Global Warming VI

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
441

Oh no, the Climate Nazi’s are coming to call us… global warming doubters! The horrors. They’re really stepping up their rhetoric - we used to just be skeptics! Clearly they’re getting radical and violent. Not long before the trains come to take us away!

yeah he was working with that the whole time while you were over in the corner getting the striped pajamas on man. It was specifically written.

one might expect someone who was arguing so hard on the behalf of finley’s right to indirectly answer the question would have actually have read, like, the basic question and understood the discussion before inserting whatever it was that certainly isn’t a Holocaust comparisons. operative word here being might.

I’m not arguing about the yes or no answer here, that’s whatever to me. I think fin is a no, but because the data he has been presented isn’t exceptionally decisive in indicating that it’s solely GW’s fault, but he also is willing to just assume that there are other factors (which there certainly are, but whatever). Not really the point.

I literally cannot comprehend your brilliance. Enlighten us, oh wise tomatoman.

You erroneously keep putting the burden of the onus for change here on the individual climate activists who generally do try to make improvements as opposed to broader society who keep buying stupid pickup trucks and eat a steak a day. We can all agree that decreasing certain consumption is productive, and this certainly applies to cars. If someone is able and willing to go vegetarian, good on them – I try to myself 2-3 days a week.

But it’s wrong to put this onus on the individuals, as it’s the companies that actually like the loose legislation towards emissions. Can you blame the climate activist who has to drive 30 minutes to work and only lives that far away because that’s what he can afford? No. Like blaming the communist for owning a phone. Still gotta live.

And that’s also hardly the point. if he lives off the grid, he’s absolutely not really contributing anything societally (not that I want that to be the sole merit for value but it’s kinda important when discussing this issue) and has had nothing to sacrifice to live like that. He’s just a primitive, which is good and cool, but unless you’re looking to return to Monke, is essentially worthless as a point of comparison.

It’s actually just a not exceptionally well thought out, but in very long form, way of once again making fun of the people actually trying to cause a change they believe in and making lifestyle changes to that end, which for you is grounds for ridicule because they can never give up enough to actually earn your respect. Instead it’s just performative high horse virtue signaling so they can look down on the climate doubters (:rofl:) from their Starbucks latte or some such nonsense.

I don’t agree but you’d make a stellar Noir PI🤣

in fact…:thinking::thinking:

1 Like
442

But it absolutely is the point. TPTB are committed to a very specific sequence of actions, and many of them are being implemented as we speak. And they’re doing that because they claim that the one and only cause of natural disasters is “CO2”, despite no obvious basis for making that claim.

The Guardian article I posted a while back mentions shutting down fossil fuels and shutting down “destructive farming”. Now, it’s possible they’re just repeating buzzwords without really understanding what they mean - that seems to be a consistent theme in Climate Change rhetoric - but the fact is, these are definite policy goals. They are not just handwaving.

People will not want to comply, so inevitably there will be force (and social chaos) involved in making people do things that they know are harmful. Why on earth would you expect anything different? Do you really expect people to quietly accept their own immiseration?

As for those “other factors”, I’m not just “assuming” that they exist. I have direct, practical experience of how they operate. I’ve already given two or three examples. Here’s another one: the part of Elbonia where my farm, as-was, is slowly turning into a patch of weeds, was prone to “forest fires”. There have been two extremely destructive ones since I’ve been there. Everyone knows why they happen: the resident halfwits spend a lot of time drunk, and when they stagger around smoking they throw their cigarette butts in the undergrowth. At the end of the dry season, it’s likely to catch fire and blow up into a massive conflagration, because most of the land in that area is mismanaged and prone to desiccation. If it were not mismanaged, cigarette butts would not cause fires. People often threw cigarettes on my land too, but if it caught fire it never went beyond a few square feet because most of the vegetation was green right through the dry season.

When the climate change clowns come along and tell me that this sort of thing happens because the air temperature has increased by 1.2’C, I’m going to laugh in their faces, because they’re clowns. That meme that @TT posted yesterday - the dry, cracked land which we are supposed to assume is a result of “climate change” - is so fundamentally stupid that only liberal-arts graduates would fail to spot the problem with it.

Here’s the funny thing: you - in the plural - disagree with me, but you can’t explain why. I can explain my own viewpoint in mind-numbing detail. So somehow I’m just wrong in general terms, while still being demonstrably right about the specifics. Or I just don’t care enough, despite being actively involved in what (in a slightly saner world) would have been considered climate-change mitigation. The parallels with the COVID scam are really quite stunning.

4 Likes
443

There must be a reason why there’s more dry, cracked land and fires. Is land management getting worse year after year?

1 Like
444

Well, it isn’t actually “getting worse”. It’s just that the damage is cumulative, and the MSM is making a lot of noise about it. Once you cut down a rainforest, that’s it. It’s gone forever. You don’t need to cut it down again every year. Countries that have disrupted their (local) climate by deforestation and similar screwups have looked about the same for decades if not centuries.

But if there’s a broad reason for this sort of thing, it’s that humanity has access to oil, and more and more people have access to it.

Oil - ‘energy slaves’ was the term coined by Buckminster Fuller - amplifies human actions. Dunno if you’ve ever operated heavy machinery, but it’s astounding what you can get done with a chainsaw or an excavator. Never in human history have so many people had access to that sort of thing. Even dirt-poor nobodies in rainforests can easily afford a chainsaw - particularly if they’re being sponsored by rich people - and you can devastate multiple hectares with it if you don’t know what you’re doing (or if you don’t care).

