From where I'm sitting you're both wrong:

i. Humanity, along with other life, is the point.
ii. Wanting the climate crisis treated with the seriousness it deserves is not a form of fascism.
iii. Very few of us receive money from Charles Koch, so we're able to maintain a sense of proportion.
iv. Is there any evidence at all that this sticker is genuine?

Ian Too Humanity is the point - one that ER would like to eliminate. Climate Change deserves little respect as it has been ginned up from the beginning. Why have NASA and NOAA and the Hadley Center had to tamper with data? Why did Michael Mann? Why were scientists trying to subvert peer review and bully journal editors into keeping research that did not support AGW theory out of print? The Global Warming types receive far, far more money from governments, from the U.N., and from industries than do the skeptics. Even Exxon Mobile donates money to them. You mention Charles Koch, but how about George Soros? How about Michael Bloomberg? Tom Steyer? Bill Gates? I think you are the one who is wrong.

Timothy Birdnow

Seriously, you have to have holed yourself up in some sort of feedback hell to consider that a reasonable proposition. Anything but listen to the other side, eh?

Then, sans evidence, you slander NASA, NOAA, the Hadley Centre, Michael Mann and then hilariously, 'scientists'.

This Timothy, is when you need to go into the bathroom, gaze long into the mirror and ask yourself: 'Am I a conspiracy nut?'

I'm not just pissing with you here, I'm serious. When you've got to the point where you've basically lumped all climate scientists into a conspiracy, what you're doing is righting off the critical faculties of literally thousands of people smarter by orders of magnitude than you and me combined. People unlike us, who are speaking within their field of expertise. If that isn't setting off alarms in your head, then you need to call an engineer.

You see, what's happening is that 'scientists', especially those within the field, have reached a consensus and rather than accept that, cognitive dissonance has driven you into the wilds of conspiracy theory echo-chambers where they have the gall to call themselves sceptics.

I have to declare skin in this game now: I have been a member of the Skeptic's (Note the spelling) movement since the mid nineties, when I discovered The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Since then I've done what I can against 'psychics' who use Cold Reading to bilk grieving people out of money and stood against quacks, who sell people bleach to drink to cure their ills and by such actions we have given the word skeptic its standing. I was describing myself as a skeptic long before it became fashionable and I'm not very happy that people who deny the climate crisis are co-opting it. And this is where I bring this back on point:

When you're dealing with a conspiracy, you have to be able to answer another pesky little question: What do they stand to gain?

The person who sells diluted bleach as medicine does it for money. The ghoulish medium uses a parlour trick for money. These individuals bring no real benefit to anyone but themselves. If only they were harmless.

Charles Koch and his late brother did and do what they do for money. Koch is an oil billionaire, he stands to lose massively if people stop burning oil. It's in his interests to cast doubt on the science and he may be clever, but he's not picky about how he does it. He doesn't shy away from calling people's competence or integrity into doubt by inflating the slightest sliver of doubt into a whole ship of conspiracy foolishness. Look what they did to Phil Jones. Despicable.

Finally, you compare people like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and Bill Gates with Koch. I'm not in the business of defending billionaires, but I ask: What do these people stand to gain from their stance? Make your case.

In the case of Bill Gates, we're talking about someone who, with his wife Melinda, is actually giving away a lot of their fortune to among other things, eradicate polio. Are you sure you want to slander them?

This is where I stop. You've got an appointment with a mirror.

