slutmagazine

11 hours ago  The Dark Winter

@destraht

The people behind an idea do matter. So fuck their virtue.

Capitalism gives power to the cutthroat wealthy and democracy gives power to the manipulative.

It was much better when you had to take a philosophy test to get into government.

1

slutmagazine

11 hours ago  The Dark Winter

@destraht We can argue about the details but we're on the same page that their leaders cannot be this incompetent without some evil and powerful people inflict pain on purpose. Whether it's the official leadership being bribed to do it or it's coming from outside, I just cannot believe that a country can be this incompetent in making the basic things work.

destraht

12 hours ago  The Dark Winter

@SeasonedRP Notice how quick that they are to go hyperbolic with cataclysm game. They'll extrapolate something irrevocably into the future, and then claim stewardship for averting their idiotic projection. The only market forces that exist in their mind are the ones that they imposed by dictate. Ahead or behind the curve, it doesn't matter. Government always solves it. Then they write their virtue into the history books.

I might even be inclined to believe that they're honestly wanting to use better forms of power generation - if they weren't trying so hard to kill me. I think rather that they want to shut everything down for some horrible twisted end. The people behind an idea do matter. So fuck their virtue. I say that we burn the shit out of fossil fuels until we can find enough ways to purge the globalists. Then once we've freed up that shit then all sorts of novel energy will be appearing all over the place without them around to suppress it.

Read More
1

MentORPHEUS

13 hours ago  The Dark Winter

@SeasonedRP Not sure about you, but I can REMEMBER news, current events, and pop culture back to the early-mid 70s. By the late 70s, it was spoken of in the past tense. "They USED TO say we were going to cause another ice age..." The mainstream environmental movement had long since "moved on" and threat of causing a new ice age was no longer on their radar. The big environmental issues of the later 70s were leaded gas which finally got banned (with immediate measurable results and short + long term benefits), deforestation was a distant second, but at least in Southern California, water was the most talked about issue in environmentalism.

Biggest focal point was the LA Aqueduct drawing so much water from the Owens Valley that Mono Lake dropped to the point where a land bridge developed to the island where a majority of 1000+ miles of the Pacific Coast's seagull population bred over winter, allowing predators to decimate their population despite a shitty fence built. One of my memories from earliest childhood was every year watching an atmospheric river of seagulls migrating over where we lived, where they turned inland from the coast. For weeks, it was a constant stream of seagulls flying by, in groups and formations but making a constant unending stream 20 seagulls wide from horizon to horizon. Then one year they stopped, and never in the decades since have I seen this migration big enough to notice at all. That and the snail darter, whose giant habitat's salinity became unlivable to them due to the majority of the flow of a multi-river system's delta getting diverted by humans.

Grade school kids would egg on the people ahead of them at the drinking fountain with a bitchy, "Save some for the fish, maaan!" Save the forests and save water were the second and first biggest environmental issues throughout the mid-late 70s. These were talked about ALL THE TIME when "the environment" came up in discussion.

"There's GOING to be an ice age!" was on NOBODY'S lips in the mid to late 70s and beyond. That is my direct memory, growing up in a fairly affluent and environmentally conscious area where this stuff got talked about.

Read More
1

SeasonedRP

14 hours ago  The Dark Winter

@MentORPHEUS No, it did not peter out in the early 70s and wasn't a real problem that was solved. The propaganda for it was extensive in the late 1970s and early 1980s then disappeared because the facts didn't support it. It was a money making scheme like climate change is now.

2

MentORPHEUS

15 hours ago  The Dark Winter

@lurkerhasarisen

I'm old enough to remember when global cooling was imminent. It was - as everyone "knew" at the time - SETTLED SCIENCE.

What everyone who "discovers" this over and over never investigates deeply enough (at all) to find global cooling actually was an imminent threat that became a SOLVED PROBLEM through applied technology.

