Climate Change Alarmism

[Virtual ghost]

I didnt mean on climate so much as I did on their own topics, racists think there is a race based crisis all the time, effecting them and those like them, capitalists think that their money is threatened, all the time, people never question those alarmist positions but they question bizarre weather being anything to do with the climate collapsing. It is considered, wrongly, to be alarmism.

Like CeeCee said I also think there is plenty of various alarmisms around political landscape. Some are more visible same are less. However they are all coming from the fact that modern western politics is reduced mostly to activism and tribalism. What is obviously bad. However that is almost inevitable consequence of the collapse in education standards and digitalization. Which allows you to remove everything around you that doesn't fit your worldview.

 

[ceecee]

I don't even think these people are really conservatives. I think conservative has become a code word/dog whistle for people who support fascist statism. All of the old political labels have become so meaningless in American politics, mostly being used to describe completely different philosophies than they originally referred to. In some instances used to describe the exact opposites of what the words actually mean or used to mean. We're in bizarro world in the USA, where words just describe whatever we want.

They aren't conservatives if you go by the definition of conservatism, I very much agree. But this is how they identify themselves. Do they also support - radical nationalism carrying a promise of national rebirth; blame liberalism, socialism, and materialism for the decadence they perceived in society and culture, and express an appreciation for violence and the role of leadership and willpower in shaping society? Many do.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Real capitalism hasn't been tried before.

Prove it

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Like CeeCee said I also think there is plenty of various alarmisms around political landscape. Some are more visible same are less. However they are all coming from the fact that modern western politics is reduced mostly to activism and tribalism. What is obviously bad. However that is almost inevitable consequence of the collapse in education standards and digitalization. Which allows you to remove everything around you that doesn't fit your worldview.

Interesting point. so would you say technology has led people to self-impose a sort of Orwellian control on their own ability to think critically?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Interesting point. so would you say technology has led people to self-impose a sort of Orwellian control on their own ability to think critically?

Yes, although a good chunk of the equation was just playing along with "modern standard". Where social networks and everything related to them have completely clouded the society. As I said I went through some books/texts about the dangers of the internet and what was said there sounds pretty spot on when you observe what is going on out in the field. The environment where you can filer out everything you don't like with a single click is destined to create plenty of closed minded people. Especially if education system teaches people that only one thing can be correct at the time.

 

[Lark]

Real capitalism hasn't been tried before.

Do tell.

Points if you can do it without reference to globalists, jews or jew bankers.

 

[Lark]

Like CeeCee said I also think there is plenty of various alarmisms around political landscape. Some are more visible same are less. However they are all coming from the fact that modern western politics is reduced mostly to activism and tribalism. What is obviously bad. However that is almost inevitable consequence of the collapse in education standards and digitalization. Which allows you to remove everything around you that doesn't fit your worldview.

Yes, I think that too, my point when I originally posted why were things like climate change branded alarmism and the other obvious alarmism not recognised as such was supposed to indicate that.

 

[Lark]

Prove it

Yeah, I think this is an exercise in never, never land utopianism, of the sort that used to be a big feature of the sixties protest movement "new left", I see this kind of thing all the time emerging under different "colours" or flags of convenience, its always the same thing though. The same character traits channelled the same way.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Yes, although a good chunk of the equation was just playing along with "modern standard". Where social networks and everything related to them have completely clouded the society. As I said I went through some books/texts about the dangers of the internet and what was said there sounds pretty spot on when you observe what is going on out in the field. The environment where you can filer out everything you don't like with a single click is destined to create plenty of closed minded people. Especially if education system teaches people that only one thing can be correct at the time.

Interesting. So we're living in a hybrid of Huxley's and Orwell's visions of dystopia, at least in the US.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Yeah, I think this is an exercise in never, never land utopianism, of the sort that used to be a big feature of the sixties protest movement "new left", I see this kind of thing all the time emerging under different "colours" or flags of convenience, its always the same thing though. The same character traits channelled the same way.

at least when people say there's never been a true communist society, there's some truth there. Of course they'll bring up the USSR and China to counter this claim, but those were never communist to begin with. I'd argue both were still much closer to the capitalist model than anything else. State controlled capitalism, maybe, but still capitalist.

