- This topic has 245 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 6 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Demeter, before I read your links…
The melting of the Arctic ice is not a computer simulation, and it is happening sooner than the IPCC’s computer models predicted. The extreme weather is not simulated either; it’s easy to have any opinion in places not so badly affected. Yet.
The 1970s predictions of an immanent ice age were media sensationalism and did not reflect the science of the time; look for systematic reviews of the scientific literature. As to my investment, how I wish I could make it go away just by not thinking about it. I don’t enjoy protest or facing arrest; quite the opposite, I loath confrontation and I’m terrified of prison.
Our planetary home is already being abused to a terrifying extent, but the only source of information about it is from the people who study such things, and that’s the appropriate scientists. Thousands of them are resorting to civil disobedience because governments have been ignoring their warnings for decades – please look up “Scientists’ Warning” and “Scientist Rebellion”. I have met some of these people; they are utterly genuine and in no way spinning a tale for the elite.
Around half of The Great Barrier Reef is already dead.
Should have mentioned I know stuff like that happens sometimes Craig but so far it refreezes too. Personally don’t see anything drastic enough to scare the horsies yet, do see so many attempts to put the fear of God, or whatever into us. Seems Earth has been much warmer in our relatively recent past, Scandinavians farmed in Greenland during the early last millennium.
Pushing 70 Clark and just seen so many things twixt heaven and earth, Horatio. You know what i mean, there’s very little I actively rule out, operate on what seems the most logical to me with current information.
The GBR is an ecosystem which could have been harmed by several issues. Don’t know if you’re aware of but it seems to be regenerating:
No disrespect, Demeter02, but it amazes me that intelligent people are willing to dismiss a large body of expertise from thousands of scientists who have dedicated their entire lives to a given subject.
Do you really think that climate scientists simply didn’t consider the items you raise in your dismissing their predictions? “Oh, it was warmer at the beginning of the millennium”, or “Climate always changes – the ice will come back” – like they never thought of that, forgot to examine records, nobody told them or they’re not interested in looking into it?
I fail to see how it even makes sense to consider it to be all just some great scam either. The super-rich are _already_ getting increasingly wealthy with the system they’ve got.
Isn’t it more likely that _they_ – the super-rich – want to poo-poo the notion of climate change, because acknowledging it would change the system that is making them such vast fortunes?
Great you’re quoting The Express there – a well known outlet for excellence in truth, scientific integrity and humanitarianism. Have you considered any journals which _aren’t_ owned by billionaires who want to advance their own interests?
Not dismissing it at all Glenn, just seems less likely to me with current information. Sadly, we’re not allowed easy access to alternative views, there are many climate scientists who don’t believe “the science”.
Oh bless, i share your disgust for the Express too Glenn, it was just the first link when i searched. This site might be preferable to you, definitely worth perusing:
Wikispooks offers info on and links to alternative views too:
Thanks Demeter02.
Which credible climate scientists were you thinking of? Perhaps there are a few, but considering they make up such a tiny proportion, is it really wise to accept their views? Forgive me, but it is entirely dismissive to not accept a solid consensus, and we should have very powerful reasons – and evidence – to make the case that they are all wrong, or lying.
Far from not being allowed access, such ‘contrary’ views are all over media and the ‘youtubes’, ‘facebooks’ and so on. Climate deniers have an enormous platform. They have been heavily promoted by right wing institutions and publications. Just like the anti-vaxxers and covid deniers. They are denied publication in scientific journals, though, because they are peddling pseudoscience. If they were presenting observations and theories which proved verifiable, they would be gaining awards, not silenced.
I understand you’re strongly invested in your beliefs Glenn and really don’t want to upset you. However, “the science” on climate change is far from settled, just alternative views aren’t offered by the mainstream.
Know you’re smart too and probably wouldn’t hesitate to conduct your own research on many mainstream views, climate change is one of the things it’s worth checking out other info on.
Demeter02 – I do appreciate your consideration, but actually I’m not personally invested in being proved right about this utter calamity which is climate change. On the contrary, nothing (or very little, anyway) could make me happier than to learn that I’d got it all wrong, had been totally hoodwinked, and in fact we have a positive, hopeful future.
But since I first learned of global warming in the mid 1980s, and noted the effect of CO2 together with its rising concentration, nothing that I have come across in decades of my attention to this subject has allowed me to feel any of the relief I would so like to have.
Of course, I could “do my own research”, as you suggest. I could commission the drilling of ice core samples from the Antarctic, to see what CO2 levels have been like for the past million years or so. I could set up institutions to fund scientists who actually know about this stuff to look into it. I could take measurements of temperatures throughout the planet over many decades, correlate them with CO2 levels since the industrial revolution, and see whether they are related. Perhaps I could even take gas samples from nearby planets, and gauge their CO2 levels against expected temperatures, comparing them with actual temperatures, given their intake of energy from the sun – thereby getting a sense of CO2‘s effect on planetary temperature.
