Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9592634:

Bye bye ambassador 8 2, 9:20am

[n I am not claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gass, I said that an increase of the CO2 levels have always come after the temperature have already risen. ]

You are mistaken.

[ But there is an upper limit to how effective greenhouse gases are. ]
There is no upper limit.
Or rather, the upper limit is the supernova and the creation of a neutron star or a black hole.

[ And it is not an excess of CO2 that makes mammals more sluggish it is a lack of O2. ]
You are mistaken.

[ Put many people together in a closed room and they will use up most of the oxygen, that is also why lots of plants improve the work environment. ]
Do you even think what you are saying?
If oxygen usually takes up about 30% of the air, then if the CO2 level rises from 400ppm to 1400ppm, it would decrease the oxygen level down to 29,9%.
Organisms have adapted to their environment. Humans as a species have never experienced sustained CO2 levels above 400ppm over several generations. However, people living in high altitudes have adapted to air densities 50% of the sea level density. So high-altitude people get by with 50% less oxygen.

[ The Earth is never going to look like Venus, not for 800 million years at least, at that point the sun start to go into its red giant stage and our time will be up, but that is another story. ]

Climate scientist James Hansen and his team have investigated and estimated that if all known fossil fuel reserves will be burned, then we will cross the average 30C threshold globally which right now only operates on the equator during El Ninos. That water vapour pump, once fully started, would be very difficult to shut down. The pump is already operating at minimal power. It cranked up a bit last year, the year 2016. Once the pump is fully on, it won't take 800 million years.

[ The purpose of the global warming hoax is to scare people into surrendering our fundamental liberties, and national sovereignties to a global body of regulators. ]

Any such global social contract would also require national acceptance by the large majority of citizens of the country. Or the contract would fail eventually. What the elite does not want to fully realise (and you as well), is that such responsibility can only be achieved through long-lasting nativity, not by large-scale migrations. Large-scale migrations destroy any hope of a stable social contract. Thus the migration flows have to be stemmed considerably from current levels and within large countries as well. To put it bluntly, romas are an example of how a social contract would fail.

[ It is the dream of the Satanist to create a New World Order, order out of chaos, a one world government and a single false one world religion. ]

A global social contract does not require single religion. In fact, I'd say the opposite - any global pressure on adopting global "human values" aside from those arising from game theory would destroy the contract.

[ I am not saying that it is going to happen, I am saying that we must do what we can to prevent it from happening, and supporting all politicians that fight for nationalism and against globalism. Men like Donald Trump, Gert Wilders and Marie Le Pen. ]

That remains to be seen.
If those men and women support the aggressions of Russia, then it would be a failure.
And if they support externalising external costs of fossil fuels and nuclear industry, then that would also be a failure.

[ The first thing thou will notice is that it is very anti-human. It demands sacrifices for “the greater good”. ]

The value of a sacrifice depends on the goals and on the attainability of the goals.
Sacrifice is only worthwhile if it helps to achieve the goals. The goals of all, not the goals of few.

[ It is about the good of the greater number, the good of the group, over the good of the individual. ]

Social norms and customs are about the greater good of the society over the greater good of an individual. An individual might take a dump on his neighbours well and he would feel relieved.

[ But that is an abstraction, groups don’t have independent existence, they all consist of individuals. ]

Actually it is the other way around - individuals do not exist outside of the society. Thus the society has to come first, the individual comes second. But the social norms are created by the individuals who are the society.

[ The alternative position, the pious position, that there are certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and property, is that good is something fixed, it is Absolute. ]

That is not absolute.
The general physical laws of our universe dictate that if there is a universal right to live, then there is no universal right to multiply, and if there is a universal right to multiply then there is no universal right to live.

Land belongs to the society. An individual is basically renting it for a fee and has the right to pass the renting rights on. The only universal right of a living being is to have goals and to make choices and to form societies and within societies to participate in the democratic process of decisionmaking. This applies both to men as well as to fish.

[ The collective is not important, the rights of the individuals are important, and when these rights are respected it benefits everyone. ]
Tragedy of the Commons proves otherwise.
The collective is more important than the individual, but the collective only truly exists as the result of the direct democracy of the individuals who make up that collective.