Of course we have other ways. That is literally what I said. From ice samples to tree trunks, and a number of others.

That is why we know that about 200 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration went up to 6,000 parts per million.

My point is correct regarding the headline itself, nevertheless. The fact is that there are a number of other things we do not fully understand. Hell, back in 1978, some scientists/experts swore that we were heading right into a new ice age. 3ven got Nimoy to push it. LOL

In Search Of The Coming Ice Age … With Leonard Nimoy (1978).](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRqr9_jw5I)

The real worry is the fact that some countries l, like China and the USA, just to name two use resources at a rate that are unsustainable. The biggest change as always are rich people whonuse up even more CO2 than entire small towns.

The biggest change shoiod be to our ridiculous and wasteful Western lifestyles. And big corps do not want that as it would be mean lesser profit.

“Recorded,” is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting there. They have only been measuring, more or less in this form since 1958. My aunt has trees in her garden older than this.

We know that carbon was way, way higher before this. So, article comes of a tad fear monger-ey. I mean, we just came off a mini ice age that lasted for hundreds if years in the 1860’s. Or the same reason why you never hear much of changes in weather during the the great depression, as it got warmer then than it is today. When they talk about climate they only start the clock after way WWII despite us having older data.

I absolutely do.

Thanks for the link. Yeah, AIT powered studies could be made to imply literally anything depending on how the study is structured.

“However, considering the moderate size of test-retest reliabilities for IATs, it would be inadequate to use a single IAT observation as an accurate diagnostic of an individual’s implicit association. This restriction on the use of IATs may also have contributed to their death.”

Did a bit of a deep dive a few years ago on this topic, there are hundreds of forever chemicals everywhere that Corps either do not share their studies on them, or have not been fully studied in-depth as far as related medium or long term health issues or for safety. So they will lie my omission. A study might read like, “As far as research completed, (next to 0) we have found no likely known ('cause they didn’t look hard enough, or for long enough because it is expensive) health risks associated with compound XYZ at minimal or reasonable human exposure.” Well, they may not be “lying” if they barely looked, right? Albeit sometimes they will lie, anyways.

It is quite shocking but makes sense when you think some Corps --and the top people within them-- can or will behave like psychopaths in their desire for profit.

They may only do serious studies if people/workers start developing illnesses or cancer or what not. And this is mostly to figure out their prospects on legal liability, not out the kindness of their hearts. Obviously.

For example:

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/epa-dupont-settle-and-delay-court-case-over-human-pollution

"The penalty DuPont will reportedly pay for covering up its pollution of newborn American babies with the cancer-causing Teflon chemical will likely be $15 million. This sum amounts to just 8 percent of the maximum allowable fine.

On April 28, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrative Law Judge Barbara A. Gunning granted EPA and DuPont until August 15 to formally announce their deal. DuPont’s indestructible, toxic Teflon chemical is in the blood of over 95 percent of Americans."

People should be outraged. But the average American is completely out of the loop and in the dark. Their answer when confronted as to why most Americans have Teflon chemicals in their blood was originally that they saw no side effects with that, so too bad, GTFO. No liability on their side, until workers started developing health issues.

Thought we discovered why this was the case, pesticides.

They are tropes because they literally happened. How many millions died due to famines or ideological persecutions say, Russia, China or Khmer Rouge? Please, provide a number.

Are you going to claim that current China is not a surveillance State, on top of that? With property that can only be owned for 50 years and homeless outside main cities? I mean, I could go on and on, video does exist of this. The point is that I have looked. To say that some of these regimes did not have at least some positives is silly, simply put, the positives in most cases do not outweigh the oppressive, propaganda State negatives.

Dude, I lived in Canada, know people in the Nordics, I know what I am talking about. You are wrong. Saying it is “false” does not cancel reality. Most Canadians enjoy a standard of living higher than 90% of the rest of the world in the aggregate. I lived in a major city and got tired of the cosmopolitan living and moved a small city, I look into a river every morning. I am not rich, albeit a bit lucky.

In general, the Nordics have it better. You should go visit Iceland, albeit it is expensive, but at least you are not going to risk getting robbed as you would in many parts of Mexico or Honduras. Colonialism is a silly claim, all human beings, and most civilizations have done this since the beginning of time, just colonizing each other over resources. You think the while folk invented this? It has been done by all, often brutally. Did you think the Mongols, the British of the Muslims during the early Islamic conquests got where they get through hugs and kisses? Alexander the Great got to India by whispering sweet nothings into the armies they destroyed along the way? Surely. Africa and the Americas were killing each other all the time and had slaves before any white person got there. Who do you think sold black people to the Europeans? Other black people.