Is this the sort of “doing my own research” you mean? Or should I be looking at the blogs, youtubes and sites of denialists? Because the real research has been – and _is_ being – done by accredited scientists, whose work is already out there and in the open; they welcome their data being examined. I don’t have the resources to really “do my own research”, and nor does anyone else.
Forgive me, but, “Do your own research” simply means, listen to cranks and stooges from the denialist industry. You hear _exactly_ the same from the Covid denialists and anti-vaxxers. Perhaps you are with the denialists on that front too? If not, why not?
*
I appreciate the respectful discussion, and honestly hope you continue it, together with addressing the points raised here. All too often – sadly, without exception in my experience – people say they want to ‘debate’, but they don’t. Instead, they refer one to this or that, and never follow any point to its conclusion. It’s always the next thing, and the next thing. “But what about this? But what about that?”, with no reflection – less still acknowledgement – that each point might be comprehensively met.And then they go away, only to come back under another guise, with the “killer point” they now feel they have. We’ve seen this _so_ often from the anti-vaxxer/ covid denialist people. They simply will not address a rebuttal, or reflect on the fact that the Great Authority they just cited is – in fact – a total charlatan with no expertise whatsoever. Just look at the current Forum topic on vaccines for recent examples! There’s never even an admission that, OK, that person made up their entire case (eg the “Virologist” Dr. Poornima Wagh) is a complete fraud.
So it takes so much more effort to refute falsehoods than make them in the first place, which is why these denialists get such an easy ride.
Demeter, do you know what systematic reviews of the scientific literature are, and what cherry-picking is?
“You hear _exactly_ the same from the Covid denialists and anti-vaxxers”
Ah! Lightbulb moment for me Glenn, now know it’s unlikely we have that many opinions/views on the world in common.I posted a few links to resources which are a good starter, they offer links to much wider information and resources. That’s the sort of research i meant, they have already done the sort of research you mention and are indeed accredited scientists but probably don’t fulfil your criteria. That’s absolutely ok with me, still think we’d enjoy an in person discussion, text isn’t a great medium for discussions where feelings might run high and misunderstandings occur. I wish you well but know it’s best for me to stop commenting on this thread.
“Demeter, do you know what systematic reviews of the scientific literature are, and what cherry-picking is?”
I do indeed Clark, referred to such events many times in my comments, that’s exactly what i think has been the case in so much of what we’re presented with in the mainstream. Wish you both well and really don’t want to upset you, so won’t comment further on this thread. Personally fine with agreeing to disagree, i don’t seek to impose my opinions, sure there are many other things we share in common.
Demeter, before you go, please clarify something for me. I don’t understand this part of your sentence…
– “that’s exactly what i think has been the case in so much of what we’re presented with in the mainstream”
in the context of the question I asked you.
Yes, it probably is best that you conclude the conversation; there is more to respect than merely being nice and polite to people. For instance, I find it insulting that you assume I’m merely accepting what you call “the mainstream”, without judging “alternative views” by means of indisputable evidence and critical thought. I tried to make this point earlier, in my three comments of September 7 at 13:17, 13:26 and 13:38.
There is another aspect to respect. Imagine we were both stood in a crowd outside a burning building in which some of your friends and members of your family were trapped; anyone can see smoke and flames (should they care to look), and hear the screams and cries for help (should they care to listen). You turn to me and ask for help. It would be very disrespectful of me to reply by encouraging you to “research alternative views” about whether the building was really on fire, whether it had caught fire on some previous occasion, whether those were really your family inside, whether fire and smoke are really dangerous to people etc. etc., and to sympathise with your “investment” in the folly you’d “picked up from the mainstream”. It wouldn’t matter how politely I expressed this; it would still be grossly disrespectful.
So yes, it is probably best if you stop commenting; I would rather you offered your help in addressing the current crisis on Earth, but failing that I will just have to ignore you for the sake of my conscience and sanity, so that I can get on with something that might help.
Having read that, please remember that I also asked you for a clarification.
Glenn_nl, I’m a bit busy at present, but this exchange has given me some new insight which I’ll post about on my “what is conspiracy theory” thread when I get the chance. That may not be until next week; I wish to go and be a useful idiot for the elite with Extinction Rebellion over the weekend. Obviously it would do more good if were to sit at home in front of some magical computing device trying to “raise my consciousness” about alternative views, but I’m too “heavily invested” in “views” I picked up “from the mainstream” for that to sit well with my conscience.
Hmm, Demeter – you did not address a single point that I raised, all of which were directly on point to your replies.
By contrast, I don’t think I failed to address a single one of yours.
Maybe you feel this is polite conversation, but I feel it is rather dismissive, and not a little dishonest.
