Anthropogenic climate change poll

[slimmouse]

I voted for agnostic, but the two options below that are well within the boundaries of my own perception.

What i do know meanwhile, is that essentially fuckall is really being done about it in any real physical/ material terms, and yet we're all currently paying for such non action.

In fact, its developed an industry all of its own.

At our expense of course. Thousands of State Sponsored Scientists telling us that we need to change stuff, whilst their sponsors, ( you can call them the state, or you can call them the Corporations) do fuckall about any of this in material temrs.

We are all of course energy addicts, so these fucks have us where they want us, enabling them to subsequently blame me and you for it.

Its all the ultimate kind of perception massage.

Might I suggest another category, "An excuse for taxation".

Because at the end of the day, we all know who bears the vast majority of such burden , dont we?

I would vote for that in an instant.

[brainpanhandler]

I voted for agnostic, but the two options below that are well within the boundaries of my own perception.

What i do know meanwhile, is that essentially fuckall is really being done about it in any real physical/ material terms, and yet we're all currently paying for such non action.

Wait. What? How can you be so sure we're currently paying for such non action for a problem you're not even sure exists. You can't even write two sentences and not contradict yourself.

In fact, its developed an industry all of its own.

At our expense of course. Thousands of State Sponsored Scientists telling us that we need to change stuff, whilst their sponsors, ( you can call them the state, or you can call them the Corporations) do fuckall about any of this in material temrs.

Typically climate scientists stick with research and avoid "telling us that we need to change stuff", especially the state sponsored tax payer funded scientists. Their job is research. Not policy.

And if it's the 'expense' you are worried about you would do better to focus on some other expenditures, like the MIC which dwarfs public expenditures on climate science. You're worried about the kid stealing a quarter off your dresser 'whilst' a thief breaks into your safe and steals the family jewels.

We are all of course energy addicts, so these fucks have us where they want us, enabling them to subsequently blame us for it.

And we are to blame. All of us. Both the pusher and the user have to take responsibility for themselves.

Its all the ultimate kind of perception massage.

No it isn't. Why do you have to throw these silly crypto-non-sequiturs into everything you write?

[slimmouse]

I voted for agnostic, but the two options below that are well within the boundaries of my own perception.

What i do know meanwhile, is that essentially fuckall is really being done about it in any real physical/ material terms, and yet we're all currently paying for such non action.

Wait. What? How can you be so sure we're currently paying for such non action for a problem you're not even sure exists. You can't even write two sentences and not contradict yourself.

In fact, its developed an industry all of its own.

At our expense of course. Thousands of State Sponsored Scientists telling us that we need to change stuff, whilst their sponsors, ( you can call them the state, or you can call them the Corporations) do fuckall about any of this in material temrs.

Typically climate scientists stick with research and avoid "telling us that we need to change stuff", especially the state sponsored tax payer funded scientists. Their job is research. Not policy.

And if it's the 'expense' you are worried about you would do better to focus on some other expenditures, like the MIC which dwarfs public expenditures on climate science. You're worried about the kid stealing a quarter off your dresser 'whilst' a thief breaks into your safe and steals the family jewels.

We are all of course energy addicts, so these fucks have us where they want us, enabling them to subsequently blame us for it.

And we are to blame. All of us. Both the pusher and the user have to take responsibility for themselves.

Its all the ultimate kind of perception massage.

No it isn't. Why do you have to throw these silly crypto-non-sequiturs into everything you write?

Wait. What? How can you be so sure we're currently paying for such non action for a problem you're not even sure exists. You can't even write two sentences and not contradict yourself.

I happen to know, because Ive been on a plane, or bought a pair of shoes from a country which has to pay carbon emmissions taxes. Do you know any such countries? I assume you know who pays the carbon tax on a plane fare or the pair of shoes. All of which is of course usually marked up by those companies who offer me those goods and service

Multiply exponentially.

Typically climate scientists stick with research and avoid "telling us that we need to change stuff", especially the state sponsored tax payer funded scientists. Their job is research. Not policy.

And if it's the 'expense' you are worried about you would do better to focus on some other expenditures, like the MIC which dwarfs public expenditures on climate science. You're worried about the kid stealing a quarter off your dresser 'whilst' a thief breaks into your safe and steals the family jewels.

What Im saying is that whether they are right or wrong, about the man made nature of the phenomenon. the taxes are already being taken from us on the assumption that they are, along with the bill for these assumptions I also think accusing me of focusing on the dresser as opposed to the crown jewels isn't very fair.

Im actually kinda hoping I dont get anything stolen, along with the rest of us.

And we are to blame. All of us. Both the pusher and the user have to take responsibility for themselves.

I assume you voted for one of the first two, whereas I voted three. Your subsequent assertion that we are all to blame is based on your interpretation of the situation, Namely that "we" are responsible. Im not quite there yet.

I should also add, that to make matters worse, its pretty fuckin obvious that our energy pushers as you describe them, continue to insist on offering us, the users a completely sub standard product, in terms of the methods of energy generation.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37565

And I dont think thats my fault either.

No it isn't. Why do you have to throw these silly crypto-non-sequiturs into everything you write?

Perception massage? I think its quite a cute summary. Its certainly either that , or yet another con in my book.

And I dont wish to turn this into some kind of Punch and Judy routine, so I will only say "Oh yes it is" once.

OK?