My point is that the Nordic countries can afford to have socialized services because they enjoy the protection of USA imperialistic or militaristic hegemony. Never said that was a good thing, nevertheless, that is just the current reality. They do not have to worry about paying for large standing armies because the USA would not allow it. Since it is simply not in their best geopolitical interest. Same reason why Costa Rica or Panama do not need large armies, either.

In a true Communist state, as in like what Stalin wanted and aimed for, there was no room for private enterprise. Mao and current China has their fingers into all so-called private companies. Not really private, really. What if your name is Jack Ma, and are a full blown billionare, and get a bit lippy in the wrong think, you just disappear for 3 months to be, straighten out. So, not sure if that is really “private.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64781986

Cooperatives operating in a capitalistic environment, is very different than one existing under a Marxist or Communistic one. I mean, I cannot believe that this has to be stated. So, no, your answer is as vague as every other communist/marxist/socialist/etc that I have honestly asked, who themselves usually throw all the tropes of some type of communist paradise that has never existed in the form they suggest, while ignoring major aspects of history, the human condition and how said humans actually work and exist because we are all very different people. With different abilities, and qualities and many do not like to play communism or Marxism. I mean, Marxist and more specifically Leninists do know this, otherwise, they would not have invented the underhanded concept of Vanguard parties in order to manipulate the populace in a particular direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism

What is not rocket science is what has been done historically, and of how badly treated and persecuted people who did not want to LARP with their communist-minded citizens or who were found guilty of wrong-think. These stories can be found throughout most of the 20th century in Russia and Eastern Europe and, behind what we would call the iron curtain and China and elsewhere.

I was honestly asking a question, which you could have answered in good faith, rather than coming off defensively as if I had not done my homework. You do not know what I know, so you should perhaps not assume, friend. Keeps conversations better. Would you wager to try again?

What “I” believe is irrelevant. History is the point. So yes, tens of millions died during Communism. If you are focusing on Russia, sure, let’s go there. First and foremost, during the later part of the 20th century until the Fall, Russian was essentially a corrupt, authoritarian State. This is widely known. Plus, I have old Russian friends who lived there, so I will certainly trust them over some possible ideologue on the internet. You know that living while you are concerned of being on the States radar over wrong think is not necessarily something that I would call a quality life. I have Romanian friends whose parents lived under the shadow of communist, oppressive propaganda and forced group think. Russia is not unique but they were one of the most forceful. One of the things that many pro-Communists never like to talk about was what happened to the people who society who did not want to LARP along. Generally they were re-educated or considered traitors or enemies of the State. Feel free to look it up.

Regarding vacations, makes sense that since you were seen like a cog in a machine, that for most, vacations, mandated by the State would be given generally, all at once and time off depended on a number of factors. https://www.rbth.com/history/334213-soviet-union-month-vacations Worth noting that the above is a Pro-Russian site, so there is bound to be some bias.

Found this person who claims that some type of vacations given to workers would be booked, group vacations. Not my idea of a vacation, however, if you ask me.
https://reddit.simo.sh/r/AskHistorians/comments/pejfni/i_am_an_average_soviet_citizen_who_wish_to_go_on/ So, no, more time off is not necessarily the only metric that should matter.

Secondly, millions died due to political persecutions, like in the Great Purge, at least 1.2+ million Kulaks, just to mention one. Their crime being only slightly better off plebs. On top of that millions of others died of famines, in order to get the USSR “going.” Same happen under Mao, in fact way more died under Mao as they too played the class game as to label citizens into different bins. They called them the 5 different black categories, partly borrowed from the Russian approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Black_Categories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge https://allthatsinteresting.com/how-many-people-did-stalin-kill https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/world/major-soviet-paper-says-20-million-died-as-victims-of-stalin.html https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2010/09/naimark-stalin-genocide-092310

The presumption that I would be dishonest is silly and reeks to bad faith. Do not just try to cherry pick a time period for what seems to be benefit. How many millions dead over governmental ideology shift does the US have? Also, would you not say that the standard of living in say, the USA was superior in the aggregate to Russia’s during the same time period, or would you deny that?

Friend the ignorant here seems to be you. Cheers.

Is there an example in history where this has attempted and implemented as such and not devolved into straight up persecusion, authoritarianism, cult of personally or tens+ of millions dead? And general lower standards of living to most, outside the party or political class like the Politburo? Could not find any. The Nordics and Canada are capitalistic with some social services. They seem to have a good valance but that is only because the USA military protects them out of geopolitical interests.

I am all good with say, limiting wealth of the rich, they can be rich but not stupifyingly rich and some socialised healthcare and the like. Coming from a third world, I have seen that abolishing private property is just oppression with extra steps, overtime. Most 1st world people have no idea of what they are asking and of how it devolves, in practice.

In your mind, how would workers “own” the means of production? Shares? Votes?

You said replacing “capitalism,” okay, with what? Other have responded with their take, already. So you do not have to.

Okay, and replace it with what, exactly?