For instance, you didn’t really mean that I should “do my own research”, did you? You meant “Look at these other sources instead!”
One rapidly finds these “other sources” are complete junk, but that never slows down the deniers.
Never, not once, has a denialist ever followed a point to its conclusion. Never! They all just disappear, as you are doing right now. But the rather evil thing about them is that they will continue to confidently push their denialism on others _as if their case was watertight_.
Your denialism is precisely what allows governments to get away with doing nothing to address humanity’s greatest problem, while the rich get ever richer in the destruction of our environment. You must be very proud of yourself.
Think Clark and Glenn have taken advantage of my not wanting to upset them by making unacceptable statements to me. As i said previously, my aim is not to impose my opinions on others but there are alternatives we’re denied easy access to, as they challenge the mainstream narrative which disgusting, even evil, people want to make our truth. I do mean make/force, so must reply, hope this is truly my last comment.
Sorry Clark and Glenn, i WILL NOT submit to the boundaries you want to set. Nor will i spend endless hours posting comments which only scratch the surface of what i want to convey. The links i offered open doors to much greater information, which can be perused at ones’ own pace.
Posting a link now to quotes by a very wise man called Michael Parenti, who also is an ENTPs, ENTP. We’re seriously out there, a rare breed. Personally have all his books, his Inventing Reality preceded Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent collaboration by 6 years:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/21234.Michael_Parenti
Think this talk of Michael’s might interest some, he has a very informed but accessible manner. Hope it will interest some in checking out more of his stuff:
https://odysee.com/@WinstonsWorld:a/Conspiracy—Class-Power—Michael-Parenti-(1993):d
Ah, the link doesn’t work, search for Conspiracy & Class Power – Michael Parenti (1993) which is still available on Odysee and Bitchute.
Demeter, you apparently ignored my request for clarification. In fact you’ve ignored much of what you’ve been asked, by both myself and glenn_nl. I don’t find being ignored respectful.
You submit to things every day. You submit to gravity, the electromagnetic force, probably the economic system and the laws of the country you live in – though these latter two are considerably more flexible. If you wish to deny reality you merely seem, let’s say, cognitively challenged; I suppose that’s to be pitied, though my belief is that you have a choice.
What “unacceptable statements” have I made to you? I exchanged a bit of banter with glenn_nl, but it does get frustrating attempting to debate with those who refuse to accept facts.
Why on Earth accuse others of accepting the “mainstream narrative” while posting links to the Express and the New York Post? You posted a link to a coral spawning event; do you think that sex, conception and birth never happen during a genocide? Shall we cherry-pick some children born to Jews in the Holocaust and thereby claim it never happened?
Apologies for being a servant of the disgusting and evil, and congratulations on being an ENTP. You clearly are very wise and humble. Funny how you use a small i yet make such a big deal of your opinions. Nature doesn’t care about our opinions, so we’d best bring our opinions into line with nature. Or do you frequently flutter down from tall buildings by flapping your arms? Surely you don’t submit to the mainstream on that one?
Demeter is an Ancient Greek goddess of agriculture, harvest and fertility:
Some of the most depressing conversations I’ve had have been with New Age hippies. I was told, for instance, that I shouldn’t have been supporting Craig in his struggle to expose, stop and prevent torture, because by doing so I was creating torture, manifesting it, by giving it my attention. Reality forms from our consciousness, it was explained to me, so it was me helping to create the torture.
“Demeter, you apparently ignored my request for clarification”
Seriously think you want to obfuscate now Clark, posted many links for people info with open minds, your apparent need for clarification hides those comments.
I enjoy, not promote Greek legends, that’s all there is to my nick.
Once again, will promote the link to Michael Parenti quotes:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/21234.Michael_Parenti
And it’s well worth searching for Michael Parenti’s Conspiracy & Class Power – Michael Parenti (1993) talk, which is still available on Odysee and Bitchute
“I was told, for instance, that I shouldn’t have been supporting Craig in his struggle to expose, stop and prevent torture, because by doing so I was creating torture, manifesting it, by giving it my attention”
Totally understand and appreciate that Clark. You’re probably a lot younger than me and haven’t seen all the sh.t i have, really empathise with what you said there.
Might identify me too much, which i no longer am much concerned about, not only an i am an extreme ENTP but i’m highly right brained too.
As a born left hander, i learned ambidexterity was beneficial, via teachers yelling at me, throwing chalk and even blackboard brushes at me. Disagree with left/right brained supposed functions, otherwise people like me are impossible. What’s interesting is children are initially left brained, whichever hand they use, until they enter the conditioning process called school.
Still inclined to favour using my left hand but use whichever hand is most useful the vast majority of the time.
Stupid but interesting, i write from right to left with my left hand, mirror writing, unless i correct it.
