Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Kurshok

I was wrong about Islam.

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, chakkman said:

It's not the caring, it's the shit that arises from it. The absolutely counterproductive, and often also insincere and selfish shit. I'm from Germany, I know what I'm talking about. :D You really see the bad sides of this false environmentalism here. 

We see this everywhere, but I repeat, it's a design "flawed" (if you've a rationalistic approach) by nature.

You know, love makes our species live but also kills individuals. It's the same for religion and every ideology. 

 

And let me say: "absolutely counterproductive, and often also insincere and selfish " -> like the average person. So it's, counterintuitively, a win.

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swiggy said:

but given the trends that are being shown through science and the various studies that have been shown regarding climate change, it's hard not to feel concerned for the future.

The problem is that a lot of people believe what is fed to them by the mainstream media, instead of doing their own research. If you watch the actual data (and I mean from NASA and other reputable websites, not the conspiracy ones on both sides) then you'll see we're largely being lied to. In The Netherlands for example they have been watching the sea level for more than 100 years and it has been rising steadily with 2 mm a year, it's not speeding up. Erosion is also something people forget about, because the sea always takes back the land.

The models from the IPCC are just fed by what they think will happen (selffulfilling prophecy) and always based on the worst case scenario, because that is news that sells. They can't even predict they weather accurately for more than 5 days, so a prophecy what is about to happen in so many years will always be very far from the truth, which has also been shown. Greta is just a face of climate activism made by her parents and most of the things she's saying are actually just plain proven wrong. Why are the majority of the scientists then saying that we're heading towards a disaster if we don't change our ways? Simple, money. Climate change sells and politics is profiting from it equally. If they would really care about the evironment, they wouldn't fly individually in their private jets to climate conventions and would start thinking about nuclear energy. If you see the difference of CO2 emissions in France (which still has a lot of nuclear plants) and Germany (which has gone the wind, bio, solar, etc way) you'll be astonished.

There are scientists though that are actually doing their jobs honestly, but with such a majority of 'scientists' in favour of the climate change message and mainstream media not willing to publish the peer reviewed results, it's nearly impossible to be heard. The few studies that are published are quickly buried by the majority and stamped as false. Imagine that you're in a room with 100 people and 90 have collaborated to spread a false message with some truths and 10 decide to tell the real truth, who will you listen to?

1 hour ago, Swiggy said:

It's less about caring for polar bears

The polar bears are actually thriving, which is another false message spread by the climate activism church. Search for Susan Crockford (a scientist who is specialised in polar bear research), who has a whole list of peer reviewed publications and you'll see it's another lie. At the end of 2019 a peer reviewed paper from her was published and quickly extinguished by the activists. She had a voluntary job at the University of Victoria, which gave her access to scientific literature, but after the publication she was fired without reason. That's how the climate activism machine works. In The Netherlands the national weather service actually lowered predominantly the highest temperatures from 1900-1950, just to make it look like we're getting more hot days than in early times.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making the world a better place to live in, lowering polution and all that, but I'll never believe the climate activism message.

Edited by Carnage
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to contradict some of you.

The push for renewable energy and the reduction of our ecological/carbon footprint is necessary from a geopolitical POV as well. Where does oil and natural gas come from? Russia, Venezuela and a heap of bloody, violent petrodollar Islamic dictatorships. Stop depending on them and we stop fueling their endless wars and we create a better future. That's a future I'm willing to believe in even if it's a side effect of climate change policies.

Beyond that, if we believe in climate change or not matters not. What matters is that we don't get air pollution in our cities. Say no to asthma and lung cancer.

Me and some of my family was born/lived in a small industrial city with a very active metallurgic factory. One of the known side effects was that the rate of people dying from lung cancer was a few times over the norm in other (bigger) cities. Also haemoglobin levels in blood were lower which could cause some people to faint and lose consciousness in stressful situations. When we moved out, haemoglobin was back to normal.

  • Like 4

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Anderson said:

What matters is that we don't get air pollution in our cities. Say no to asthma and lung cancer.

This is something major energy suppliers don't want to understand as well. Relying on coal for heating and energy production is actually more expensive than closing mines, switching to renewable energy, and signing up miners for career change programs. But these costs are associated with state expenses on healthcare, the increased patient admittance due to respiratory system diseases and others, and the whole process of people dying prematurely because of air pollution. In my country, there are roughly 50k deaths annually because of that, with all the costs that need to be covered, from specialized healthcare to funeral bills. That's a huge unpaid bill the energy sector doesn't want to hear about.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, peter_spy said:

At least I can see that something has changed, from my tiny personal perspective, in my country.