Closest thing I've really found to a communist society in history is the Pirate colony of Libertatia, but that's more legend than real history.

 

[Maou]

Do tell.

Points if you can do it without reference to globalists, jews or jew bankers.

You don't get the joke, do you.

 

[Vendrah]

However there is the catch, we are suddenly digging and burning all the carbon that was in the ground for hundreds of millions of years. What is clearly unprecedented since there was never a force on the planet that was so good at this. However since we are dumping all of this "new" carbon into the system basically at once in the terms of geological time we are fundamentally remaking the climate system, without having second thought about this "experiment". Since this isn't evolution of the system but systematic shock. What is because the system was always slowly working with what it got. However we are pumping out the new stuff from the ground and releasing it into the air 24/7. What is evidently fundamental game changer that simply can't pass as "business as usual". This is why there is the element of apocalypse in the whole story. Since this is systematic shock and that means that linear thinking focused on continuity and history will not present the realistic picture of the problem.

I know that this process is really fast when compared to the earth's life, since considering that earth has an estimate age of <googling> 4.54 billion years, 100-300 years is something like a blink of an eye, but 100-300 years is multiple lifetimes for us. So this shock you mention that is indeed already going on, is like a terrible lightning strike for earth time, yet for us is a something that is very slow. Increase points to that in terms of adaptation: Since it is slow for us, we kind of getting used to. Like getting used to cities flooding on the news because that is common, or another news about somewhere losing ice, or the slightly hotter or perhaps longer summers.

Our generation is suffering it, but it is only quite mild. This is just the beginning, but it is something slow. So I agree that we suffer it, but I think that even back them people might had overestimated the speed of the phenom, also a lot of the advises and mention of catastrophe where made supposing that the overall trend of the increasing of "pollution" (or, to be more precise, the overall trend of the increase of the increase of "pollution", meaning that the rise of pollution was accelerating) would be kept, but that didnt happen.

However the result of this lack of awareness and denial because it isnt going to be as suddenly as it appeared to be in the movies, but will be disastrous anyway. In the end, I agree with you almost entirely. What do you think more "normal" people like you and me, powerless to change the big politics on these stuff, should do? I already know a thing or two about it but Im curious about what you have to say about that.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I know that this process is really fast when compared to the earth's life, since considering that earth has an estimate age of <googling> 4.54 billion years, 100-300 years is something like a blink of an eye, but 100-300 years is multiple lifetimes for us. So this shock you mention that is indeed already going on, is like a terrible lightning strike for earth time, yet for us is a something that is very slow to us. Increase points to that in terms of adaptation: Since it is slow for us, we kind of getting used to. Like getting used to cities flooding on the news because that is common, or another news about somewhere losing ice, or the slightly hotter or perhaps longer summers.

Our generation is suffering it, but it is only quite mild. This is just the beginning, but it is something slow. So I agree that we suffer it, but I think that even back them people might had overestimate the speed of the phenom, also a lot of the advises and mention of catastrophe where made supposing that the overall trend of the increasing of "pollution" (or, to be more precise, the overall trend of the increase of the increase of "pollution", meaning that the rise of pollution is accelerating) would be kept, but that didnt happen.

However, the result of this lack of awareness and denial because it isnt going to be as suddenly as it appeared to be in the movies, will be disastrous anyway. But & and, in the end, I agree with you almost entirely. What do you think more "normal" people like you and me, powerless to change the big politics on these stuff, should do? I already know a thing or two about it but Im curious about what you have to say about that.

That is 500+ Trillion dollar question for which I am not fully qualified to answer. But ok, I will try.


1. Make sure the topic exists in your social environment and if possible in the most down to earth fashion. Food, economy, energy, infrastructure, etc.. Research how exactly these stand in your local environment since not every country or region has the same cards in this issue.

2. Recycle as much as possible and if possible make sure this becomes option in your local level.

3. Stand for genuine democracy when possible since authoritarianism and interest groups tend to remove this issue from public debates of they simply ignore the issue.

