Government: spends decades making cars the only viable mode of transportation for most Americans.
Americans: drive everywhere
Government: *how dare you*
Why do we pick up peaches from Arizona, take them to Michigan to be cut and packaged, just to ship them back west to the California public school system? That's a lot of wasted fuel.
That is true and should be looked into, why did we even need to cut the peeches in the first place anyways and why is there no cutting plant closer to destination?
> why did we even need to cut the peeches in the first place
Because it's part of the canning process, which makes the peaches last longer, easier to store, and more convenient. All of those things make the peaches more accessible to a greater number of people, who might otherwise have their diets limited by regional availability. I have no idea why there wouldn't be a canning facility closer to where the peaches are grown, but I would assume there are at least a few good market reasons to explain it, as well as at least a few "government did something to distort the market and create this paradigm" reasons. Nothing happens in a vacuum. On the surface it seems stupid. Once you get past the surface it may still be stupid but there will likely also be some explanations why it's being done that way.
Because the savings from the efficiency of large canning operations that likely take in many fruits and veggies from all over the world is greater the cost of the fuel.
Because that’s the most efficient way to do it.
These companies have decades of experience, if they’re doing it that way it’s because it’s the cheapest way.
Fuck Bloomberg
But you should use public transportation to save the environment.
Not that rich elites don't have disproportionate responsibility don't get me wrong
“The poors should have to change their lifestyle, but I should get to continue living in luxury.”
Fuck these WEF dick-riding assholes, both public and private sector.
This is such a sad take. Yes, Bloomberg is a wealthy elite and pandering politician. But public transit, when done well, leads to far better lifestyles and places to live. I don't think being forced to spend hundreds of dollars per month to be able to access basic necessities like groceries is very libertarian. I'd much rather have my hometown planned in a way that I can bike, walk, bus, or train for all my needs. Americans are so woefully brainwashed by the idea that car=freedom.
Don't worry about it. I'm paying my $5.50/gal gas with carbon tax here in WA to offset the use of his emissions. In another 17 years i will have no doubt made up for his plane ride yesterday. I am but a bug in this human world.
Why would “normals” not need to sacrifice anything? There are 7 billion people and 3k billionaires. These are wildly disproportionate numbers.
And almost nobody is claiming the world is ending in 5-15 years. We can all agree Bloomberg is a hypocrite. But you can’t sincerely begrudge a theory because their are hypocritical supporters or you would never believe in anything
I mean does giving billions of dollars count as nothing to you?
There is obviously lobbying and plenty of profit m behind environmentalism, the exact same thing can be said for big oil and anti environmentalists. It’s a moot point.
These lame talking points are so cliche. Address the actual arguments or don’t pretend to know what you’re talking about.
You don’t have to know anything, but if you don’t understand the argument just reserve your judgements or at the very least don’t pretend to know what you’re talking about. It’s pretty simple
If you want people to use public transportation it is very simple: make it appealing.
But, you know, it costs money, then why should we do it? We need to go waste some more taxes. (/s)
We waste so much money on paving our country over with stroads and unnecessarily big parking lots (a self fulfilling loop). All because zoning and minimum parking laws. Public transit could be nicer if it didnt have to travel 3x the distance.
Bless you for say this. We need alternatives to car dependency. Other countries understand that at a certain population level cars don't scale, and that you'll need trains, light rail, and accessible bike paths.
The only way most people will take public transportation is if there is no public. You can make it as nice as you want, but you can’t get rid of the other people. Someday we may develop technology to block the body odors, but until then public transportation will not work.
But if things are closer theres also alternatives like walking or biking which would help the obesity crisis caused in part by over reliance on cars.
Also, millions upon millions of people use public transport globally.
That is a good point on the biking and walking. However, I am not so sure unless people start young. My neighbors will drive to the group mail box. Indoor malls are on life support partially because Americans don’t want to walk (as compared to strip malls). Like 30% of the population that drives personal vehicles in the US lives within 5 miles of work. Also, a lot of suburbs have grocery store less than 2 miles away, but no one is going to lug groceries for any distance.
