Almost all of you are pawns for rich Americans like the Koch brothers who financially benefit from the antics and...

Almost all of you are pawns for rich Americans like the Koch brothers who financially benefit from the antics and propaganda of Sup Forums... I'm not going to deny there a shady rich people like Soros who benefit from the left, but the Koch brothers are just as shady and benefit from the religious anti-science right. Well done, most of you are just as played.

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-success-helps-china-emerge-as-global-climate-leader
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I'm religious and pro-science.

What's your position on things like climate change?

I don't really care about climate change because it won't affect me

You don't sound like a religious person to me.

The kuch brothers are open border globalists.

How exactly is Sup Forums playing into their master plan?

>09
You're dumb. Anti science right? That's Sup Forums? You're dumb.

How could anybody who follows a truly just religion, a religion that was formed under the authority of the one true God, be a God worthy of any sort of praise if his religion conditions people to not care about one another throughout numerous contexts?

I mean, are you antiabortion? What's the point of defending life that will be brought into a world in environmental disarray because you didn't care about it? Because you didn't care about them?

Why do you care about somthing you have no control over? China doesn't give a fuck. Most of the world doesn't give a fuck. China is only going to further industrialise and so is the rest of the third world, including India and other nations with large populations.

Do you seriously think particular points of disagreement are enough to mask everything else? Climate change denial, using conservative Christian values to dictate attitudes towards policies, conservatives, the list goes on... I'm sure they don't personally give a shit about Sup Forums. But no doubt Sup Forums has been greatly influenced (directly or indirectly) by people or organizations that they have funded.

Industrialization of the third world and importing billions of third worlders who currently consume very little energy over to Europe and America where they will consume and pollute just like everyone else is going to do more harm to the environment than us switching from gas and coal over to some hippy solar pipe dream.

If you were serious about saving the planet you'd be serious about curbing population growth in Africa.

That's literally your reasoning? I mean, all three Abrahamic religions call for humans to take care of the planet, being stewards of the land. I'm not aware of any verses that relinquish you from taking care of other people or the world simply because other people don't care.

Also, China does care. They also don't deny climate change:
theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-success-helps-china-emerge-as-global-climate-leader

Yeah, it's The Guardian, but It's not hard to google.

"As Liu Zhenmin said in Marrakech, any change in US policy “won’t affect China’s commitment to support climate negotiations and also the implementation of the Paris Agreement."

"China plans to be the supplier of low-carbon goods to a carbon-constrained world: It already boasts the world’s biggest installed capacity of wind and solar power, and its climate policies are built in to its current five-year economic plan."

> Find a group with ANY opinion
> find someone rich who benefits from that opinion
> declare all those who have that opinion pawns for said rich person
> feel intellectually superior???
> ....p-p-profit???

The Koch brothers are German Americans who support the Second Amendment. I support them a whole lot more than I support any kikes or sandniggers.

That's quite the slippery slope fallacy you have going on there.

And where exactly did you hear that? I'd be interested in knowing? Was it an academic journal of some sort?

Also, you might as well argue that everybody should be having less children. Because it's not merely a matter of immigration, it's the increase in population within western countries in general. But I rarely see people who argue to limit immigrationAlso actively campaigning to try to reduce the amount of children being born.

In western countries can reduce their pollution, than that will benefit any person who is living in the western country whether or not they immigrated or were born there.

watching atheists attempt helplessly to shoehorn people into their own misconceived framework of religion is fucking hilarious. someone post the smuggie.

>It's not merely a matter of immigration, it's the increase in population within western countries in general

>Most western countries are currently at or below replacement birth rates

Hmmm

Congratulations, you have displayed a good portion of the activity on Sup Forums. Only this one isn't directed at the Jews, so it must be someone who is trying to feeling intellectually superior. No?

I mean seriously, even if that's done quite frequently it does not inherently invalidate any claim of the sort.

One major problem, I'm not an atheist.
But considering how you immediately assume such because I am being critical of an individual who doesn't care about climate change because it won't "immediately affect them" can still defend almost any religious doctrine, considering how most of them are extremely geared towards compassion and consideration towards other people. It goes to show how defensive people such as yourself are towards the notion of anybody disagreeing with you. Nobody can get you to think any differently, you're a smarty-pants who has got everything figured out. No?

Because climate change isn't going to kill people. It's just going to change things, some for the better and some for the worse. What would happen if we didn't have climate change and would that timeline be better or worse then our current one? I'll answer for you: You can't know and you can't tell.

But we're talking about the importation of "Billions" of people from the Third World who currently consume very little energy over to your been in America where they will consume and pollute just like everyone else.

You know what people born in western countries do, they will consume and pollute just like everyone else there.