The first generations of "smokestack industries" as well as distributed across millions of individual users, pumped out MASSIVE quantities of aerosol and particulates as a byproduct of their operations. It became unbearably bad during the postwar boom times, so work was under way to clean up the emissions of large scale industries. A vignette of "how bad" particulate pollution got, in the outskirts of London, the population of gypsy moths rapidly evolved from white to black, as they hung out on bright white birch tree trunks and became easy pickings for predators when these turned black from pollution. In later decades when the particulate emissions were minimized, the moth population became white again along with the birch trees way out in the countryside.

Removing the aerosols was technically relatively easy, and with them went their effect of blocking insolation and developing process of global cooling. What was NOT easy or urgent to remove was the invisible carbon dioxide. Without a heavy particulate and aerosol load in the atmosphere balancing it and blocking heat, CO2 was now alone in its effect of trapping more of the heat coming in from the sun.

In summary: "Global Cooling" wasn't an arbitrary made-up threat to control the population (somehow...) that got arbitrarily switched to a different false narrative of global warming. "Global cooling" was an actual, active process that humans SOLVED, and studies etc of the effect petered out completely by the early 70s because by then the underlying cause had been addressed, and the results in clean, clear air were obvious to literally everyone who had lived through the worst smog days in the 50s.

Literally every time I've brought this up over the decades, the people who brought the issue up go silent without a rebuttal, only to uncritically spout a different energy-industry-fellating propaganda piece the next time they post. Just once I'd like to see ANY kind of earnest critique of what I just wrote, if one exists.

cires1.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/images/la.jpg

Read More
1

carnold03

15 hours ago  The Dark Winter

@lurkerhasarisen

I used to have a long list of sources for that dating from the 1940s (when it first started to pop up in the scientific literature), through the 1980s when everyone went silent because it was clear that it wasn't going to happen. This wasn't just articles from "Scientific American" or National Geographic," either: most of them were from peer-reviewed publications and science textbooks. Sadly, I deleted the damn thing and don't have it any more, along with the details of the guy most responsible for purging the internet of those sources.

All those sources predate the internet, and the only place they were compiled was on Wikipedia. The guy (don't remember his name), was a "super editor" and he simply deleted thousands of references and banned hundreds of researchers to make it seem like the consensus never existed.

The disinformation effort has been so effective that even people who lived through the Imminent Ice Age hysteria question their memories.

The lists that were purged from wikipedia might yet still exist. Check out infogalactic.com to see if those sources are still listed there.

cc: @TiberiusBravo87 @SeasonedRP

Read More
1

destraht

16 hours ago  The Dark Winter

@lurkerhasarisen Back in the day I was looking of info on microfiche, reading Old English dictionaries for history, encyclopedias, and at the John Birch book store. The books there were real heavy shit. They encouraged people to read books like Zibnew's, and other major global conspirators and world order architects. University was halfway gay at the time too.

lurkerhasarisen

17 hours ago  The Dark Winter

@Typo-MAGAshiv

I used to have a long list of sources for that dating from the 1940s (when it first started to pop up in the scientific literature), through the 1980s when everyone went silent because it was clear that it wasn't going to happen. This wasn't just articles from "Scientific American" or National Geographic," either: most of them were from peer-reviewed publications and science textbooks. Sadly, I deleted the damn thing and don't have it any more, along with the details of the guy most responsible for purging the internet of those sources.

All those sources predate the internet, and the only place they were compiled was on Wikipedia. The guy (don't remember his name), was a "super editor" and he simply deleted thousands of references and banned hundreds of researchers to make it seem like the consensus never existed.

The disinformation effort has been so effective that even people who lived through the Imminent Ice Age hysteria question their memories.

Read More
2 2

destraht

19 hours ago  The Dark Winter

@slutmagazine This doesn't seem like it has much to do with some 100% organic goal, but rather that they have some fucked up WEF leaders (if I had to guess).

They are definitely things which can be done to reduce the amount of fertilizers and pesticides that are needed. There are some American farmers having great results with it. For a whole nation though, I could see this being punishment for attempts to increase self-sufficiency. The game goes like this: "Oh, you want to be more self-sufficient do you? Well how does that work when you have no eyes or mouth?". [Eyeless mouthless screams of horror]. Then everyone suffers and concludes that they're never trying that again. Better double the chemical order next time instead of trying to scale back.

1
Load More