The last weeks FvD are everywhere on social media their 1000 billion and 0.0003 degrees to the bazuinen around. Does it make sense to counter this with facts? Or can I ignore them better?

Just keep saying the truth.Often enough. Even though the lie is so fast, the truth is behind it.

Consider also the principle of democracy: You can always have some people and all people sometimes, but everyone always has an ear to sew, nobody has ever succeeded.

And when people come to realize that they are being taken in grind, they are also being kopschuw for those who have done them.

You could say that in the debate of two facts there is, the first fact is the warming at a very rapid pace, in which all investigations pinpoint the cause in the very high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere which is caused by humans.The second fact is the high costs and the low Dutch contribution to reducing the global CO2 concentration. You could ask yourself if this money could not be spent more wiser .Do not wonder by contrast, you can get the fact of the Earth warming by CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as methane (i.e. In large quantities is bound in the frozen tundra and when further warming is released, but also caused by the global herd). Therefore , Tav remains.The wiser spending money the goal of reducing greenhouse emissions.

All economic activities are affected.Therefore, all the consequences not envisaged by those activities are justified by producer as a consumer. This is the principle. Whoever scorned this principle, in the end, minises the economic activity of prosperity itself and thus a better life.

I have just missed this again, but given Baudet s earlier statements about climate change, I will only take it for a moment that it is far from the truth.

Frankly?I think it doesn’t make much sense. They believe what they want and real facts will not accept them anyway. That is why I have not answered questions about the topic on the English Quora, because although I always openly put my sources in it[1There is always a commentator who has to tell you how wrong I did not (without Sources).

I was so tired that I just moved to the Dutch Quora, had hoped that people would know this better.Unfortunately, here too you come across them.

If the readers or the poster of the tweet are not yet completely convinced, I might do the discussion, but if someone doesn’t want to listen , it won’t matter how good your arguments are.The only thing you reach is bursting (for you, because the FVD-there will probably flutter with a complacent grin to the next tweet to stoke people).

I really really expected better from the population of a country in the middle of a river delta, of which 44% of the national borders lies at sea, 26% below sea level, and 55% prone to flooding. [2 but good, wit is not geographically defined, apparently we should also deal with climate change deniers and Treuzel here.


[1 Delta Programme 2019, Appendix B: Deltares Report

[2 correction wording on flood risk Netherlands in IPCC report

It is unfortunately so that ordinary people, like me, cannot and do not want to understand all the ins and outs of all the essential problems.You would have daily work on it, even if you would specialize in a subtopic like ecology and then you are still just at the beginning of the road. The next steps are to also devise solutions and create support for them.

That is why complicated societies have complicated forms of government, where people have areas of their working and decision-making area.If you want to combine that with democracy, a parliamentary democracy is one of the most viable solutions.

If you have read through to here, you belong to a very small minority.Most people just want to live a good life for themselves and maybe their children, and no more to their head. It’s hard enough to get the mortgage or rent, the fixed charges and occasional holidays to work together. Retirement comes on the second plan, the future of the Earth on the third.

If you tell people that the problem around that second and especially that third plan is just a trick to knock our money out of the bag and you throw some scientifically sounding data against it, then you have an attractive message.Especially if you associate the assertion that it is all the fault of others: politicians, foreigners, big-capital, journalists, Jews, socialists, intellectuals, Deplorables, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Americans, Russians, you can Don’t think crazy or you can make it an effective scapegoat.

That simple fact, directly scanned by Niccolo Maccchiavelli, who in turn had read it in practice, underlies the success of Trump and the Brexiteers and every extreme right and extreme links success.

Baudet has sometimes read a booklet and is energetically attaching a strategy to it: what should I do and who should I emulate to get as much power and money as possible as quickly as possible.

What he has to do is see numerous examples from a recent and a further past, because people do not fundamentally change within a few thousand years.Whoever he, with his childhood and bravado and well of the tongue belt being cut, must imitate is also not complicated. Trump and Wilders, but especially Fortuyn are the beacons through which he is courst. But not he alone though, also that Krol is there so one, albeit much less successful.