I mean if that's the problem, don't you think there are a few holes in the logic there. Do you support the notion that people in Western countries should be having more children? humm?

No I don't. I don't believe in the Ponzi scheme that we need infinite population growth to fund our current economic models. With increased automation and productivity we can easily get by with fewer people.

Oh, so because it doesn't "Kill people" we don't need to care? So if it did kill people, would you change your mind? If that is your only reasoning it seems a bit shortsighted.

>It's just going to change things, some for the better and some for the worse.

Fair enough, but which one is going to be more prominent. The better or the worst? Because even if some places get better, if it's mostly going to change for the worst maybe we should do something about that. From what I've been able together, it's mostly going to change for the worst.

>What would happen if we didn't have climate change

We have always had climate change. Human activities are just making it change at an alarmingly accelerated pace.

>and would that timeline be better or worse then our current one?

Climate change would be happening regardless of human activity. That natural rate is what we want, because it's extremely slow in comparison to how human activities have accelerated it. At the rate it is accelerating Is what is the most alarming. And it is disastrous, particularly because not all environments are suited for increases and temperature or the consequences of that elsewhere.

>I'll answer for you: You can't know and you can't tell.

You sincerely believe that your position is sound? You are denying climate change, or at the very least taking action, because you can't personally tell if it's going to be beneficial are not? You even convinced yourself that nobody could tell you otherwise?

I can tell you this, most people don't want to experience the current rate of change. It is having disastrous consequences because it's not giving ecosystems enough time to adapt, let alone people and livelihoods among many other problems. This different timelines crap is only people coming up with excuses for not having to change their behavior. If you can't acknowledge the dramatic rate in which climate change is happening, and that it's a problem, you hopeless.

Alright you've had your fun demonizing people.

What are your solutions, how should one realistically change their behavior to have an impact?

>If you were serious about saving the planet you'd be serious about curbing population growth in Africa.

You realize africa is the only place left on earth that will have a postive population growth in 20 years? You realize once population stops growing ALL economies will collapse. You cannot have ANY welfare in a shrinking system.

Malthusians are easily the dumbest of the dumb.

Simple question as of now it takes 3 americans that are working to pay for 1 american recieving SS. Considering that the millenium generation is only about 15% bigger and Gen Z is about 15% smaller than the milllenials -- who is going to pay for US..

Did you fucking think this through?

Well, if only Sup Forums could share that belief when it came to the population of white people.
That being said, "Ponzi scheme" seems like an inappropriate term. Maybe some people claim it's going to be beneficial, maybe some people say it's going to be hard but it's morally right.

Whatever the matter, denying taking action towards climate change merely because of industrializing nations is pathetic. Because it relies on the notion that green energies will never be able to be as efficient as energies that require a lot of pollution to obtain. If anything, creating a market for it in the West will allow it to "Trickle down" into industrialized nations like most Western technologies do. Especially if there cheaper then anything else, and obtaining coal and oil is still an expensive process.

Well, the first thing is to get people to stop coming up with excuses.
The second is to get them to be supportive and when possible implementing green technologies in their own lives. To help not only promote a market for green tec, but participate in it to. That's the most realistic goal I have when it comes to an anonymous online chat image boards atm.

The reeks of 15 year old's first philosophical thoughts

If our current economic models are so extremely shaky and short-sighted maybe they're not worth keeping propped up.

I doubt most of Sup Forums has the belief of

>Make more white babies

Because they inherently believe the world needs a higher population. It comes from a place of

>Well if they're going to force us to have an ever increasing population, I'd rather it be more of my own people. If you have more babies they won't import more immigrants.

It's a very different mindset. It's not supporting the system, it's reacting to it.

You're still faced with the problem concerning ignoring/denying climate change because of an increasing population whether that be Europe/America or industrialized nations.

Coming up with excuses in order to not make an effort for greatly advocating green energies. Green energy that will only add stability everywhere. Some people promote green energy because they're freaked out over climate change, but there are other reasons like this situation you have presented concerning how more people living a European/American lifestyle is becoming more and more unsustainable.

Countries like China are going to constantly try to make things cheaper and cheaper, and you'd be crazy to believe they and the most other industrial nations won't jump ship to cheaper means of providing energy.

The major problem is who's going to be the first country to make those breakthrough technologies? More sustainable technologies elsewhere also keeps more people there...

This whole mentality of not doing anything is dangerous and definitely plays towards the interests of particular people who have financial gain or political gain from maintaining ignorance. What is most amazing is many of these people have made this whole notion of prioritizing "green energies" a conspiracy within itself...

OP sure sounds like someone who's understanding of Christians comes from a good faith (lol) understanding of them and their priorities.