4. Read genuine book(s) on the issue since you will more easily recognize false and none fact based claims on the topic. Try to avoid studding the issue from MSM.

5. If you have some seeds plant them in order to reforest certain areas. Since bio mass is good storage for the extra carbon we are releasing from the ground. Plus if you are doing this it is better that you plant something practical such as fruit. That will proved for the locals and reduce the need to transport food around.

6. Buy local products since that reduces pollution from transportation. Reduce meat consumption if you are eating plenty of it. Since feeding cattle requires plenty of resources and space.

7. Buy products that are more energy efficient when possible.

8. Avoid plastics that are for "single" use.

Etc.



I am not going to lie, this isn't easy path to take if you are serious about having impact. Since in order to have the impact you need to wrestle with plenty of the world's problems.

 

[anticlimatic]

I wonder why its always left or pseudo-left campaigns that are alarmist? Are they susceptible to alarm? Why is there never a "racist" alarmism or capitalist alarmism?

There's plenty of capitalist alarm.

 

[Tellenbach]

Mr. Shellenberger was a guest on the Dennis Prager show this morning. This guy was Time Magazine's "Hero of the Environment" Green Book Award winner.

He explained why he supports nuclear power rather than "renewables". He claims that renewables require a much bigger footprint to produce the same amount of energy and that it would require 50% of the USA landmass to produce today's energy using renewables. By contrast, nuclear power is very energy dense so it'd require a much smaller footprint. He also says that the industrial revolution would not have been possible without fossil fuels. It was impossible to sustain by burning wood (a renewable energy source).

He's still a nut, because he still thinks climate change is a bad thing, but he's more honest than most nuts on the other side.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Mr. Shellenberger was a guest on the Dennis Prager show this morning. This guy was Time Magazine's "Hero of the Environment" Green Book Award winner.

He explained why he supports nuclear power rather than "renewables". He claims that renewables require a much bigger footprint to produce the same amount of energy and that it would require 50% of the USA landmass to produce today's energy using renewables. By contrast, nuclear power is very energy dense so it'd require a much smaller footprint. He also says that the industrial revolution would not have been possible without fossil fuels. It was impossible to sustain by burning wood (a renewable energy source).

He's still a nut, because he still thinks climate change is a bad thing, but he's more honest than most nuts on the other side.

Thanks for demonstrating that your bringing up nuclear power is a red herring.

 

[Tellenbach]

If you say you're against carbon emissions and you're against nuclear power, then you're not really serious about global warming/climate change. 100% of atomic scientists support the use of more nuclear power; it's the cleanest form of energy and it doesn't kill 60 million birds/bats per year like renewable wind/solar.

I would think that animal lovers would oppose wind power.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If you say you're against carbon emissions and you're against nuclear power, then you're not really serious about global warming/climate change. 100% of atomic scientists support the use of more nuclear power; it's the cleanest form of energy and it doesn't kill 60 million birds/bats per year like renewable wind/solar.

I would think that animal lovers would oppose wind power.

Meh, the truth of the matter is that if everybody who believes in climate change said they supported nuclear power, that would make no difference to you, and you'd probably still be against that. You admitted as much above.

Conservatives aren't rational people, just adult babies at best.

 

[Tellenbach]

Meh, the truth of the matter is that if everybody who believes in climate change said they supported nuclear power, that would make no difference to you

Nuclear power matters. Stop killing birds with those windmills; you'd think that lefty orgs like the Sierra Club would oppose solar power plants and wind mills, but they're big hypocrites too.

Imagine if it were 60 million cats that were being chopped to bits by those ugly windmills.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Nuclear power matters. Stop killing birds with those windmills; you'd think that lefty orgs like the Sierra Club would oppose solar power plants and wind mills, but they're big hypocrites too.

Imagine if it were 60 million cats that were being chopped to bits by those ugly windmills.

It's true that all these other options have risks and issues (as does nuclear power, which you are not mentioning). The truth of the matter is that you have no interest in having an honest discussion on the matter (as with anything else) and just want to bitch about "the left" and the "Democrat party". Let me know that you're actually interested in learning more about any of this stuff, and then we can talk.