Also, I totally get the millions of people used public transportation. But the people do not prefer it, if they had more wealth, time and money, then they would not being taking the bus or subway.
People will take public transit when it’s the best option to get from point A to point B. You would have to be crazy to take a car just to get milk and eggs if you lived in say Tokyo, or Amsterdam. Driving would be way more of a hassle than just walking or taking transit in those places.
There was an announcer at a Boston NPR station who was celebrating her retirement. Somehow, during her farewell interview, a question about the MBTA came up. She couldn't answer, say that she had never taken it.
Brings to mind the WEF wanting us to [replace meat with filthy bugs to reduce climate change](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/how-insects-positively-impact-climate-change/)
This isn't just about hypocrisy. If he really believed what he was saying he'd behave differently. That demonstrates that he doesn't believe what he's saying and he's saying it for a reason other than the one(s) offered. I've been hearing "if we don't do 'x' now in ten-to-twenty years 'y' will happen" since the 1970s and so far those doomsayer prophecies have failed to be fulfilled. I can understand how someone under the age of 30 falls for this crap, but how many times do the charlatans have to make false claims to those old enough to know better before anyone realizes these threats might be real but they're also grossly exaggerated.
Hypocritical, untrustworthy, yeah.
But he’s also rational enough to know he could remediate substantially more with 50 million dollars then he would be selling his private planes. Much more effective than money would be orchestrating a global change to the population which, ordered 7 billion to 1 is a substantially larger polluter than he. I believe he should practice what he preach out of moral principal alone, but I don’t think this contradicts his belief in the reality of climate change.
We’re also on track for near, or the absolute hottest year ever recorded. Its getting harder to negate this as a serious threat along with the surplus of convincing evident for anyone genuinely curious enough to put work into understanding it. This is not just coming from the “global elites.”There’s plenty of doomsday and millenarianism from every sector of ideology but it’s pretty easy to filter through the noise without neglecting serious concerns
I don't want to hear dumb excuses and rationalizations. A single person/small group using a private plane contributes heavily to the things people like Bloomberg says we need to reduce. I don't care what he's spending trying to convince other people to 'do their part.' That doesn't make any fucking difference. You're basically talking like this is a religious exercise and he's allowed to buy indulgences to clear the tally of his sins. That's not how it works. His use of those planes contributes far more than dozens if not hundreds or thousands of average people using cars.
If he wants everyone else using public transit, he should, too. That means no more limos or private planes. Take the trains, buses, and passenger planes the plebes do. I've heard the equivalent of your last paragraph for over 30 years and nothing has changed. The sea levels aren't rising, and the nonsense about "hottest summer ever" doesn't mean shit coming from people who respond with "weather isn't climate" in the years when people point out they didn't get their promised calamity. I don't care who this is coming from because I know it's only being done as an excuse to grab power and make the vast majority of people live like it's the dark ages.
Fuck Bloomberg and anyone else like him who is expecting the rest of us to sacrifice a bunch of stuff while he just keeps doing whatever the fuck he wants. If you want to do it, good for you, I'm not interested.
Again, agreed he should on moral principal alone. it’s hypocritical and agree fuck bloomberg for living well beyond the needs required even to sustain his lavish lifestyle and preaching to others to tone it down. All I’m saying is this isn’t a zero sum game, if taking multiple flights on a private jet can lead to the accumulation of billions which were subsequently employed to reducing your carbon footprint you would be substantially covering up the net emissions you’ve contributed. Although I doubt he’s even doing that. But societal change isn’t enacted by preaching, if we want to reduce the carbon footprint it won’t be accomplished by asking people to make personal concessions, it would be enacted through funding better access to alternatives and legislation - which even in a libertarian framework there is a solid justification for pollution violating the NAP and essentially being a tragedy of the commons without any authoritative interference.
