Who is demanding "perfection"? That too is a strawman. I'm pointing out that when some Bible-Thumping TV Preacher is INSISTING you need to radically change your behavior or you're going to hell and hell is certainly a thing, it's not a great look for him to be caught flying private jets to go bang 3rd world prostitutes. In the same, climate catastrophists insisting the world is going to end if people don't accept they have to sacrifice some comforts are going to have trouble selling that message if they fail to do so themselves. Commonly the word used would be 'hypocrite'.

"Video conferencing simply does not work as well." complete bullshit. Businesses globally have massively reduced business travel. Yes, no question there are SOME situations where travel really is better, ie getting actual world leaders together to sign something = valid reason to physically get them in one place.

But a back-patting session by 1/3 of the world's countries to vaguely complain en masse that their grift isn't working as well as it did? If you're telling Joe Public not to use plastic straws, turn down the heat in the winter, and eat crickets...*maybe* we could provide a better example than private jets to exotic locations? Maybe a TEENSY bit of sacrifice from the Ecological Evangelicals might convince people that secular heaven really is a thing?

Hint: climate change has always been a fact on this planet whether some stinky environmentalists are suddenly raging at the sky about it.

I'm not demanding anything.
I'm pointing out the naked hypocrisy of INSISTING the climate crisis is imminent, catastrophic, and requiring immediate sacrifice (by everyone else, presumably?) while simultaneously all jetting off (almost exclusively on PRIVATE jets?) to a junket-destination, living the high life in the most expensive hotels, being driven everywhere in personal limousines, for the luxury of making a few empty gestures in the same room with other poseurs like yourselves.

If ONLY we had developed robust, simple, reliable, comprehensive, and even MOBILE video teleconferencing systems in the last several years?

You're just pissed when someone mentions the Emperor's new clothes because you're politically vested in the Emperor.

**You're not convincing anyone but your own zealots who will all ALSO cheerfully comment on his lovely new outfit, for the same reason.**

Right...
If only we had established comprehensive, redundant, widespread, reliable, simple systems for online conversations. We could call them "tele - conferencing".

... How did they all get to this conference?

I wish everyone had a pet unicorn and their own private rainbow, too.

But... I have to recognize the planet we live on, amongst the animals we call humans.

Let me know when you find a better one.

Genuine question: you don't think there's ever a worthwhile reason to kill another person? Truly?

Wherever he was, I'm certain that progressives will insist that:
- this is an alt-right lie
- it may not be a lie but he wasn't there
- ok he was there, but it wasn't relevant
- yeah it might have been relevant but this is all blown out of proportion by the alt-right media
- there are perhaps scores of bodies but they were bad people anyway
- turns out they were innocents but there are way more important things we should be focusing on.

That's pretty much the script, isn't it?

Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are quire safe then.

Tim Cook had a brilliant career, but he had to embarras himself by sucking up to the orange utan.

Enjoy your retirement TIm Apple, you nauseating man.

Yes, it has that figurative meaning but there's also an ACTUAL meaning to the words, no.

AmiMoJos statement was stupid and I'm explaining how **using an example in the PRECISE context that he/she did, the transfer of wealth to/from government**.

For example if I called you a "routinely sanctimonious cunt", I mean it figuratively, not to anthropomorphize that your actual vagina has feelings of superiority. I would assume your cunt routinely has no emotions, in reality.

"Slashdot reader AmiMoJo commented: "This is perhaps the biggest transfer of wealth in American history."

You mean aside from the $2.66 TRILLION the US (federal) government collects every year from taxpayers?

"But it's both sad and ironic that those traits may also spell the end of mankind."

Ah, I see from this and other posts that we're entering a new cycle of the "oh no, the world's end is imminent because of: (check all that apply, according to your therapist)
( ) climate change
( ) pollution
( ) overpopulation
( ) COVID (deprecated)
( ) Trump
( ) Illegals
( ) Illegals being prosecuted
( ) Trans people not being allowed to strip in front of kids anymore
( ) (Other) _________________"

This has been a persistent neurosis especially peculiar to the West since what, 990AD? What's old is new again.

In fact, the existence of nuclear weapons has given us 75 years of Great Power peace, something unheard-of in the modern era.

You're arguing that since a woodworker works with materials that make violins he's "obviously" the right person to give an expert opinion on that Mozart symphony?

Let's observe that physicists in particular have insisted atomic war is literally imminent pretty much since the moment the weapons were invented ... two generations ago.

It isn't.

The "animals" as you describe them, had the chance in 1948 to accept the two-state solution offered by the British Mandate.

They refused it, quite explicitly because their leadership believed they (with the assistance of adjacent Arab states) had the ability genocide the Jewish populations of the region. Subsequently they, or their paymasters in Tehran, haven't hidden even slightly that their goal isn't coexistence, it's extermination.

They said, in effect, "No thank you, we don't want to share this land, we would rather kill them all".
And they're still not kidding; since 1994 the total international contributions to the Palestinians has been >$40bn. Did they build power plants? Water desalination? Ports? Infrastructure? Nope. They used it for terrorist-hiding tunnels, weapons, and rockets.

I agree, the reaction IS worse than the unprovoked attack. This is how punishment and conditioning works. https://intersol.ca/news/organ... Even in 'enlightened' systems, if someone shoplifts a $100 shirt, we don't simply take $100 from them as a 'commensurate' punishment. We put them in jail.*

*ok I realize the concept of jailing shoplifters in 2026 is hilariously outdated; we don't do this any more unless they're white or asian or hispanic, and even then it's rarely done. I submit the societal consequences as further proof of the point.

Aside from them being convincing, I'm interested in hearing what fact asserted there is wrong.

Amusingly, those guys you DISMISS are agreeing with you, you sanctimonious cunt. The article from way back in 1958 explains how the AMOC very specifically is overturned, and the colossal climate consequences.

If only we held the same strict standard to the people casually ransacking retail stores in urban areas.