Left-wing media begins banning all content questioning climate change narrative

This is because the globalists have invested billions into that narrative and won't accept defeat…even if that means catastrophic consequences or even worse losing some shekels and dignity.

Swap out Medium for Minds.com. The former promotes leftist cancer.

My bad. You had it in YT alternatives. Regardless, Medium doesn't deserve to be on the list.

Even if it is "fake", how exactly is giving a shit about the environment a problem? You tards are unbelievable.

yea but what if we make the world better for nothing?

Attached: c.jpg (620x359, 15.11K)

Actually it was white land owners and a serires of other restrictions.

The issue with democracy, wide and open, was highlighted as far back as Plato and Aristotle - essentially most people are not qualified to make policy decisions. The people who are qualified to make policy decisions are pushed aside by people adept at taking advantage of other people. IT fails because of the same god damn Pareto principles that govern everything else - actual competence in the arts of statecraft is concentrated unfairly, and through no fault of their own, in the heads and hands of a stark few. That's a key point; leadership was a burden taken on with dignity, it was not a loud obscene thing to be shouted about and sought after if the person in charge or seeking such was any good at it.

I often wonder what it will take to humble us into realizing it is a mistake to give the vote to everyone unconditionally.

The fact of the matter is most "environmentally conscious" people don't really give a flying fuck about the environment at large. If they did, instead of nitpicking on what plastic utensils are acceptable and how much you can use an automobile, they would be attempting to place sanctions on areas like China and India which produce the vast majority of pollution on this planet.

well at china is making a better attempt at fixing things than you amerilards. they're dumping everything into solar and wind. amerifats decide to remove limits on how much mercury is allowed in coal smoke

Even if it's "real," how exactly is threatening to keep third world countries in third world conditions solving the problem? You tards are unbelievable. Because if we're being honest, countries like India and China are the real polluters. America has more trees today than we had in the early 1900s.

Or as another example, how can you claim dumping billions of gallons of fresh water onto random plots of land/the ocean "good for the environment?" How are almond farms "good for the environment?" At least with coal we can clean and scrub it before venting into atmosphere. Nuclear would be better, but you environmental hippies fail to realize nuclear energy has THE LOWEST actual and potential environmental footprint of any energy source. You niggers switch everything to solar/wind and either end up with power shortages during peak hours, or using natural gas which releases a shit ton of pollution in the form of methane, all while destroying more of the environment building them because they're inefficient and "recycling" involves some bugman in China burning the fucking film without any filters to extract precious metals.

Attached: 1517105810535.gif (500x500, 207.84K)

a small increase to almost nothing is better than a small decrease to mostly everything

As someone who works in the electrical industry, solar and wind are both shit-tier sources of energy. Solar isn't good unless you live in a desert, and wind is a shit all around unless built out in the ocean (at which point you have to build additional environmentally harmful transformers and containers to transport it. The wind lobby specifically lobbied to hide data because when you include the creation of wind turbines, they're actually more polluting than using coal with modern scrubbers in terms of carbon footprint, space taken up, and other factors. It would take a wind farm the size of six New York Cities including suburbs in order to meet the energy requirements of the US, and about 80% of that energy would need to be transported across large distances. As an aside, solar panels are relatively neutral if used in a proper environment at only a net negative footprint of something like -3%, comparable to coal's -5%. In regions that don't get enough sunlight at the correct angle for moderate efficiency, such as Germany, they're as if not more pollutant than wind turbines. Geothermal and Nuclear are the only two energy sources that aren't complete shit, and geothermal is a meme because of how expensive it is. The only place wind is useful is in Canadian-style nuclear reactors that bleed off the excess heat to create "miniature tornadoes" to produce a little extra power naturally from the waste product. All that being said, waste product is lost profits, so really the environmental benefit of being eco-friendly IN A PROPER MANNER is that you're wasting less money as a producer using the waste for other by-products, but then hippies bitch a fit about said by-products because they're made from waste products.