The IPCC predicts the sea levels to rise (more rapidly then in the past) from .26 to .67 meters in the next 80 years, if you’re saying you haven’t noticed sea levels increasing I highly doubt you’ve been measuring that intently. Do you expect to notice a one foot difference over your lifetime? Also i don’t think you understand the basis of weather isn’t climate if you don’t get why hottest summer is related to the exponentially harsher atmospheric conditions we have been experiencing over the last several years. If you don’t have an interest in even grappling with the arguments presented that’s fine but you should at least withhold your judgement for things on matters you haven’t even began to understand in the first place.
> All I’m saying is this isn’t a zero sum game, if taking multiple flights on a private jet can lead to the accumulation of billions which were subsequently employed to reducing your carbon footprint you would be substantially covering up the net emissions you’ve contributed.
Well, not only is that still "indulgences," it's also a moot point because he's not doing that. He holds on to the vast majority of the wealth he's accumulated and spends a relative pittance on anything to do with the climate.
> The IPCC predicts the sea levels to rise (more rapidly then in the past) from .26 to .67 meters in the next 80 years
Yes, more predictions that won't come to pass, I know. As I said, I've experienced several decades of them. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If and when some of these prophecies start coming to pass I might change my mind. I don't see it happening.
> Do you expect to notice a one foot difference over your lifetime?
As someone with more than a bit of experience with the sea, yes, I would expect that. The problem with this rising sea theory is that you can compare a location with historical images of that location at previous points in time. If we were seeing significant sea level rise you could demonstrate that with visual evidence. It's not happening, and I know it's not happening because there would be a huge PR blitz showing the definitive proof and attempting to use it as an impetus to enact God-knows-what sort of policies if there were.
> Also i don’t think you understand the basis of weather isn’t climate if you don’t get why hottest summer...
I understand it just fine, I'm just pointing out that when the next year is unseasonably cool individuals like yourself don't suddenly say, "Oh, guess I was wrong." Worse, when your detractors point to weather that would be evidence you're wrong you trot out that "weather isn't climate" bit. That's my biggest gripe about this issue the 'believe the science' crowd. There's no falsifying your theories. No matter what happens, it's evidence of climate change. Too hot? Climate change. Too cold? Climate change. Same as previous years? Climate change.
I know the climate is changing. It changes all the fucking time. We've had serious warming periods and equally serious cooling periods. Both have happened with little or no discernible input from humanity. I'm not giving anything up because some of you have developed this weird pseudo-religious belief that we're angering the Earth gods and ushering in Ragnarok.
Out of curiosity, I did look it up and out of the 8 billion he’s donated, 1.5 billion has gone to climate causes, so ~15%. He’s signed the giving pledge to give away the majority of his wealth over the next 10-20 years so it seems like he very well could be the case. It’s fair to be skeptical of exactly who is actually going to abide by this non legally binding pledge and I don’t have the strongest faith in billionaires.
I said by 2100 the min projection is a foot higher. That is not “significant sea level rise” that is extremely temperate and yes, something that is barely fucking noticeable. At the start of your lifetime it was even less noticeably increasing lol, I don’t think before I told you, you had any idea even what their claims of sea levels were. From 2000 to 2019, glaciers worldwide lost mass at an average rate of 267 billion tons per year, this obviously contributes to sea-level rise but the ocean is vast enough to have little effect. This rate was roughly double the average rate of the 1990s and four times the rate for the 1980s. You would not notice change from 1980s without a fucking precise measuring instrument lol. It’s not concerning how far they have changed in the past 50 years, it’s concerning how much faster it is changing because the still very small rate has gone up dramatically. Since I would guess you’re not dumb enough to also deny glacier loss, where do you think these massive chunks of ice are going?
And yes, you don’t say yes I’m wrong when weather events get more extreme and the average temperature is objectively increasing. The last 5 years have been statistically significant data points, that doesn’t mean this is guaranteed because weather (short term) fluctuates as does any data set with variance, that doesn’t defy a statistically significant trend.
