Advertisers and marketing departments are full of woke social "justice" idiots. Just look at the Gillette ads, painting all white men as rapists-in-waiting. Or Nike's embrace of Colin Kaepernick.

If advertisers actually had a clue, and only cared about the bottom line, they would completely ignore the tempests in a teacup and advertise where the viewers are, and be content neutral. It's the only sane policy.

We know you're full of shit.

Then you're part of the problem.

You prefer your propaganda to be government, establishment, and corporate approved?

Fuck off with that shit. Those other people can choose to get vaccinated. And for the rare few that can't get vaccinated -- well that's their fucking problem. Fuck you and your authoritarian mindset.

You're not going to live in a utopian world. Err on the side of freedom. People need to decide for themselves.

Fuck off, you censorsorious asshole. You'd be the first to cry if it was your speech being censored.

> Central and South American countries have vaccination rates higher than the places in the US currently experiencing outbreaks.

I'll wait for your source. Of course, those that modded you up did not, because it's feel-good virtue signaling. Meanwhile:

Oh, look, here's Guatemala: 67%

I told you, it was a whitewash, easily explained by the political climate around global warming. At the minimum, Phil Jones should have been fired and charged for violating a Freedom of Information request, and telling other people to delete their email. Does this sound like transparent science to you? How science should be done by a top member in their field?

I like how you keep quoting Wikipedia, which has its own bias and relies on biased sources, instead of delving into theactual issues surrounding the graph.

Did you watch the video I linked to by the Berkeley science for an alternative view? Why don't you engage with the actual argument being made?

Except it did. I've looked into it in detail, read both sides of the argument, and everything I said is true.

The researchers involved were heavy hitters and proponents of the "hockey stick", the widely promulgated graph of global warming.

I tried looking up the citation for Wikipedia's claim here, and the direct link did not work. I would like to see an exact quote from the reference that backs up this claim.

Regardless, there's a political climate around propping up the threat of global warming, and a lot of whitewashing going around. Rather than rely on Wikipedia or summaries, I looked at primary sources. I looked at the graphs, the emails, and what, exactly, "hide the decline" referred to.

I looked at how Phil Jones told people to delete email. How he said would rather delete data than give it to climate skeptics. At how the internal debates regarding the uncertainties of climate science was not communicated to the wider public. Quite the opposite, it was actively hidden.

If you want an alternative view, from a Berkeley scientist, watch the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

What's even worse are the people who think they are smarter than everybody else, that treat scientists as the new priesthood class, but are wearing their own intellectual blinders.

Climategate showed scientists were willing to chop off decades worth of proxy data because it didn't match the recent warming. That they were willing to deceitfully present the science to the wider public to hide such discrepancies. That they were willing to delete email and data to prevent transparency.

We've seen the wider press be willing to misrepresent the science, creating false narratives about polar bears, for example. We keep hearing every so many years how we have to *act now* or it will be too late, and then get the alarmist message repeated. Alarmism is the mantra of climate science journalism.

How often do we get a reasoned and balanced discussion on climate change? Do we balance the benefits of predicted climate change versus the negative? Do we quantify the cost of drastic carbon reduction, both in human lives and monetarily? Is this a 100-year problem that will be better served tackling it with tomorrow's technology and economy?

The manned moon missions ate up ungodly amounts of funding and did very little science in return. It was awe inspiring, to be sure, but we need to be smart with our spending. We already spend plenty on space telescopes, probes, and landers.

Sea levels rose 400 feet in the last 20,000 years. Pretending that climate isn't going to change is the short-sighted approach.

Some other things to consider:

o CO2 increases are greening the earth.

o Carbon powers the world's economy. Is the cost of reducing carbon emissions worse than the cost of hypothesized problems?

o We're already changing the planet in many other ways. Just look at pictures of Earth from space. Environmentalists and world-government authoritarians aren't going to be happy until we're all living under worldwide socialism (UN agenda 2030).

But they do have the ability to shape public opinion and pressure politicians.

Yes, they are the sole "conservative" network, and even they can be antagonistic to Trump at times. The dopes even sided with CNN over the Acosta affair.

You were wasting time to begin with by equating Zero Hedge to Daily Stormer.

Huh, imagine that, anti-Jewish comments on the Internet on a story about a company where the founder and next-highest position are both Jews, and the company is one of the most powerful Internet companies in the world. You'll find the same stuff in YouTube comments. Yet you completely ignore the articles in favor of the comments.