Climate stupidity

Did you know that your contribution to climate change is based on how rich you are?
Obviously, if you are rich, you are able to get your car fixed so it doesn't blow out lots of black smoke.
Obviously, if you are rich, you can invest in renewable energy ideas like solar panels.
Obviously, if you are rich, you have many options available to you in order to reduce your "carbon footprint" because money is no object.

Well, apparently you would be wrong.

By being rich, you must therefore be contributing far more to climate change... not because of your lifestyle, but because you're rich.

What counts as "rich"? It's some arbitrary value someone made up.

Why do most people "know that climate change is mainly caused by rich people"? Because they assume that every rich person has a private jet that they use to go shopping with every day.

Why is climate change "mostly suffered by the poor"? Well, there's no real reason... it's just something they made up because they don't like the idea that some people have more money. If they can claim that poverty is a result of climate change (instead of poor life choices or poor circumstances a person was born into), then they can claim victimhood and reparations for year - decades - to come!!

What a victory!

And this is why I opposed the "global climate strike" on 20th September 2019. It's nonsense.
It's nonsense because the solutions don't aren't proportional to what the supposed "problem" is.
The "problem" is presented as "climate change", but the "solutions" are all about getting rid of rich people.
I did my bit for the strike: instead of walking, cycling or getting a lift from a co-worker, which is what I usually do to get to work, I drove myself.

This is why kids would have been far better staying at school... they would have been able to get educated instead of getting brainwashed by the left-wing, anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Climate disaster

Here's an advert for something which I gather will be a global event.

It's idiotic.

It's idiotic from a number of perspectives.

Scientifically:

1. There are many scientists who disagree with the "common opinion". They get shut up, shut down, and some find it easier to just leave the profession rather than struggle on in the vague hope of changing minds.
2. There doesn't seem to be much said about why increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is truly bad for the environment. Sure, speculation is that it will increase the 'global' temperature, which is speculated to cause ice caps to melt, which is speculated to raise sea levels. A lot of speculation. But the earth has coped with high levels of carbon dioxide before.
3. Man-made carbon emissions are only a part of the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase. Even if all humanity cut carbon emissions, it won't prevent the rise, only delay it. (I accept that some people might consider this to be a good enough reason, although I disagree. It's only an opinion anyway.)
4. What is the 'ideal' global temperature of the earth? No one knows. It's an arbitrary number with no real scientific backing.
5. What is the 'ideal' sea level? Again, no one knows. This really is an arbitrary number entirely based on people living at the coast.

Practically:

1. Almost every society in the world is dependent on fossil fuels. Banning carbon emissions will bring civilisation to a halt (at best), likely sending it back a few hundred years. (I accept that some people don't think this matters enough, but I seriously doubt they can convince the whole of humanity.)
2. Even those who are 'true believers' continue living lives hypocritical to their beliefs: flying around the world for conferences, protests and to bring awareness to the 'problem'.
3. The amount of money which is being invested into trying to change the weather (the full cost by some proposals being in the trillions of US dollars) would be better spent helping poor people moving house from the coast to somewhere higher up, and helping island nations re-locate too. It would likely be cheaper.

Evolutionary:

1. Evolution is all about change over time. If we believe this is how all species came into existence, why must the climate be denied an evolutionary experience?

Socially:

1. The climate alarmism is just another issue that has been highly politicised and is polarising people even more.
2. The two sides of the debate interestingly seem to be divided much like the political left and right, giving the impression that the issue is more political than practical.
3. Such protests keep people out of their educational institution and out of their workplace.
4. The information provided is cleverly disguised to look like it says more than it does. (For example, find an answer to points 4 and 5 of the "Scientifically" section above.) The issue prevents people from doing their own research and finding accurate statistics, instead making people regurgitate the same logically flawed statements with no proper backing.

This protest on the 20th September is a complete waste of time. The science is far from 'settled'; the consequences exaggerated; the premises assumed; the proposed 'solutions' flawed. Children would be better off remaining in school (although, if their education is about promoting the protest, etc., then perhaps they are better off not being in school!), and adults would be better off working for the day, contributing to society and making some money.

I will not be joining people on the protest. I'd rather be 'protesting the protest'! If I meet anyone on the protest, I shall enjoy mocking them.

But animals do it too!

A number of times I've heard the argument of "But animals do it too!" when having the homosexuality debate. "Therefore," the argument goes, "it's natural."

Well, if you say so...

Animals also fight to protect the lives of their unborn young.
"Therefore," says I, "if you want homosexuality to be natural, then so is the pro-life option!"

Stop killing babies. They don't have the privilege of being born yet... and I thought liberals fought the cause of the under-privileged.

Don't be a hypocrite. Give babies a chance.

Rotten Tomatoes is clearly biased

There's been a lot of talk about Dave Chappelle's new show Sticks and Stones. A lot of people really like it, but apparently "those who matter" don't like it.

The reason? Because it offends their precious sensitivities.
It's crazy. I'm not a fan of Jimmy Carr because I think his comedy goes too far and is overtly sexual. However, I think he does have some good jokes, but I can't be bothered to sit though a load of stuff I don't find funny just to hear the bits I might like.

It shows that we're all different. And that's a good thing.

Critics don't agree. They think we should all be the same. Maybe it's just that real critics have left the profession and we're just left with a bunch of idiots pushing their personal opinion.

Here's the score from Rotten Tomatoes (taken today):

And here's something else interesting:

No audience reviews? But see what happens when you click on the link:

It seems to me that Rotten Tomatoes is just waiting for a negative review to put up on the page. They don't want people to really think that Dave Chappelle is good or funny.

And that's what we call bias.