The cited examples in the question are merely instrumentations with which Baudet is involved in his demogagie.They seem almost literally taken from the front figurines that are on Wikipedia under that cup. Demagogy-Wikipedia

If you look at it, you also see that those tricks are fighting with arguments but very limited.He appeals to emotions and then you do little with arguments.

Why such people are now once again so successful is easy to distract from history.In times when the distance between drivers and directors is large, there is a large and deeper gap between people with and people without perspective, there is a breeding ground for social unrest and eventually revolution and/or war.

If you can actually pick up facts that make their story glass hard, Tsja, why not.Only your 鈧?虄feiten ws are also again just manipulated heads and graphs. The well-known adage is not for nothing: You have lies, you have gross lies and you have statistics. I am very curious if you are going to show that the Dutch contribution to holding a global warming is vastly greater? I’ll help you on your way, because here: NRC checks: 鈧?虄Regeerakkoord helps climate with 0.0003 Graden you will find 脙 漏 脙 漏 N of the sources, in which you can read that A.O. THE KNMI indicates that a contribution of 0.0003 degrees to reducing global warming is still is very optimistic. Or are you going to show that the expected costs for the Dutch citizen are much lower than what FvD claims?There you could have a point. In This article: will the climate policy Netherlands 脙 漏 CHT cost 1,000 billion euros? Volkskrant does a 鈧?虄factcheck of Baudet s words and comes out significantly lower.However, the 500 to 600 billion that are called as realistic are still idiot a lot of money considering the previous point, and the past has shown time and again that literally everything our government tackles in terms of cost is pretty much over the head. I think if everything goes on and we would look back about 100 years, he doesn’t even have to be so crazy far apart. Also screens both articles with expected 鈧?虄proceeds . But to make you well count on expected 鈧?虄proceeds that is rather coffee grounds look.

FvD just has a point.Multiple points even. Can the Netherlands make a contribution to a cleaner environment in absolute terms? Of course. And that’s not what FvD disputed. What FvD disputes is that the size of the difference we make justifies the huge cost for the citizen.

That is quite apart from the fact that a lot of the so-called solutions are debatable and the messengers are even more discutable.If you are a huge supporter of the environmental measures in the meantime on your social media foto s post of your flight to Dubai you will have to explain what to the citizen who wants to get rid of the gas and pay for it because his car also contributes 鈧?虄 The problem .

It is also not necessary to explain that the counter-clockwise measures would be needed and for example a FORMULA1 race will be recalled.

Do you want to make things cleaner and more socially responsible?Fine. Make sure the citizen can pay it. Reduce taxes and increase the efficiency of the government device. If people are left with money, any request for contribution to a cleaner environment is a lot less painful. And take measures that matter. Thus, one of the points of FvD is that we should make a much more active contribution as a land to clean up the plastic soup that floats in the oceans. That threatens D铆rect’s animal life and thus also impacts us once the point of no return is reached.

But as long as this cabinet of all the walls tries to eat along, the whole environmental package is just a sham.The government needs the excise duties and the fines far too hard to get the budgets balanced. So the cabinet is looking for seeming solutions that have an air of decisiveness without it suffering government revenues. And that’s what the citizen is up to.

No thanks, come in FvD.

Neither one nor the other!

The 0.0003 degrees is a pointless discussion, because it is a great diversion, a 鈧?虄red Herring .So entering into it is completely pointless. The propaganda is meant to mislead. It is also 鈧?虄gaslighting .

However, ignoring is also not meaningful.Watch the world really doesn’t die on the spot if it gets hotter, it’s very annoying, but we can adapt to it. So what Green Left does is in my opinion also knock it out.

Both camps are thus in some way out of sensation.It is a result of the real problem, namely that fossil fuels are hitting and, in particular, oil and gas, coal is going to last for centuries longer.