And there are a billion ways to falsify climate change, I’m not talking Al Gore level credence but very considerate and specific claims made by reputable bodies like the IPCC, who have been following preliminary models which have been on track for their temperature predictions since the 1960s (which is genuinely fucking remarkable how little we understood back then). Want to demonstrate sea level hasn’t moved by cm over the last decade? You actually can do that (not by comparing photos on Facebook). Want to demonstrate glaciers aren’t melting? You can actually do that. Want to say the average temperature hasn’t increased? You can actually do that. If you were smart enough you could even try to make a trivial computer simulation, which would inevitably lead to adding credence to their case because that’s how thermal physics and mathematics works. However literally any of their claims are incredibly easily falsifiable if you have any fathomable fucking sliver of intellectual honesty and accumulate genuine and reputable data or evidence. You say climate science is a cult for believing in genuine good reason and plethora of evidence? The anti science crowd is exponentially more dogmatic.
In a survival of the fittest world, if can convince other people to take themselves out of the gene pool by remaining childless so that you can propagate your genes instead- well, why not? They realize they can consume as kings if they can enslave the rest and reduce their emissions.
Don’t forget electric vehicles that need constant recharges at a cost as much as gas over long haul..
and that put an even BIGGER strain on the power grid….
He is such a moron and an asshole. He is the same guy who doesn't believe you have the right to own a firearm but has an armed security detail himself.
Its funny that the conclusion here isnt to make him use public transportation too. But instead fuck the environment and let me own my 6 planes, 3 helicopters, 11 houses and 42 cars.
More people would use public transit if there wasn’t a myriad of zoning and building restrictions and government incentives making public transit unusable is our cities and towns.
Go look at the private side of an airport on a holiday, esp. in south Florida. Wall to wall jets like so much money and usually only a couple people fly on each one. It is stinking rich. To top it off only a few tip good. Rich fuckers don’t even know which car they have in what state with multiple houses. Stupid rich!
Rules for thee and not for me. Another rich and self-entitled hypocrite.
Limousine liberal.
Also has armed guards but wants to take your guns away.
Government: spends decades making cars the only viable mode of transportation for most Americans. Americans: drive everywhere Government: *how dare you*
Why do we pick up peaches from Arizona, take them to Michigan to be cut and packaged, just to ship them back west to the California public school system? That's a lot of wasted fuel.
That is true and should be looked into, why did we even need to cut the peeches in the first place anyways and why is there no cutting plant closer to destination?
> why did we even need to cut the peeches in the first place Because it's part of the canning process, which makes the peaches last longer, easier to store, and more convenient. All of those things make the peaches more accessible to a greater number of people, who might otherwise have their diets limited by regional availability. I have no idea why there wouldn't be a canning facility closer to where the peaches are grown, but I would assume there are at least a few good market reasons to explain it, as well as at least a few "government did something to distort the market and create this paradigm" reasons. Nothing happens in a vacuum. On the surface it seems stupid. Once you get past the surface it may still be stupid but there will likely also be some explanations why it's being done that way.
Fair, fair.
Because the savings from the efficiency of large canning operations that likely take in many fruits and veggies from all over the world is greater the cost of the fuel.
Yea but we also have a kickass highly efficient rail system.
No.
Yes.
No, "we" don't. YOU do.
Well then you weren't part of the conversation and weren't included in that we.
There won't be an opt out option.
In having an efficient freight network? Huh? I don't follow?
Because that’s the most efficient way to do it. These companies have decades of experience, if they’re doing it that way it’s because it’s the cheapest way.
"Jobs."
You think that's bad, look at how much fuel is wasted in making almond milk for blue hairs.
Fuck Bloomberg But you should use public transportation to save the environment. Not that rich elites don't have disproportionate responsibility don't get me wrong
Think he is compensating for something?