Of course something has changed and it will again, it's the normal cycle of the planet. There have been times that there was no ice on the North Pole and there have been times that large parts of the world where covered in it. A human life time is so insignificant in the whole cycle of the planet. Just because it's warmer in some parts of the world and there's less snow, doesn't mean it will be totally different again in a few hunderd years or less and history has shown this.

I'm with you though that we need renewable energy, a cleaner planet and such, because that will really benefit all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, "normal" if you don't have the mankind perturbation influences.

 

You know, the infamous "butterfly effect" (the real one in deterministic chaos theory, not simply the elegant quote 😛 )

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of Greta Thunberg, I think she is obnoxious and at least partially misguided. That being said, conflating environmentalism with islam is the dumbest thing I've ever heard (and I used to live in Florida!!). Now I don't condone "eco-terrorism" or whatever you would call it, but a lot of times it's not unjustified and it's not done out of selfishness like most religious terror. If anything it's in self defense. Besides that, environmentalism is secular, based in science, common sense and basic observation (everyone with two eyes over the age of 25 has noticed a large shift in climate no matter where they live, though some have been brainwashed to deny it). Islam is a fundamentalist religion based on oppression, denial and conservatism. Very much the opposite of environmentalism. Now, as with anything there are those who take on a cult-like fanaticism about anything in life, but a quick comparison with "communities" like gun rights activists, religion, "pro-life" people etc shows that environmentalism isn't so bad, even if there are a few rotten eggs.

Back on the topic that we were originally discussing, I would say that the "few rotten egg" theory is hard to apply to Islam, but that is not to say that there are not muslims who are in fact good people. As a whole though, I would say that the religion is a significant detriment to the world. Even a few steps beyond Catholicism, though perhaps not if the entire history of both religions are considered. I think all organized religion is a detriment to our species, and if you haven't guessed it yet, I am firmly in the atheist camp myself.

  • Like 2

My Fan Missions:

   Series:                                                                           Standalone:

Chronicles of Skulduggery 1: Pearls and Swine                     The Night of Reluctant Benefaction

Chronicles of Skulduggery 2: A Precarious Position              Langhorne Lodge

Chronicles of Skulduggery 3: Sacricide [WIP]

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Carnage said:

Of course something has changed and it will again, it's the normal cycle of the planet. There have been times that there was no ice on the North Pole and there have been times that large parts of the world where covered in it. A human life time is so insignificant in the whole cycle of the planet. Just because it's warmer in some parts of the world and there's less snow, doesn't mean it will be totally different again in a few hunderd years or less and history has shown this.

I'm with you though that we need renewable energy, a cleaner planet and such, because that will really benefit all of us.

Here's a time line of earth's average temperature since the last glaciation, this is how the climate has changed, it may be a normal cycle but if it continues I doubt we'll survive this cycle

https://xkcd.com/1732/

I would have posted the graphic but it's a bit big

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If anything it's in self defense. 

How is that different to what religious fanatics blowing themselves up in a school bus are claiming to justify their actions? 

Let's say I have a real weird conception of life, and think I have to defend myself against harmful outside influences. Do I have the right to take actions I feel like are necessary to defend myself against these harmful influences I might only perceive myself ? Where does that start, and where does it end? Can I take violent actions against others then? Because that is what some of those starry-eyed idealists do, even though noone would be even able to prove that we have a climate change due to human influence. So, yes, IMO, it is comparable. Even though they might not blow themselves up and take a school bus of kids with them. That's pretty exclusive to islamist terrorists.

Edited by chakkman
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chakkman said:

Even though they might not blow themselves up and take a school bus of kids with them. That's pretty exclusive to islamist terrorists.

There's your answer. Smashing a window of a mega corporation which is literally destroying the planet and killing innocent civilians are just about polar opposites. Hence why it is such a dumb comparison. Corporations don't feel pain, only what affects the bottom line. In many cases it's the only stimulus they respond to. It's not the ideal solution, hence why I don't condone it, but even calling it "eco-terrorism" is going to far.

To be clear I am not an ideologue either, I would say I am a pragmatist with strong values. However, when faced with a nearly existential crisis the pragmatic thing to do is to put up a fight. As long as we can avoid catastrophe I can accept many solutions.

  • Like 2

My Fan Missions:

   Series:                                                                           Standalone:

Chronicles of Skulduggery 1: Pearls and Swine                     The Night of Reluctant Benefaction

Chronicles of Skulduggery 2: A Precarious Position              Langhorne Lodge

Chronicles of Skulduggery 3: Sacricide [WIP]

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, esme said:

Here's a time line of earth's average temperature since the last glaciation, this is how the climate has changed, it may be a normal cycle but if it continues I doubt we'll survive this cycle

Anyone could draw that time line and as far as I can see doesn't have any links to official data, a typical scare tactics website. The little ice age is also wrongly drawn as temperature differences were bigger in that time. I prefer to stick to boring data from reputable websites. Also after 2017 (which is when this figure was posted) the estimations are based on climate models, which have been shown to be wrong in the following publication (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018EA000401). If you don't want to read the whole paper, on page 3 there's a figure that shows the difference between the real temperature and what 102 climate model runs made of it.

