They are radicals who have so much faith in this headline that they will dismiss the reasons why it is important for your child to be able to be immune to these diseases

I would say that they are libertarian radicals, although not as radical as the flat earthers

its easier to dismiss data when you distrust the entire government, which to some extend we do

People are actually advocating for the banning of anti-vaxxers

banning of them?

umm what does that mean? sending them to gulags?

deporting them?

No, I think it just means taking the choice out of the hands of the parents

I think that that is a bad idea

but the parents DO need to be more educated somehow

its just a difficult problem

I was thinking make vaccinations a In-School thing and if parents want to opt out they have to come for a briefing class on vaccinations

I think that works fine?

yeah, as long as the number of anti-vaxxers is low enough

it won't be too much of a problem

if only you knew..

😔

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Oh, I've been promoted and has image posting right now...

It's funny ... because the proponents of climate change also say that science doesn't function as a democracy. That what is published in peer-reviewed papers need to be taken seriously. Lol.

Why wouldn't we tackle global dimming instead of global warming? Making Earth Shiny Again would help with global warming as well, because light radiation of Sun is reflected back to space before it turns to infrared wavelengths (which are prevented from exiting Earth by CO2). Cover your house in tinfoil.

It will also reduce air conditioning costs and CO2 from it's use.

Tinfoil wouldn't withstand heavy rain, even if weren't gonna tear it apart just to stop the noise it would make (during rains)
Why do people who want to reduce CO2 ever suggest anything other than planting trees?
Trees have been keeping CO2 levels down for many thousands of years, why would we trust the government to come up with something new

I wasn't entirely serious.

You could manage the climate and increase the amount of cloud cover (especially over the oceans and where shade is preferred).

I know that's still experimental, but it's just that people don't want to talk about it.

There is a country that actually has negative carbin emissions. They think it might have to do with their constitution saying 60% of the country needs to be forest or something like that.

Finland is close to that.

Though we cannot get negative carbon because we are 1st world country (i.e luxuries), long distances (cars) and cold winters (heating requirements).

Also, wouldn't the amount of cloud cover natural increase as you warm the climate? In theory it would start evaporating more water or keeping more of it in the atmosphere.

Yeah, that is possible. It's the unknown acceleration factor. If the acceleration factor is between 0 to 1, it means increase in temperature will increase cloud cover so much that it slows down warming by CO2 alone.

If acceleration factor is higher than 1, then the **invisible** water vapor in the atmosphere warm up Earth more than the visible clouding will cool it.

We don't know the acceleration factor. Water in atmosphere has the uncanny ability to be both visible and invisible.

Climate change alarmists run with the assumption that warming of Earth's crust will heat up the atmosphere (not just at ground level) and with heat allow the air to carry more H2O in vapor form, and the extra clouding would not occur as warming occurs.

I think people who put everything on invisible water vapor being a problem and don't even pay heed to visible clouds are putting the cart before the horse (i.e doing "science" to match the expectation). There are real climate scientists out there.

They've also put policies and politics in stone before they even think what is tolerable to people. They can create a carbon credit system, and permit USA and China to be out of it (ensuring that economies outside of USA and China crash, and global warming cannot be stopped). In addition to that, the developed countries buy their carbon emissions from those who "don't need them" or who are desperate to sell them (Africans), and as a result, the unjust climate change combating agreement is also ineffective as well.

And the irony is that the CO2 problem will start to solve itself by free market anyway. The better solar panels that are cheaper to produce and require less rare minerals and which's production creates less pollution are coming. The government should just stay away when that happens, and not require permits from citizens to install them.

It was never about the environment. It was simply a scam to control the voting block.

Mcnuke

I support trans people but then a frightening majority of trans people are irritating far leftists who make their personalities all about how trans they are so I'm like "yeah trans people shouldn't be discriminated against in the workplace that's bad!" But then I turn around and go "shut up tranny"