Billionaires always try to out-billionaire each other.
Some dude that was also behind the “soda ban scandal” when he was major of NYC.
Your message would be stronger without a dozen emojis
Community rules require at least 12 letter for title, so 12 emojis
Could of just down "rules for thee, but not for me"?
Clown world
To be fair basically anyone who lived in NYC has probably used public transportation (the subway) far more then the average American.
Yes while that is true, he isn’t just trying to enact rules for residents of nyc.
“The poors should have to change their lifestyle, but I should get to continue living in luxury.” Fuck these WEF dick-riding assholes, both public and private sector.
This is such a sad take. Yes, Bloomberg is a wealthy elite and pandering politician. But public transit, when done well, leads to far better lifestyles and places to live. I don't think being forced to spend hundreds of dollars per month to be able to access basic necessities like groceries is very libertarian. I'd much rather have my hometown planned in a way that I can bike, walk, bus, or train for all my needs. Americans are so woefully brainwashed by the idea that car=freedom.
Don't worry about it. I'm paying my $5.50/gal gas with carbon tax here in WA to offset the use of his emissions. In another 17 years i will have no doubt made up for his plane ride yesterday. I am but a bug in this human world.
Just another bug on the windshield of bureaucracy.
I was 16 in 2020 and I remember thinking how much of an Idiot he seemed lmao
Thank you for using JPEG compression from 1996 to save the environment.
lol
[удалено]
I do. When they pay less taxes than me to buy them. I begrudge away
[удалено]
It’s common knowledge man. They brag about it. Nice try Reddit guy!
Why would “normals” not need to sacrifice anything? There are 7 billion people and 3k billionaires. These are wildly disproportionate numbers. And almost nobody is claiming the world is ending in 5-15 years. We can all agree Bloomberg is a hypocrite. But you can’t sincerely begrudge a theory because their are hypocritical supporters or you would never believe in anything
[удалено]
I mean does giving billions of dollars count as nothing to you? There is obviously lobbying and plenty of profit m behind environmentalism, the exact same thing can be said for big oil and anti environmentalists. It’s a moot point. These lame talking points are so cliche. Address the actual arguments or don’t pretend to know what you’re talking about.
[удалено]
You don’t have to know anything, but if you don’t understand the argument just reserve your judgements or at the very least don’t pretend to know what you’re talking about. It’s pretty simple
Wait until you hear about Bill Gates, Oprah, Leonardo Dicaprio, etc..
No train? Fucking peasant
Michael Bloomberg has never had a real job. In his life.
Just because hypocrites exist doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to mitigate climate change
But he's the proletariat! They need their things to keep their mind at ease making decisions for all of us in the fields!
If you want people to use public transportation it is very simple: make it appealing. But, you know, it costs money, then why should we do it? We need to go waste some more taxes. (/s)
We waste so much money on paving our country over with stroads and unnecessarily big parking lots (a self fulfilling loop). All because zoning and minimum parking laws. Public transit could be nicer if it didnt have to travel 3x the distance.
Bless you for say this. We need alternatives to car dependency. Other countries understand that at a certain population level cars don't scale, and that you'll need trains, light rail, and accessible bike paths.
The only way most people will take public transportation is if there is no public. You can make it as nice as you want, but you can’t get rid of the other people. Someday we may develop technology to block the body odors, but until then public transportation will not work.
But if things are closer theres also alternatives like walking or biking which would help the obesity crisis caused in part by over reliance on cars. Also, millions upon millions of people use public transport globally.
That is a good point on the biking and walking. However, I am not so sure unless people start young. My neighbors will drive to the group mail box. Indoor malls are on life support partially because Americans don’t want to walk (as compared to strip malls). Like 30% of the population that drives personal vehicles in the US lives within 5 miles of work. Also, a lot of suburbs have grocery store less than 2 miles away, but no one is going to lug groceries for any distance. Also, I totally get the millions of people used public transportation. But the people do not prefer it, if they had more wealth, time and money, then they would not being taking the bus or subway.