The earth is obviously getting warmer, I'm not denying that, but if we really want to fight the speed (we'll never be able to stop the warming, as we're not the only ones that are causing it), we should start with a worldwide limit on children and chosing nuclear energy. Figures have shown that one less child makes a huge difference in the amount of CO2 emissions, a lot more than the go-green efforts that are used now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bienie said:

To be clear I am not an ideologue either, I would say I am a pragmatist with strong values. However, when faced with a nearly existential crisis the pragmatic thing to do is to put up a fight. As long as we can avoid catastrophe I can accept many solutions.

See that's the thing: Like religious fundamentalists, the people who think they fight for the existence of our planet, to "avoid a catastrophe" are so sure that the world will end tomorrow, that they feel everything they do is justified. It may not be the same level, but, smashing windows on a company building is still a crime. It might not be the worst crime in the world, but, to give you an example for something real harsh: A austrian environmentalist, I don't recall his name, proposed the death sentence for people denying climate change. Just to give a example that there are really insane people among the people who think they save our world. Or who claim they do so, to profile thmeselves. Or, just, to feel better when they consume without any limit.

BTW, of course there is a climate change. There always has been, in the history of earth. There have been extreme drought periods, and there has been the ice age. All without any man made industrial influence. And, again, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that there is any man made climate change. There can't be, because the whole thing is so damn dynamic. The sun's activity can have a bigger influence than anything we do. Without any control man has over it. There's really so much stuff which is beyond our power. Everyone claiming something different is talking bogus.

Edited by chakkman
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No proof of "man made change" but several proof of "man made influence", change or not.

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the acid rains! The '80s 😛


Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Swiggy said:

n85re.So.79.jpg

Exactly. Not only do we make a better world ecosystem wise, but we also stab Islam in its heart, which pumps the blood of murdered innocents and oil. A whole shit-ton of black gold, as oil is referred to by fat Texan oil magnates in all white suit with a huge golden bullskull-emblazoned buckle and overtly tall ten gallon hat, white mustache and deep southern drawl sold separately 

Edited by Kurshok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chakkman said:

See that's the thing: Like religious fundamentalists, the people who think they fight for the existence of our planet, to "avoid a catastrophe" are so sure that the world will end tomorrow, that they feel everything they do is justified. It may not be the same level, but, smashing windows on a company building is still a crime. It might not be the worst crime in the world, but, to give you an example for something real harsh: A austrian environmentalist, I don't recall his name, proposed the death sentence for people denying climate change. Just to give a example that there are really insane people among the people who think they save our world. Or who claim they do so, to profile thmeselves. Or, just, to feel better when they consume without any limit.

BTW, of course there is a climate change. There always has been, in the history of earth. There have been extreme drought periods, and there has been the ice age. All without any man made industrial influence. And, again, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that there is any man made climate change. There can't be, because the whole thing is so damn dynamic. The sun's activity can have a bigger influence than anything we do. Without any control man has over it. There's really so much stuff which is beyond our power. Everyone claiming something different is talking bogus.

It sounds like we're basically on the same page, except that you don't believe humans are the cause of climate change. To be fair there may be other factors, but humans are definitely a huge one. Natural cycles have never been this fast. The only times things have changed this fast before are where there have been extreme events like supervolcanoes or asteroid impacts.

There certainly are some batshit crazy climate activists, as well as people who do it only for the virtue signaling. But for every one of them there are 10 boomers who drunk the conservative kool-aid. Unchecked capitalism is the cause of much of our societal problems today.

  • Like 2

My Fan Missions:

   Series:                                                                           Standalone:

Chronicles of Skulduggery 1: Pearls and Swine                     The Night of Reluctant Benefaction

Chronicles of Skulduggery 2: A Precarious Position              Langhorne Lodge

Chronicles of Skulduggery 3: Sacricide [WIP]

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citing only extreme outliers as common examples and making overblown comparisons is what makes one a radical, and ironically that doesn't lie far from that terrorist comparison, maybe not in literal sense, but still :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a radical who DOESN'T spread fear isn't a "terrorist". It's a radical.


Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the penguin's will be happy it the ant-arctic melts, then they wont have that far to walk anymore.

although i think killing off all the animals because they produce methane is a bad thing, if you could bottle it then its free energy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...