The new climate denial + The kaleidoscopic views of climate-change deniers

[confused2]

China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined, a new report has claimed.

Could well be true. The developed world tends to outsource polluting technology to the developing world - it's almost the definition of the difference between the developed and undeveloped world.

https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2

[Syne]

Yeah, and it must really rankle you that that outsourcing is raising the standard of living in those developing countries. Any guess what happens if and when that standard gets raised high enough? Survival becomes easy enough that they start to clean up their own environment, just like developed countries have.

Granted, these countries can choose otherwise, mostly through bad governance, and even go from developed to developing, like Iran after the theocratic takeover.

[confused2]

..guess what happens if and when that standard gets raised high enough?

Their land mass increases?
Reduces?
Either way - I get the point.

[Secular Sanity]

The Great Reset has been stained with Q-Anon conspiracy, but the WEF has explicitly stated some of those goals.

Their latest gem is that, with AI prediction, no one will ever need to vote again. Just the power hungry grabbing at more power.

So, if you discuss the WEF, you’re deemed as a conspiracy theorist?

I don’t know too much about them, but they’re definitely big players in the world of global politics and have a big impact on decisions made by governments and other powerful institutions.

We’ve heard Yazata’s bit on climate change several times, but they’re pushing to adopt practices that prioritize social and environmental responsibility, or so they say. Money is power but we don’t have many economical discussions about the WEF.

"Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, 16 January 2024 – A new World Economic Forum report, published today, warns that by 2050 climate change may cause an additional 14.5 million deaths and $12.5 trillion in economic losses worldwide. Despite the stark findings, there is still time for global stakeholders to take decisive, strategic action to counter these forecasts and mitigate the health impacts of climate change globally."

https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/we...is-health/

They advocate for stakeholder capitalism over shareholder capitalism, but I’ve always been a big fan of Friedman. What’s everybody else's POV?

"The whole justification for permitting the corporate executive to be selected by the stockholders is that the executive is an agent serving the interests of his principal. This justification disappears when the corporate executive imposes taxes and spends the proceeds for “social” purposes. He becomes in effect a public employee, a civil servant, even though he remains in name an employee of private enterprise. On grounds of political principle, it is intolerable that such civil servants—insofar as their actions in the name of social responsibility are real and not just window‐dressing—should be selected as they are now. If they are to be civil servants, then they must be selected through a political process. If they are to impose taxes and make expenditures to foster “social” objectives, then political machinery must be set up to guide the assessment of taxes and to determine through a political process the objectives to be served."—Milton Friedman

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archi...is-to.html

[Syne]

The Great Reset has been stained with Q-Anon conspiracy, but the WEF has explicitly stated some of those goals.

Their latest gem is that, with AI prediction, no one will ever need to vote again. Just the power hungry grabbing at more power.

So, if you discuss the WEF, you’re deemed as a conspiracy theorist?

Not the WEF. Only the Great Reset is wrapped up with conspiracies.
So if you avoid that umbrella term and discuss specific things the WEF has said/claimed, you can avoid getting dismissed as a conspiracist.

I don’t know too much about them, but they’re definitely big players in the world of global politics and have a big impact on decisions made by governments and other powerful institutions.

We’ve heard Yazata’s bit on climate change several times, but they’re pushing to adopt practices that prioritize social and environmental responsibility, or so they say. Money is power but we don’t have many economical discussions about the WEF.

"Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, 16 January 2024 – A new World Economic Forum report, published today, warns that by 2050 climate change may cause an additional 14.5 million deaths and $12.5 trillion in economic losses worldwide. Despite the stark findings, there is still time for global stakeholders to take decisive, strategic action to counter these forecasts and mitigate the health impacts of climate change globally."

https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/we...is-health/

They advocate for stakeholder capitalism over shareholder capitalism, but I’ve always been a big fan of Friedman. What’s everybody else's POV?

"The whole justification for permitting the corporate executive to be selected by the stockholders is that the executive is an agent serving the interests of his principal. This justification disappears when the corporate executive imposes taxes and spends the proceeds for “social” purposes. He becomes in effect a public employee, a civil servant, even though he remains in name an employee of private enterprise. On grounds of political principle, it is intolerable that such civil servants—insofar as their actions in the name of social responsibility are real and not just window‐dressing—should be selected as they are now. If they are to be civil servants, then they must be selected through a political process. If they are to impose taxes and make expenditures to foster “social” objectives, then political machinery must be set up to guide the assessment of taxes and to determine through a political process the objectives to be served."—Milton Friedman

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archi...is-to.html

Yeah, all the climate alarmism always seems to be slanted toward taking over huge parts of the economy. It's just a cynical power grab, using whatever excuse they think will fly with the masses. Stakeholder capitalism just seems an end around for government influence in lieu of direct takeover. IOW, it's socialism-lite.

And we can already see the results of such policies. Virtue-signalling DEI instead of merit, even in fairly critical positions like the FAA.

[confused2]

Anything with Amazon and Pfizer as 'strategic partners' can't be good.
https://www.weforum.org/communities/stra...072b96a0d/