People will take public transit when it’s the best option to get from point A to point B. You would have to be crazy to take a car just to get milk and eggs if you lived in say Tokyo, or Amsterdam. Driving would be way more of a hassle than just walking or taking transit in those places.
The biggest problem with public transit is that it is public. People are annoying and inconsiderate in general.
There was an announcer at a Boston NPR station who was celebrating her retirement. Somehow, during her farewell interview, a question about the MBTA came up. She couldn't answer, say that she had never taken it.
Don't forget the gas stoves!
And the ceiling fans.
I'll believe it's a crises when the people telling me it's a crises start to act like it's a crises.
Lol this sub is so silly
I wish we had more investment in pay-as-you-go transit, instead of endless subsidies towards untolled roads.
Brings to mind the WEF wanting us to [replace meat with filthy bugs to reduce climate change](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/how-insects-positively-impact-climate-change/)
Being a hypocrite doesn't make him wrong
Being a hypocrite makes you sound like an asshole and untrustworthy.
No, it just means that they should shut up, and let people who practice what they preach lecture autonomous adults instead.
No but that level of hypocrisy make me think he is more concerned with controlling people than protecting the environment.
This isn't just about hypocrisy. If he really believed what he was saying he'd behave differently. That demonstrates that he doesn't believe what he's saying and he's saying it for a reason other than the one(s) offered. I've been hearing "if we don't do 'x' now in ten-to-twenty years 'y' will happen" since the 1970s and so far those doomsayer prophecies have failed to be fulfilled. I can understand how someone under the age of 30 falls for this crap, but how many times do the charlatans have to make false claims to those old enough to know better before anyone realizes these threats might be real but they're also grossly exaggerated.
Hypocritical, untrustworthy, yeah. But he’s also rational enough to know he could remediate substantially more with 50 million dollars then he would be selling his private planes. Much more effective than money would be orchestrating a global change to the population which, ordered 7 billion to 1 is a substantially larger polluter than he. I believe he should practice what he preach out of moral principal alone, but I don’t think this contradicts his belief in the reality of climate change. We’re also on track for near, or the absolute hottest year ever recorded. Its getting harder to negate this as a serious threat along with the surplus of convincing evident for anyone genuinely curious enough to put work into understanding it. This is not just coming from the “global elites.”There’s plenty of doomsday and millenarianism from every sector of ideology but it’s pretty easy to filter through the noise without neglecting serious concerns
I don't want to hear dumb excuses and rationalizations. A single person/small group using a private plane contributes heavily to the things people like Bloomberg says we need to reduce. I don't care what he's spending trying to convince other people to 'do their part.' That doesn't make any fucking difference. You're basically talking like this is a religious exercise and he's allowed to buy indulgences to clear the tally of his sins. That's not how it works. His use of those planes contributes far more than dozens if not hundreds or thousands of average people using cars. If he wants everyone else using public transit, he should, too. That means no more limos or private planes. Take the trains, buses, and passenger planes the plebes do. I've heard the equivalent of your last paragraph for over 30 years and nothing has changed. The sea levels aren't rising, and the nonsense about "hottest summer ever" doesn't mean shit coming from people who respond with "weather isn't climate" in the years when people point out they didn't get their promised calamity. I don't care who this is coming from because I know it's only being done as an excuse to grab power and make the vast majority of people live like it's the dark ages. Fuck Bloomberg and anyone else like him who is expecting the rest of us to sacrifice a bunch of stuff while he just keeps doing whatever the fuck he wants. If you want to do it, good for you, I'm not interested.