The choice that FvD offers is nuclear energy, Green Left chooses for wind turbines and solar collectors.The one seems very cheap and easy, the other seems very expensive and difficult.

FvD completely ignores the risk-鈩?s for long-term storage of nuclear waste, but also the cost of a nuclear disaster and which are high, still extremely higher than the construction and maintenance of wind turbines where the FvD is nagging, not to mention the other not eco of the nomic suffering.For people who want to discuss these words: Chernobyl, Daiichi. Just count! Put the Risk鈩?s off against the return and you will see that nuclear really can’t matter. When you talk about millions of lives and vibrate policies, you always opt for risk-averse policy and do not let yourself be carried away by emotion or by foreign influences who would like to have a finger in the PAP.

What Green Left does is, however, also resent.The discussion also distracts from the time aspect. Rutte may have apparently admitted to clover, in fact he has not done so. The law is a wash nose as long as there are no actual penalties on failure to perform. In fact, it is a directive and not a law.

I think this has been a very sensible move from Rutte, I agree little with the man, but for the first time you can really catch him with his pragmatic action on vision.

The problem that this reform is opposed to is also that time aspect.Too quickly it is expensive and takes risks鈩?s within the meaning of the law of the inhibitory lead. Too late means that you are going to reform in an overheated market, which is only more expensive. The point at which it revolves, is at what time are you going to reform? It is more sensible to do this gradually to green energy and to calculate it incrementally. That is also the least risky, least expensive solution in the long term and therefore the most sensible solution you can think of. So do not ignore, but enter that discussion about energy, because that makes sense!

When you are put to the choice, Mussert or Moscow!Then choose Roosevelt or Churchill. Never go along in false dichotomy imposed by two extremist camps, because you really have nothing to do with it.

It doesn’t always make sense to go against it.The voters of FvD do not have to be stupid, and what a lot of those voters on FvD know is that facts in politics are interpreted in several ways. The advantage of this is that everyone can choose their own interpretation of the world. But as every disadvantage has its advantage, many benefits have a disadvantage, because there is so much that is relevant to politics it is possible to choose a whole system of interpretations that you as 鈧?虄feiten considered. Not everyone takes the trouble to resist the temptation to believe things that happen to be quite beneficial for defending your opinion. And if you see something you want to be opposed to, they are free to believe that voters like you are more likely to see that sort of thing wrong. What I think makes sense is searching for something that is easy to disprove. Carefully find your prey and come up with evidence that you really can’t imagine someone will protest against.

I agree with Peter and Eric.

You have to be careful, people seem to be hysterical lately about the climate, ( 鈧?艙Extinction Rebellion 鈧?I find that exaggerated) and I think this massive panic is mainly due to social media and the way everything is being exaggerated today to create more sensational news.

We have been aware of global warming, CO2 emissions and pollution for decades.Scientists write reports, and stats and keep an eye on everything. The media vulgarizes this information, and creates this impending sense of doom. Yes, the climate is changing, okay, but should we run into panic like a chicken with a cut-off head?

If things are really so urgent with the climate and the Earth, then it is really wise to spend incredible amounts of money in a plan that is mainly made with the intention of doing so:

  • Seem as if politics are concerned with climate problems
  • The great industries, which are the biggest polluters, please…
  • People’s Voices get

Ask yourself this: who benefits from investing so much money in this plan?If you look at the figures, everyone who is a bit rational will say: it is not worth the investment.

What would be a better, more constructive and more efficient use of this money?(Climate-oriented)

Probably Baudet has no answer to that, but about wasting money on something that is not converted into a success, he might be right.

Well, the point is that the Netherlands only makes a minimal contribution to the warming.You have to ask yourself if it is wise to Invest鈩?N amount and let people pay themselves poor. I would say that it is wiser to link our effort to those of the average of a number of large countries. Guide country, give and feel good, but no one gets better from it.

Leave a Reply