User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: The urgency of climate change; now funnier.

  1. #21


    i never came across enough data or arguments, personally (i never looked hard), to form an opinion on whether climate change is natural or man made, but i still understand his emotions and agree with his rant on this website. anything, that is blamed for climate change, is intrinsically bad and needs to be changed NOW for so many other reasons. climate is relatively irrelevant in my view (in my "plan" of transforming this world). the way of how pluralistic society makes it tabu to reflect on certain topics, that require smart judgement, has, in it self, the potential to destroy civilization (indirectly, "to let it happen") in many other ways/contexts as well. and emotions are totally justified. you are supposed to care about the world, emotionally, if you are a non-dissociated world-centric liveform of any species (including thinking types).

  2. #22


    i always felt, that it might be dangerous for the world's progress, to focus so much on the question of climate change, given how hard it is, to lay out a convincing case for the 'urgency' version of the story. people love to react to 'urgency' with mental regression (shutting out as many perspectives as possible, from their vision of reality). to transfer responsibility to nature or GOD. people know, they make mistakes, when acting out of fear.

    we should also focus on how much better this world SHOULD and COULD be, if we did things in the intelligent way (which does not involve pollution). people are greedy about good stuff. and while gases might not seem as important, if you assume they don't change the climate, (they still intoxicate our bodies, though) you would quickly realize, while thinking constructively, that you can't just improve one area in live, like the one that "must be changed with the highest urgency". change is only possible, when you are willing to change the whole system.

    generally speaking, nothing good is created by a fear based culture ....

    and pre-rational emotional people have good reasons, to be afraid of fear based social movements. they are aware of their own potential of reacting to fear in a nazi kind of way and project this on others, who display fear.

    to be afraid of the damange, that those, who are afraid of climate-Armageddon, might do to the world, according to their suspicion, is justified.
    just like you should be afraid of a holocaust of some sort, when ever someone tries to spread the word, about how "over"-population "might be" a problem

    it is of utmost importance, that those who want to deal with a given problem, display a constructive creative mindset, building up clean technology, building up towns that encourage a family model with only two kids, not a reactive mindset, which tries to suppress all sorts of factors of our live, like breeding kids, or being mobile with gas-cars.

    some restrictions/suppressions are good and strategically necessary, but the world-LOVING and therefore creative/constructive mindset needs to be communicated.

    i am not too familiar with al gore, but i have come across information that convinces me, that he is a comparably creative and constructive loving mind.

    you don't have to know anything about the external world, don't have to prove anything, to choose a constructive creative approach over a reactive fear driven conservative approach. the former is intrinsically more pleasant. and people are naturally suspicious about anything that is said about the external world. neuroscientists tell you why. we don't know the external world. and arriving there using reason, while possible, is limited to your personal reason and immediate environment. to trust in the reason of others (scientists) could not possibly be an equally direct route, and is obviously a more unsafe bet. but you have immediate knowledge about your internal state, you judgement on what is alive, loving, constructive and what is conditioned, reactive, fear driven, sickening and boring, this judgment is something we rely upon naturally, unless society has conditioned us violently to not rely on this. but it's still our most powerful potential. when ever revolutions happened, transformations of society, changes of the whole system, it's been because people have gotten in touch with this kind of internal judgement.

  3. #23


    >This is how stupid it is to think global warming isn't manmade. You've gone to 20 doctors and only one says it's nothing, and you believe the one.

    given how doctors are instructed by the same paradigm (corrupt pharma), and usually motivated by another less than rational paradigm (earning much money in an archetypal conformist role) it would not necessarily be stupid to disbelieve 19 of them, and to believe the one who thinks like you do. you can argue about science as much as you want, but the science of other people is a religion to you, because the individual has no other access to scientific research, other than believing in the left half of his brain (a bunch of weak ass symbolic delusions) and what ever he reads with it, or hears. just like with the bible.

    to give a realistic example, most doctors are deluded (misinformed) about diseases related to nutrition, which are, incidentally, most diseases.

    you know holistically (internally with all your being), when you are DOING science, that you are doing something that is more reliable, than say guessing, or listening to authorities, like "scientists". it's internally a more brilliant deed, it has higher live energy, to DO science (or rationality in general).

    when you listen to scientists, you are not DOING science, and you are relying on believe. a projection. while you can rationally evaluate their reason (you DO rationality), you can never check the data (oops, not rational). you sympathize with the method, and therefore buy intro the result. this is like sympathizing with the brilliance of nature, and therefore believing, that earth can take care of itself, no matter what we do to it. BUT, when you know holistically, that you are DOING science, then you also know holistically, that you are being natural / doing NATURE and that therefore you are (relatively more) brilliant.