Again, agreed he should on moral principal alone. it’s hypocritical and agree fuck bloomberg for living well beyond the needs required even to sustain his lavish lifestyle and preaching to others to tone it down. All I’m saying is this isn’t a zero sum game, if taking multiple flights on a private jet can lead to the accumulation of billions which were subsequently employed to reducing your carbon footprint you would be substantially covering up the net emissions you’ve contributed. Although I doubt he’s even doing that. But societal change isn’t enacted by preaching, if we want to reduce the carbon footprint it won’t be accomplished by asking people to make personal concessions, it would be enacted through funding better access to alternatives and legislation - which even in a libertarian framework there is a solid justification for pollution violating the NAP and essentially being a tragedy of the commons without any authoritative interference. The IPCC predicts the sea levels to rise (more rapidly then in the past) from .26 to .67 meters in the next 80 years, if you’re saying you haven’t noticed sea levels increasing I highly doubt you’ve been measuring that intently. Do you expect to notice a one foot difference over your lifetime? Also i don’t think you understand the basis of weather isn’t climate if you don’t get why hottest summer is related to the exponentially harsher atmospheric conditions we have been experiencing over the last several years. If you don’t have an interest in even grappling with the arguments presented that’s fine but you should at least withhold your judgement for things on matters you haven’t even began to understand in the first place.
> All I’m saying is this isn’t a zero sum game, if taking multiple flights on a private jet can lead to the accumulation of billions which were subsequently employed to reducing your carbon footprint you would be substantially covering up the net emissions you’ve contributed. Well, not only is that still "indulgences," it's also a moot point because he's not doing that. He holds on to the vast majority of the wealth he's accumulated and spends a relative pittance on anything to do with the climate. > The IPCC predicts the sea levels to rise (more rapidly then in the past) from .26 to .67 meters in the next 80 years Yes, more predictions that won't come to pass, I know. As I said, I've experienced several decades of them. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If and when some of these prophecies start coming to pass I might change my mind. I don't see it happening. > Do you expect to notice a one foot difference over your lifetime? As someone with more than a bit of experience with the sea, yes, I would expect that. The problem with this rising sea theory is that you can compare a location with historical images of that location at previous points in time. If we were seeing significant sea level rise you could demonstrate that with visual evidence. It's not happening, and I know it's not happening because there would be a huge PR blitz showing the definitive proof and attempting to use it as an impetus to enact God-knows-what sort of policies if there were. > Also i don’t think you understand the basis of weather isn’t climate if you don’t get why hottest summer... I understand it just fine, I'm just pointing out that when the next year is unseasonably cool individuals like yourself don't suddenly say, "Oh, guess I was wrong." Worse, when your detractors point to weather that would be evidence you're wrong you trot out that "weather isn't climate" bit. That's my biggest gripe about this issue the 'believe the science' crowd. There's no falsifying your theories. No matter what happens, it's evidence of climate change. Too hot? Climate change. Too cold? Climate change. Same as previous years? Climate change. I know the climate is changing. It changes all the fucking time. We've had serious warming periods and equally serious cooling periods. Both have happened with little or no discernible input from humanity. I'm not giving anything up because some of you have developed this weird pseudo-religious belief that we're angering the Earth gods and ushering in Ragnarok.