Ian Too, you truly amaze me. First, what is Extinction Rebellion? It is a radical organization whose purpose is to reduce industrial civilization. To do that it is necessary to radically reduce the population. That is in itself anti-humanist. And what do you people want to do? You don't seem to realize that people are going to die - lots of them - as a result of your insane policies. People are going to get sick from lack of energy to heat homes. Cold weather kills. https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf The drop in food production will lead the poor to starve. But you don't care; you would rather cower from fear of the possibility of a degree or two warmer weather. And your group is not radical? Co-founder Roger Hallum called the Jewish Holocaust "just another fuckery” and that doesn't bespeak a radical? He also said at an Amnesty International conference that he wants to "bring down governments" and "some may die in the process". Not radical? Pro-human? #ExtinctionRebellion-Gründer Roger Hallam: »We’re going to force the governments to act. And if they don’t, we will bring them down and create a democracy fit for purpose. And yes, some may die in the process.« pic.twitter.com/z8FjFlEIFq — Rüpelhorst™ (@Ruebenhorst) October 8, 2019 Tell me, where is the damned missing heat? The planet HASN'T WARMED since the '90's. Nobody has found the missing heat. Why hasn't the rate of sea level rise increased? It's been rising pretty much at the same rate since the end of the Little Ice Age. Why has Antarctica ice mass remained pretty much stable? Here are four links with stories about data manipulation. https://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/ https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2017/02/19/noaa-caught-manipulating-temperature-data-again/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/ https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/ NASA and NOAA have both been caught - repeatedly - downgrading planetary temperatures in the past to make it appear the planet is warming. Why, if the "science is settled"? And what of the "climategate" e-mails? Top climate modelers were caught red-handed strategizing how to fake data, manipulate peer review, bully journal editors, blacklist uncooperative scientists, etc. This included top people - Kevin Ternbreath, Phil Jones, Michael "Nature Trick" Mann, etc. Why do this if the "science is settled"? In fact it's not. There are hundreds of top scientists who have expressed disagreement with the radical version of the theory. People like William Happer, or Judith Curry, or Dr. Spencer. See this list. https://electroverse.net/the-list-scientists-who-publicly-disagree-with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/ For that matter, read the Oregon Petition for a much longer list of scientists who disagree with the alarmist view being promoted. Even Roger Revelle did not think this was going to be catastrophic but rather simply a modest 2 degrees C. warming. The fact is there are a lot of young scientists who think this is hockum but are afraid for their careers. Google Joanna Simpson; she said she feared for her job and only expressed her reservations about the theory after she retired from NASA. Your "concensus" is based on what? The work of John Cook - a cognitive professor and radical environmentalist who runs the alarmist website Skeptical Science and who claims his study of a few papers "proves" there is no longer any debate - and Naomi Oreskes, a Communications professor who simply looked at paper abstracts and said there was no obvious denial of AGW theory. Both were active environmentalists working out of their fields. Cook looked at a little over a thousand papers - out of tens of thousands. And you don't think he cherry-picked? But none of that seems to interest you. Governments all are behind this because it allows them to tax more, to enlarge their regulatory authority, and to control people. And the U.N. REALLY loves this because they can promote world government and socialism. Big corporations like it too because an artificially suppressed economy means they are the only game in town. So vast sums of money go into promoting this. And people like Soros have plenty to gain, chum. Soros managed to stop the Keystone XL oil pipeline, for example, during the Obama Administration on the basis of climate change. Well, he just so happened to own considerable stock in Petrobras, the Brazillian oil company. Warren Buffet was on board with this too and he owns the railroad that was shipping the oil. Nice. Don't you think these liberal billionaires have investments? Bill Gates is up to his eyeballs in "green energy" investments and wants to make money selling this unneeded and idiotic snake oil. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/26/gates-to-invest-2bn-in-breakthrough-renewable-energy-projects Friend, you have fallen for a con. These people are laughing all the way to the bank at your expense. I would argue you are a gullible person seeking the thrill of fear of doom. Like people in the old days who thought the Apocalypse was nigh, you are eating up the thrilling fear of a pseudo-doomsday. It really is a fake form of the Chrisitian Apocalypse, a neo-pagan form. You guys have eschewed Christianity and now worship a nature god. Whatever your motivation you seem to be willing to childishly believe whatever someone who tells you he is an authority says. I don't agree with your assessment that we mere mortals must stay out of the way of these intellectual titans. They are often wrong. They were wrong about Alar, about dioxin, about global cooling, about nuclear winter. They were wrong about eugenics. (I rather suspect Extinction Rebellion has a touch of eugenics believers in it and want to purify the human race of the degenerate bloodlines.) They were wrong about ozone depletion. They were wrong about so many things, but you meekly want to believe what some with an agenda tell you. God gave you a brain for a reason - try using it yourself. Quit letting others do the work of thinking for you.If you are a skeptic then act like one. You've bought a major bill of goods. That the climate changes is a given. That human activity plays a minor role is also a given. Roger Pielke Sr. thinks the primary source of human induced warming is from land use changes - deforestation for example. He would agree carbon dioxide plays a small role. It undoubtedly does. But it is not bringing about doomsday. If co2 were the primary driver of warming Mars would be a HELL of a lot warmer than it is - it's atmosphere is 95% cp2. But Mars is bitterly cold, so cold much of the atmosphere is frozen out. Why do you suppose that is? Try doing some real research and do less marching and protesting.

Posted by: onenaturalpearl at May 20, 2023 10:08 AM (7T528)

Posted by: Courtney Rhodes at November 22, 2023 03:55 AM (2ayi7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment