there are people and corporations making money from tar sands, cars, munitions and wars does not automatically mean abnormal climate change is happening.
What counts are only scientific FACTS that tell the truth, and scientific "facts" that are fabricated by those who are financing research to show there is a threat.
When you say "We have not had these extreme weather events so often in the past", you are talking about the recent past, i.e. 20-30-40 years?
That is a blip on the time scale of the geologic past. That is why I stated you need to look at on that time scale as that is the true context.
For reference: if the events of earth's age of 4½ billion years would be compacted in a 24 hour movie, human activity would constitute the last 10 seconds (!!!) of that movie. That is how insignificant we are.
That does not mean we have no influence, sure we do, we pollute. But our so-called influence on CO2 levels is insignificant.
You state I have made up my mind: yes I do, after studying the arguments pro and con. As with e.g. Covid, the pro-arguments are NOT based on facts, they merely constitute a narrative in order to control the masses.
You obviously have not looked at all sides, preferring to go what the governments and their handlers tell us. And Diane, the owner of this substack, is in the same boat as you, which is sad considering how there are other things she does view realistically.
In my experience of working with people with disabilities and people who came to .Canada as refugees, the best way to break down the barriers of so-called ‘normal’ is to actually meet and get to know those who might not fit the cookie cutter mould.
It's amazing/disturbing how many people have no interest in the other side of the story, and how readily they believe only what that they are told by mainstream media without ever engaging in any kind of critical thinking.
Maybe it is time to give up on being "normal" and start thinking more about how to keep the earth alive. I think we have run into a lot of problems because of what we see as "normal". In too many instances that would mean being white, male, rich, living in North America. If we didn't concern ourselves with being normal, we might stand a better chance of building a world that works better for everyone. I just read an article describing people who were "devastated" that 3 Taylor Swift concerts had been cancelled. Where is the devastation about the climate crisis, about Palestinians being murdered, about the threat of nuclear war? I can see being disappointed that a concert was cancelled, money and time were lost, but devastated seems a little over the top given all the other things happening in the world.
You make some good points, except for drawing in "Climate Change". As long as the Earth has existed the climate has changed and it will keep changing till the end of time, that is the only constant.
The climate has NOT been changing abnormally, and all the BS about CO2 levels, just know that in the context of geologic time, i.e. over the past 500 million years, we are in pretty low levels of CO2, in fact our current 400 ppm of CO2 is not far from the catastrophically low level of 150 ppm when all live chokes to death.
Earth has experienced periods of up to 7000 ppm and life was extremely abundant. But hey, don't take my word for it, watch this fact-based documentary: https://youtu.be/A24fWmNA6lM
I promise you won't regret it and will come away a whole lot better informed about the topic, honestly.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of climate change, the focus should be on how governments run by incompetent, corrupt and self-interested politicians and managers, squander billions on waging stupid wars instead of mobilizing taxpayer dollars in order to mitigate, if not prevent, the kind of environmental disasters that we've been experiencing, be they floods, wildfires, heat waves, decrease in biodiversity, loss of species, etc. We simply cannot continue our profligate ways and our obsessive pursuit of endless growth; anyone who thinks we can with the magic help of technology is living on another planet!
You are absolutely right about that, Diane. What you are leaving out of the equation is that in order to expose the incompetence, corruption and all the rest of our disgusting politicians and non-leaders, we have to know what we are talking about so we can confront them head-on.
Knowing what we are talking about means presenting real facts that can and will nullify their endless stream of mendacious narrative.
One such mendacious narrative is "Climate Change", which is a Rockefeller project based on naught. - see my last comment to Susan T.
Another mendacious narrative was/is Covid, the real facts and lies have started to come out. If I am not mistaken, you agree that Covid was fake. If so, why do you believe the CC narrative, for which there is no real back-up.
In another comment to Susan T, I linked to a very interesting fact-based documentary about CC.
My only reference to COVID was that during the pandemic nothing seemed normal anymore and people became polarized into vaxxers and anti-vaxxers. That's it.
Oh I see, so after the planned scamdemic you did not hear anything about after-effects, such as turbo cancer, or top sporters dropping dead on the football pitch, or perfectly healthy youngsters getting heart attacks, even babies in the womb having heart attacks?
Wow, that is remarkable when even mainstream media even report about it, at times.
Sorry, but that doc is wrong and so are you.
Have you already watched it? Nahhh, I doubt it. You have an opinion about it because it goes against the narrative you have imbibed, so it is wrong by default, as I am ... in your eyes.
So, tell me please what makes climate change real. In other words, what makes the current climate change any different from what has been happening over time, i.e. place it in the right context.
I doubt you will answer me because you have no answer other than to tell me look at the forest fires, the storms , the floods, etc. But that's anecdotal, put some real data behind it, or link to a fact-based documentary that refutes the one I linked to.
Go on, I challenge you to surprise me.
I have friends who live near the fires. Others who have experienced flooding. I cannot surprise you because you have your mind made up. I would be happy if climate change were a hoax, but it is not. We have not had these extreme weather events so often in the past. Also the ice in the arctic is melting, although you probably think that is "anecdotal" too.
Perhaps there are people making money off the threat of climate change, but there are a lot more people who make money by denying that it exists. Think tar sands, cars, munitions, wars
Here is some more background info.
In the climate change arena, the Rockefellers call the shots. The whole thing was their idea: they took a silly but interesting theory and amped it up with $100s of millions. They founded institutions and linked the survival of those institutions to promoting climate change and population reduction. They adopted one likely politician after another.
If that is simple fact not enough of a red flag for you, here is the rest.
The Green Movement emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. Its growth was driven by popular and scientific concerns about local and global degradation of the physical environment.
By 1998, the Rockefeller family had swept the table clean of any opposition to this one idea.
Any scientist not on board with the agenda was imperiled. Any university department not working towards this one artificial goal was in danger of being marginalized. Infiltration had begun into every media organization, every entertainment division of every major corporation.
Sure, you are right on both counts, but that does NOT mean that the alleged abnormal climate change is real.
The fact that there are people and corporations making money from tar sands, cars, munitions and wars does not automatically mean abnormal climate change is happening.
What counts are only scientific FACTS that tell the truth, and scientific "facts" that are fabricated by those who are financing research to show there is a threat.
When you say "We have not had these extreme weather events so often in the past", you are talking about the recent past, i.e. 20-30-40 years?
That is a blip on the time scale of the geologic past. That is why I stated you need to look at on that time scale as that is the true context.
For reference: if the events of earth's age of 4½ billion years would be compacted in a 24 hour movie, human activity would constitute the last 10 seconds (!!!) of that movie. That is how insignificant we are.
That does not mean we have no influence, sure we do, we pollute. But our so-called influence on CO2 levels is insignificant.
You state I have made up my mind: yes I do, after studying the arguments pro and con. As with e.g. Covid, the pro-arguments are NOT based on facts, they merely constitute a narrative in order to control the masses.
You obviously have not looked at all sides, preferring to go what the governments and their handlers tell us. And Diane, the owner of this substack, is in the same boat as you, which is sad considering how there are other things she does view realistically.
🤡
In my experience of working with people with disabilities and people who came to .Canada as refugees, the best way to break down the barriers of so-called ‘normal’ is to actually meet and get to know those who might not fit the cookie cutter mould.
It's amazing/disturbing how many people have no interest in the other side of the story, and how readily they believe only what that they are told by mainstream media without ever engaging in any kind of critical thinking.