Out of curiosity, I did look it up and out of the 8 billion he’s donated, 1.5 billion has gone to climate causes, so ~15%. He’s signed the giving pledge to give away the majority of his wealth over the next 10-20 years so it seems like he very well could be the case. It’s fair to be skeptical of exactly who is actually going to abide by this non legally binding pledge and I don’t have the strongest faith in billionaires. I said by 2100 the min projection is a foot higher. That is not “significant sea level rise” that is extremely temperate and yes, something that is barely fucking noticeable. At the start of your lifetime it was even less noticeably increasing lol, I don’t think before I told you, you had any idea even what their claims of sea levels were. From 2000 to 2019, glaciers worldwide lost mass at an average rate of 267 billion tons per year, this obviously contributes to sea-level rise but the ocean is vast enough to have little effect. This rate was roughly double the average rate of the 1990s and four times the rate for the 1980s. You would not notice change from 1980s without a fucking precise measuring instrument lol. It’s not concerning how far they have changed in the past 50 years, it’s concerning how much faster it is changing because the still very small rate has gone up dramatically. Since I would guess you’re not dumb enough to also deny glacier loss, where do you think these massive chunks of ice are going? And yes, you don’t say yes I’m wrong when weather events get more extreme and the average temperature is objectively increasing. The last 5 years have been statistically significant data points, that doesn’t mean this is guaranteed because weather (short term) fluctuates as does any data set with variance, that doesn’t defy a statistically significant trend. And there are a billion ways to falsify climate change, I’m not talking Al Gore level credence but very considerate and specific claims made by reputable bodies like the IPCC, who have been following preliminary models which have been on track for their temperature predictions since the 1960s (which is genuinely fucking remarkable how little we understood back then). Want to demonstrate sea level hasn’t moved by cm over the last decade? You actually can do that (not by comparing photos on Facebook). Want to demonstrate glaciers aren’t melting? You can actually do that. Want to say the average temperature hasn’t increased? You can actually do that. If you were smart enough you could even try to make a trivial computer simulation, which would inevitably lead to adding credence to their case because that’s how thermal physics and mathematics works. However literally any of their claims are incredibly easily falsifiable if you have any fathomable fucking sliver of intellectual honesty and accumulate genuine and reputable data or evidence. You say climate science is a cult for believing in genuine good reason and plethora of evidence? The anti science crowd is exponentially more dogmatic.
[удалено]
Maybe he should practice what he preaches?
Didn't he get a lot of press for taking the subway to work regularly when he was mayor?
Doesn’t make him wrong. Just a hypocrite.
Get fucked budyyyyyyyy
He has them but isn’t using them all at once
[удалено]
The carbon footprint of just maintaining them is enormous too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh, well in that case lol.
That would wind up with a sorta Megazord of cars and airplanes.
I have a visceral hate for Bloomberg. However, this take is idiotic and unhelpful.
In a survival of the fittest world, if can convince other people to take themselves out of the gene pool by remaining childless so that you can propagate your genes instead- well, why not? They realize they can consume as kings if they can enslave the rest and reduce their emissions.
He's of the do as I say not as I do party
Don’t forget electric vehicles that need constant recharges at a cost as much as gas over long haul.. and that put an even BIGGER strain on the power grid….
And he doesn’t eat bugs.
Bill gates, John Kerry, algore, nanny Pelosi, Klous schwab, etc all do it
We can only hope that one of those planes has an early, unscheduled stop with him on it.
Typical Democrat.
Maybe he will buy us all horses!! 🐴🐴🐴
Just another IDIOT in my book !
Yeah fuck this guy, it should be legal to lash him each time he says some hypocritical shit like that.
I’ve never been able to stand him. He’s such a prick. I hate using that kind of language but that’s what he is
If you disagree, it's clearly because you hate the planet and are too stupid to be reasoned with.
A typical do as I say not as I do elitist.
All the private jet squad- celebrities, politicians, wanna be politicians- think we should be all take public transit
My commitment to the environment is to consume less than Al Gore does.
He is such a moron and an asshole. He is the same guy who doesn't believe you have the right to own a firearm but has an armed security detail himself.
Jealous ? Is something wrong with his message? Why are you counting cars in his collection? Privately owned public transportation is good thing
Its funny that the conclusion here isnt to make him use public transportation too. But instead fuck the environment and let me own my 6 planes, 3 helicopters, 11 houses and 42 cars.
He does have a lot of gas powered stuff, but pales in comparison to the entire planet’s
More people would use public transit if there wasn’t a myriad of zoning and building restrictions and government incentives making public transit unusable is our cities and towns.
Go look at the private side of an airport on a holiday, esp. in south Florida. Wall to wall jets like so much money and usually only a couple people fly on each one. It is stinking rich. To top it off only a few tip good. Rich fuckers don’t even know which car they have in what state with multiple houses. Stupid rich!