It's a ridiculous argument to frame in the first place.
A seller would never be suddenly six feet under water. And there is always someone who wants land close to the water. It's a thing, be close to the water as possible. Close to danger as possible. Where water-storms rip through like you don't even count. Because you don't count. That's why beachside homeowners get zero sympathy when they demand towns spend millions to control shifting sands.
They're trying to get local government to protect their homes on property where things should never be built. You don't have to open your door and step out onto the beach. And if you do, then be prepared for it all to be washed away.
Instead, discuss ice ages, the number of them, how they're measured, the historic record written into the rocks, their lengths, what happened to plants and animals when the climate gradually changed, the size of the towering ice sheets, the extent of the ice cover, where, when, and how humans fit into what we know about the last ice age, how ice age affected evolution of humans, settlement, migrations, farming and industry, cultures and races of mankind.
And about the periods between them. How long they lasted. And where we are now in relation to interglacials.
Talk about interglacials instead. Talk about how everything proposed only gives more power to governments and does not affect a single thing about earth interglacial period that we are in. Comfortably. Nor anything about the very real threat of global cooling that is inevitable.
The entire argument is wrong.
I wish Trump would say to Prince Charles when the old prince is bending his ear for ninety minutes instead of the agreed upon fifteen minutes, "Oh, please, will you shut the fuck up?"
In his own way Trump did. He told the man-child that the United States actually has very clean air. We already are leaders on all the things that Europeans trumpet so loudly. Why doesn't the prince consider nagging the living piss out of China and India instead?
Drop a palace on the prince, he cannot take a hint. His majesty's royal duty is to influence his intellectual lessers. Why else would his esteemed self be born to the throne?
The real argument is about globalist using the sanctimonious self-regard of voters to gather more power to themselves. And what a rich field to harvest. They know their acreage so well. They're using the voter's own instincts, their own known personality flaws against them. In ways that take power away from citizens and willingly turn it over to power brokers without doing anything at all that controls or changes or even moderates the ineluctable changes in climate that we are taught in grade school!
Better to argue about shifting tectonic plates. It would make much more sense than some douchebag with a British accent bashing through deplorable wallpaper to debunk a supercilious nervous Barney Fife lawyer with the anxious stuttering Porky Pig voice.
They're both impossible to abide.
That's why I show you. To share the annoyance. I'm a giver.
3 comments:
Well said. I'm going to be double teamed by a couple of climate change radicals next week and can use the ammo. Thanks.
It's not a "debate" if only one side is engaged in debate and the other side is engaged in deflection and derision and dishonesty.
The whole thing is predicated on rigged data to scare enough of the unwashed into letting the Commies who couldn't win the Cold War take over the West anyway.
When they start talking about CO2, just remind them it's a heavy gas that comprises .04% of the atmosphere and is consumed in photosynthesis.
PS Many of the Windsors are not known for intellect, so Trump would have justification. Of course, it could be worse, read about Edward VIII.
Post a Comment