I suppose if the “just stop oil” people have their way, then that will stop. But humans will still find a way to make a mess of things. Most of the ecological devastation that happened on the North American continent was done before oil. Scotland was comprehensively deforested by human labour alone.

There is no simple way out of this; I believe it could be done with a combination of education and investment incentives. But the current policy direction of the West will accelerate environmental destruction and hamper its repair. Despite what I wrote above, oil/machinery per se is not the problem. It’s perverse incentives that encourage people to use it in destructive ways. These tools could be used equally well to re-green deserts. But nobody wants to do that.

EDIT: as P007 pointed out below, most of the fires that featured in the news lately have been caused by humans setting fire to things. AFAIK even the authorities aren’t claiming otherwise.

1 Like
445

But is it?

Arson.

3 Likes
446

Not at all.

The issue is when climate activist folks go from the petrol-powered SUV to the bicycle, only to then ditch that two-wheeler for a high horse.

That can grate.

1 Like
447

Arson is on the increase? It’s a global psychological problem?

448

It seems to be that way.

449

They only seem to be able to do it successfully when everything’s dry.

1 Like
450

It’s called Summer.

451

That doesn’t explain the increased frequency of wildfires. There’s always summer.

452

But the arson does explain it.

453

Only if arson has increased.

454

5 posts were split to a new topic: OT from warming

457

Hey Finley, quit putting these emotions onto other people. COVID is NOT our favourite social movement. It is not a social movement at all. And stop taking your frustrations on your personal situation out on the people around you.

This thread is going nowhere, despite the opportunity it affords us to be amazed at the wonderful language and irrelevancies that seem to be dominating. I’ll lock it off if this continues. I did ask that it not be turned into a political shitshow, but it has, and it’s certainly getting out of the zone of Science and Nature.

1 Like
459

By “your” I meant @afterspivak in particular. Second person singular. If you want to include yourself in a collective “you”, that’s up to you. But I didn’t mention your name anywhere.

And yes, COVID was a “social movement”. It was 100% ideological/political. If you want to claim that it had something to with public health, that’s been done to death elsewhere, but we can pick it up in the appropriate thread if you like.

If what continues? It was afterspivak who initiated the willy-waving contest on personal contributions to the cause, and my point here was twofold: firstly that I have as much claim as any bicycling evangelist to be “saving the planet”, and secondly, that the present political climate is dedicated solely to making things worse. “Climate change”, in its present manifestation, is nothing more than Episode 2 of the COVID bollocks. If you think it’s in the wrong discussion category then surely the obvious solution is to move it to International Politics rather than “lock it off”?

I’ve posted at great length on the scientific issues here, and the policy impact on various real-world outcomes. With the possible exception of @cdn1234, nobody has attempted to engage in any kind of debate on those, preferring instead to just make smartarse remarks. Do you have any thoughts on that?

3 Likes
460

“A social movement is a loosely organized effort by a large group of people to achieve a particular goal, typically a social or political one . This may be to carry out a social change, or to resist or undo one. It is a type of group action and may involve individuals, organizations, or both.” Wiki.

I’d say the covid event/ bandwagon is definitely a type of social movement. “Climate change science” has loads of similarities.

I do wish this advice was the modus operandi back in late 2019, up to the present. It seems this sentence partly explains the entire pandemic response by the elite.

Plus, there’s a difference between expressing one’s frustrations, and “taking them out” on others, IMO.

"Science"cannot be removed from politics, or society. Science is undertaken by people, who live in society, and under the auspices of government (paid for by taxation of the masses) and businesses (also paid for by the money of the people). They are interdependent, interconnected and intertwined. Science is absolutely influenced by politics and society, and by social movements themselves, as are scientists. “The Science” regularly becomes an arm or tool to turn society in a certain direction, all the time. IMO, that’s one of its main activities. I believe that is also the case with the topic of global warming. The parallels with the “covid science” movement are glaring.

Are there specific guidelines for this Science and Nature topic? All I found was this:

About the Science & Nature category

(Replace this first paragraph with a brief description of your new category. This guidance will appear in the category selection area, so try to keep it below 200 characters.)

"Use the following paragraphs for a longer description, or to establish category guidelines or rules:

  • What should topics in this category generally contain?"

But at the top, it just starts with the sentence:

“I know there are a lot of climate change skeptics on here…,” “I believe …,” " I believe…" etc.

And then a link to a “World’s hottest day since 1884” article.

1884 is a long way from the “beginning of Earth’s history” and it is clearly insufficient evidence to prove global warming, as the time frame is simply far too short. By quite a long way.

2 Likes
461

Excuse me? I would remind you what appears above:

To which I responded:

Apologies if responding to this question—which I sought to do in a circumspect way—turned out to be a problem for you.

Now please excuse me.

Guy

1 Like
462

Fair comment @afterspivak! My apologies.

I’m curious why you had to answer “in a circumspect way”. Are you part of the government’s clandestine task force on climate change mitigation or something?

1 Like
463

The actual quote, in context, was:

My question was specifically directed at those that are “faddists.”

It was enlightening to see who responded to the call.

1 Like