    AND when you invent a new "sustainable" earth, you are DOING science. personally. then, if others, like your doctor, arrive at the same VISION, you can tell that they have been DOING the same thing, most likely, that is. but this is not part of your reasoning. your mind is standing on it self, it is self confident.

  4. #24


    i want to add, that i do the same thing. i have to. i check sources, sympathize with their method/philosophy, believe in their conclusions (to some degree), without having access to the same data. we have to do this. i don't say it's wrong, when i say, it is like religion. and i didn't say religion is wrong. it is just not the best tool we have. but we need to use all tools. consider all perspectives. but also distinguish between them carefully. rank them. integrally, internally. based on their richness, their mental complexity, the luminosity of their nature. and in this case: realizable, that we can't expect everyone to arrive at the same results, using this rather sympathy based approach. it's partial, prone to fragmentation, mentally. lot's of random factors.

  5. #25
    Nips away your dignity Array Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    9 sp/sx


    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Idealist View Post
    Huh, I wasn't aware that Al Gore was so dishonest; I also watched the documentary, but I never noticed any propaganda at all. But if Al Gore is exaggerating the truth simply for his own ends, then I suppose maybe its better that people don't place too much faith in him (although people should still take an active role in the environment).
    It isn't, and never will be, a bad thing to take an active role in the environment. But much of what is being told to the public is false or incomplete information. There isn't anything to suggest how much of an impact our own contribution of CO2 will have on the planet itself, not to mention that the planet is in a natural warming process, still coming out of the last ice age.

    Coral reefs are of slight concern, being extremely fragile eco systems. However, I doubt that we can save them at all. The oldest coral reef on the planet is no older than 10.000 years old, it seems coral reefs just die and grow again in other places naturally. Thinking that our contribution to global warming killed them off is probably not entirely correct. It may have contributed, but the coral reefs had an expiration date to begin with. What killed most of the reefs and other sealife is overfishing and tourism, not CO2.

    Still, we have the power to creat artificial coral reefs. (sinking stuff really helps).

  6. #26
    He pronks, too! Array Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    One sx/sp


    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    There isn't anything to suggest how much of an impact our own contribution of CO2 will have on the planet itself, not to mention that the planet is in a natural warming process, still coming out of the last ice age.
    So, do you read what climatologists have to say about this?
    Go to sleep, iguana.

    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #27
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    Whats the matter with profit? The market sees a new way to make money and they are doing it. Do you not like capitalism? What are you some kind of commie?
    It's not capitalism when the demand for a particular corporation's services are legislated by the government.

    I love the logic that because somone is making money off of it it cant be true.
    You can love it until the cows come home, but I made no such claim.

    And all of it has to do with CO2 levels rising, and no, there isnt some natural cycle or whatever bullshit denialists like to spew about that can explain that. The best explaination for the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere IS ALL THE FUCKING CO2 WE ARE DUMPING IN IT.
    Big f'n deal. Unless they can provide credible evidence that the sky will fall because of it, it does not make sense to prioritize dubious C02 control projects above all other activities. This includes other pro-environment projects.

    Even if Global Warming isnt real(which it is) the goals of the environmental movement will have positive effects.
    Some are, some aren't. Carbon trading involving only half of the world's major polluters will only enrich the other half without accomplishing anything.

    Every activity needs to be evaluated by merit. Inventing a dubious emergency to justify the suspension of due vigilance is clever marketing.

Similar Threads

  1. The (U.S) National Academies Videos and Reports on Energy and Climate Change
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2012, 10:35 PM
  2. Climate change wont kill all the plants
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-28-2011, 02:59 PM
  3. Poll on Ideology and Climate change
    By Blackmail! in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 03-06-2010, 07:23 AM
  4. Everything is funnier at 3 a.m.
    By JonJT in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-10-2009, 04:41 PM
  5. Fat people causing climate change
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 05:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts