The Donald vs Big Tech

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Okay, but who would win in a tag-team fight between Donald Trump/Hulk Hogan and Kamala Harris/Violent J?

[Caomhaoin]

New World Order-era Hogan?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

2024 RNC-era Hogan

[Caomhaoin]

IF HARRIS WINS WE RIOT

Would be the signage.

[astfgyl]

Okay, but who would win in a tag-team fight between Donald Trump/Hulk Hogan and Kamala Harris/Violent J?

Honestly I reckon Harris could take Hogan

[Ducky]

All available evidence points to CO2 not being the apocalypse, but the shit that the terror about it is used to justify will be another rotten wealth transfer. In fact I'm sure it will lead to digital ID like everything else will.

No, CO2 will green the planet if we stop getting rid of trees at the same time. Yes it looks likely that it contributes to atmospheric warming but we as a species could be looking to adapt instead of terrorising ourselves with it, especially in light of the fact that our attempts are experimental and very likely to make no difference to the planet but a massive difference to our quality of life on it.

Let's just say we were good as gold and then this https://www.carbonbrief.org/tonga-volcano-eruption-raises-imminent-risk-of-temporary-1-5c-breach/ happens, rendering our efforts pointless while China uses coal to power air conditioning for half a billion people and the fuckin eejits in Europe are bollixing on with the same oul paper fork shit and hardly a rex to their name but the place still isn't getting colder or staying at the imaginary optimum.

There's also a mad idea floating around that there's an absolute optimum amount of Co2 or optimum temperature for the earth, even with all the known variables, such as the amount of it that's absorbed by green cover. Well do we think that the earth has ever reached that equilibrium before, and if we do then why the fuck didn't it stay that way? Because it can't but yet here's the fuckin humans thinking they can get there. Lord above. Am I to assume that the absolute optimum was reached right before the industrial revolution and we ruined it by burning things? Ah the whole thing withers me

All anyone has to do is forget the fuckin scientific consensus for a minute and look at the thing as it is and the evidence available and if they are anything like me they will see it's another bullshit game but lots of people are being paid well by pushing it.

The "anything like me" bit got me, so I have to ask - what are your scientific credentials, exactly?

Please, not the credentialism. It's an extremely weak position.

So you're cool if your surgery is performed by Dr. Nick? Because if not, then you're fine with credentials when it suits your narrative.

There's plenty of lads with qualifications who will do a rotten job. Qualifications do not make one right, just that there's more chance one will be right.

You find me an expert with an expert opinion and I'll find you one saying the opposite so the appeal to authority is still as weak as I said it was

You can teach people things, but what they do with those things is unpredictable.

Yeah I broadly agree that there's some dopes who qualify and no one knows how they did, but do realistically think when climatologists collectively say "we're boned, it's largely due to CO2, and here's the mathematics and data to prove it" they're all clueless?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

"I've known Jeff [Epstein] for fifteen years. Terrific guy. [...] He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life." (Trump in 2002, it came up again at the height of the Epstein story a couple years back)

I still find it fascinating how MAGA of the pizzagate/QAnon persuasion manage to persuade themselves that Trump is innocent of precisely the kind of crimes they're obsessed with despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Or, in other words, if someone they didn't like had only a fraction of that evidence stacked against them, they'd be like a dog with a bone.

[Mooncat]

I still find it fascinating how MAGA of the pizzagate/QAnon persuasion manage to persuade themselves that Trump is innocent of precisely the kind of crimes they're obsessed with despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Or, in other words, if someone they didn't like had only a fraction of that evidence stacked against them, they'd be like a dog with a bone.

This article is an interesting quick read in that regard, or rather why people continue to support him in general despite everything https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-still-back-trump-after-everything-5-things-to-understand-about-maga-supporters-thinking-239031

Also, Undertaker, Kane, and Batista have entered the fray so we're up to a Survivor Series rules match at this point: https://www.thewrap.com/undertaker-endorses-donald-trump-glen-jacobs-kane-mark-calaway/

[Caomhaoin]

Batista doesn't look well. Presumably he's preparing for a role.

[astfgyl]

All available evidence points to CO2 not being the apocalypse, but the shit that the terror about it is used to justify will be another rotten wealth transfer. In fact I'm sure it will lead to digital ID like everything else will.

No, CO2 will green the planet if we stop getting rid of trees at the same time. Yes it looks likely that it contributes to atmospheric warming but we as a species could be looking to adapt instead of terrorising ourselves with it, especially in light of the fact that our attempts are experimental and very likely to make no difference to the planet but a massive difference to our quality of life on it.

Let's just say we were good as gold and then this https://www.carbonbrief.org/tonga-volcano-eruption-raises-imminent-risk-of-temporary-1-5c-breach/ happens, rendering our efforts pointless while China uses coal to power air conditioning for half a billion people and the fuckin eejits in Europe are bollixing on with the same oul paper fork shit and hardly a rex to their name but the place still isn't getting colder or staying at the imaginary optimum.

There's also a mad idea floating around that there's an absolute optimum amount of Co2 or optimum temperature for the earth, even with all the known variables, such as the amount of it that's absorbed by green cover. Well do we think that the earth has ever reached that equilibrium before, and if we do then why the fuck didn't it stay that way? Because it can't but yet here's the fuckin humans thinking they can get there. Lord above. Am I to assume that the absolute optimum was reached right before the industrial revolution and we ruined it by burning things? Ah the whole thing withers me

All anyone has to do is forget the fuckin scientific consensus for a minute and look at the thing as it is and the evidence available and if they are anything like me they will see it's another bullshit game but lots of people are being paid well by pushing it.

The "anything like me" bit got me, so I have to ask - what are your scientific credentials, exactly?

Please, not the credentialism. It's an extremely weak position.

So you're cool if your surgery is performed by Dr. Nick? Because if not, then you're fine with credentials when it suits your narrative.

There's plenty of lads with qualifications who will do a rotten job. Qualifications do not make one right, just that there's more chance one will be right.

You find me an expert with an expert opinion and I'll find you one saying the opposite so the appeal to authority is still as weak as I said it was

You can teach people things, but what they do with those things is unpredictable.

Yeah I broadly agree that there's some dopes who qualify and no one knows how they did, but do realistically think when climatologists collectively say "we're boned, it's largely due to CO2, and here's the mathematics and data to prove it" they're all clueless?

Okay no, not clueless to be fair, but a bit myopic. It was David Bellamy who first sowed the seeds of doubt for me on that front and I'll dig him out talking about it because he's a bit more eloquent than I. I'm not saying humans don't cause warming and not saying Co2 doesn't contribute. I can also see the logic of a tipping point and cascading effect but still niggling away at me is the feeling that we're not seeing the wood for the trees in terms of this stuff. It's even be more up for the experiment on a grand scale if the cost was trimmed off the top rather than the likes of me. I mean, this stuff has already been used to make me materially poorer so it would want to be fuckin nailed on before I buy on at that price