A hypothesis: Is climate change and denial of it a weapon of mass destruction?

[Delta4Embassy]

A weapon of mass destruction whose use is obvious can't be used without inviting retaliation. But if a weapon whose use is mistaken for a natural disaster were invented it could be used. It's historical fact many of the world's powers have pursued eugenics and through various wars killed millions of people. Because of nuclear weapons these kinds of massive effect conflicts have gone the way of the dodo. But I wonder if some still have 'master plans' for the world.

The effects of climate change on the more powerful and rich nations is minimal. But the effects on the poorer nations which include also the majority of the planet's population (read, undesireables) is much more severe. So if the richest nations are contibuting the most to climate change, and its' effects are hurting the poorest nations the most, how is that not a deliberate attempt at planetary engineering? Get rid of the 'poor meaningless' peoples changing the climate so mass starvation and coastal destruction occurs (where most of the world's population lives,) and the ones who remain will have increased resources for themselves.

It makes no sense anyone would go out of their way to deny something overt and obvious like climate change. Unless of course it's deliberate and by design and not incidental to industrialized society.

 

[Sonny Clark]

A weapon of mass destruction whose use is obvious can't be used without inviting retaliation. But if a weapon whose use is mistaken for a natural disaster were invented it could be used. It's historical fact many of the world's powers have pursued eugenics and through various wars killed millions of people. Because of nuclear weapons these kinds of massive effect conflicts have gone the way of the dodo. But I wonder if some still have 'master plans' for the world.

The effects of climate change on the more powerful and rich nations is minimal. But the effects on the poorer nations which include also the majority of the planet's population (read, undesireables) is much more severe. So if the richest nations are contibuting the most to climate change, and its' effects are hurting the poorest nations the most, how is that not a deliberate attempt at planetary engineering? Get rid of the 'poor meaningless' peoples changing the climate so mass starvation and coastal destruction occurs (where most of the world's population lives,) and the ones who remain will have increased resources for themselves.

It makes no sense anyone would go out of their way to deny something overt and obvious like climate change. Unless of course it's deliberate and by design and not incidental to industrialized society.

"A weapon of mass destruction whose use is obvious can't be used without inviting retaliation"

FYI - If used correctly, and at the right time, there would be no time for retaliation. The right target, at the right time, would destroy anything and everything. Otherwise, there would be no need to even use one. The purpose of a WMD is to totally disable the intended target, thus destroying the capabilities of retaliation.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A weapon of mass destruction whose use is obvious can't be used without inviting retaliation. But if a weapon whose use is mistaken for a natural disaster were invented it could be used. It's historical fact many of the world's powers have pursued eugenics and through various wars killed millions of people. Because of nuclear weapons these kinds of massive effect conflicts have gone the way of the dodo. But I wonder if some still have 'master plans' for the world.

The effects of climate change on the more powerful and rich nations is minimal. But the effects on the poorer nations which include also the majority of the planet's population (read, undesireables) is much more severe. So if the richest nations are contibuting the most to climate change, and its' effects are hurting the poorest nations the most, how is that not a deliberate attempt at planetary engineering? Get rid of the 'poor meaningless' peoples changing the climate so mass starvation and coastal destruction occurs (where most of the world's population lives,) and the ones who remain will have increased resources for themselves.

It makes no sense anyone would go out of their way to deny something overt and obvious like climate change. Unless of course it's deliberate and by design and not incidental to industrialized society.

"A weapon of mass destruction whose use is obvious can't be used without inviting retaliation"

FYI - If used correctly, and at the right time, there would be no time for retaliation. The right target, at the right time, would destroy anything and everything. Otherwise, there would be no need to even use one. The purpose of a WMD is to totally disable the intended target, thus destroying the capabilities of retaliation.

Nukes don't work quite like they show in the movies. Was in the Navy take my word for it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Much of what I've seen reported on the effects of nuclear weapons appears to be a linear expansion of actual effects as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and various tests. In other words, they took the 15kt Hiroshima blast and multiplied it to fit a megaton event. That's not how it works.

 

[jc456]

Much of what I've seen reported on the effects of nuclear weapons appears to be a linear expansion of actual effects as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and various tests. In other words, they took the 15kt Hiroshima blast and multiplied it to fit a megaton event. That's not how it works.

who cares!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

A weapon of mass destruction whose use is obvious can't be used without inviting retaliation. But if a weapon whose use is mistaken for a natural disaster were invented it could be used. It's historical fact many of the world's powers have pursued eugenics and through various wars killed millions of people. Because of nuclear weapons these kinds of massive effect conflicts have gone the way of the dodo. But I wonder if some still have 'master plans' for the world.

The effects of climate change on the more powerful and rich nations is minimal. But the effects on the poorer nations which include also the majority of the planet's population (read, undesireables) is much more severe. So if the richest nations are contibuting the most to climate change, and its' effects are hurting the poorest nations the most, how is that not a deliberate attempt at planetary engineering? Get rid of the 'poor meaningless' peoples changing the climate so mass starvation and coastal destruction occurs (where most of the world's population lives,) and the ones who remain will have increased resources for themselves.

It makes no sense anyone would go out of their way to deny something overt and obvious like climate change. Unless of course it's deliberate and by design and not incidental to industrialized society.

s0n......you need a beer and a plan!


Too..........you need some real responsibilities in life. Nobody navigating in the real world is worried about this because they have real responsibilities..........about 4 billion things more important to worry about!!!Check any poll.........you are one of about 179 people out there worried about the end of days due to global warming. s0n......wake the fuck up. Check the debt clock recently? When the dollar crashes, the last thing on earth people will be worried about is global warming.....and to survive, they wont be out back building an emergency ark.

 

[skookerasbil]

see s0n........nobody gives a shit.............because they have real responsibilities >>>


Out of over 20 concerns of Americans..........global warming is................LAST

Gallup Concern About Environment Down Americans Worry Least About Global Warming CNS News