I don’t use twitter. Regardless of my non use it has at this point ruined this area of clutchfans. Congrats you fu**ing boomers.
This might be a joke to you but this is a major disaster. Rescue and recovery during a major disaster is difficult under the best of situations. We have actual accounts of government officials having to pull back and suspend operations because of threats.
I also do not do X/Twitter. Why would I do that when I get all of the truth I need right here. It's like one stop shopping here on the clutch. Read some high-quality tweets and then watch a verbal fight break out. This site completes me PS I think Boomers aren't that big on the X/Twitter. Ever seen a 70-year-old person try and navigate on a cell phone. It's like watching a monkey feck a football. I think my demographic is the oldest one to embrace social media. Gen X rules.
There will always be outliers. PS I love everybody's tweets left, right, independent. gives a large scope of things to pass my down time at work. Plus all the work is done for me, a very gen X trait.
Historical Consistency of Natural Disasters: Hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters have been part of the Earth's climate system for millennia. There is no conclusive evidence showing that these disasters are occurring with unprecedented frequency or intensity solely due to human activity. Some argue that the apparent increase in natural disasters may be attributed to improved detection technologies, higher media coverage, and growing urbanization, which places more people and property in the path of these natural events. Selective Data Usage: Proponents of climate change often highlight the most extreme weather events and frame them as evidence of a changing climate. However, critics argue that this represents cherry-picking data, as there are plenty of historical instances of equally extreme weather events long before carbon emissions became a significant concern. In this view, the narrative of climate change is driven by selective reporting rather than a genuine crisis. Financial Incentives: Many argue that the “climate change” agenda provides a convenient cover for various industries, including insurance, to justify higher premiums. Insurance companies are profit-driven entities, and by citing climate change as an uncontrollable factor, they can push up rates without facing significant backlash. It offers a justification to increase premiums under the guise of covering “climate-related risks,” even though these risks have existed for centuries. Questionable Forecasting Models: Climate models are notoriously complex and prone to significant variation. Skeptics point out that these models often fail to accurately predict future climate conditions and tend to overstate potential risks. The reliance on these models to forecast extreme events, which may never materialize, enables insurers and other sectors to preemptively raise prices, benefiting financially from the fear surrounding possible worst-case scenarios. Regulatory and Political Influence: Climate change policies and regulations benefit certain political and corporate interests. Insurance companies, energy sectors, and green technology companies often lobby for policies that work in their favor under the banner of “sustainability” and “resilience.” By aligning with the climate change agenda, they can secure subsidies, tax breaks, and increased profits—all while pointing to environmental concerns as the rationale. Market Manipulation and Green Investments: Some critics argue that the rise in home insurance rates is tied to a broader financial strategy centered on "green" investments and carbon markets. These markets create opportunities for financial gain that are heavily reliant on the perception that the planet is at risk. Insurance companies may be exploiting the fear of climate change to increase rates and funnel funds into these green markets, from which they can profit through government incentives and environmental credits. Lack of Consensus: While the mainstream narrative suggests there is near-universal agreement on human-caused climate change, skeptics highlight that there is still a minority of scientists and experts who question the extent of human influence on the climate. They argue that natural cycles, such as solar activity, ocean currents, and volcanic activity, are more significant drivers of climate variations, but these factors are often downplayed or ignored in the broader discourse on climate change.
That’s all good. I personally prefer the way it was here in the past. More articles/text. With people having discussions (and yes arguing)
I will write a harshly worded letter to each of Musk, and Zuckerberg and let them know they are ruining our Clutch fans experience. That should fix that.
I could do w/o the name calling. there'd be fewer people on the list. also, the bad faith arguments that begin with some variation of "so, you're saying..."
Also, the "get help" posts from people who cannot cope with people having different viewpoints. Also, the "you are Hitler/Goebbels/you are a fascist" etc. posts from the same people who cannot cope with people having opinions different from their own.
Or the "you're low IQ!!!" from people that continue to make the absolute worst predictions and have been consistently wrong about almost everything this election. then they wonder why they get hostility back.
Not surprising given how much misinformation they’ve been fed. Misinformation that even a Republican governors like Ron DeSantis said to be wary of.
