Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

A

Aliceinunderland

You obviously did not watch, "Why Big Oil Conquered the World" Or any of the other information I have presented.
You're right I haven't listened to/read all your links. But I listened to some of 'Why Big Oil conquered the World', and it churned my gut with frustrated impotence, as I knew it would. I know about this stuff, and it makes me sick with fury (thanks tho, it is really interesting, beautifully made and I'll be buying the dvd. Can I recommend you watch 'Capital in the 21st Century' directed by Justin Pemberton)

I think there is an assumption that because I support the environmental ideology currently enjoying widespread popularity amongst 'the masses' that I must approve of the direction and methods by which this urgent concern is presented and carried out. I have always said (perhaps you didn't see?) I think it is naive to think that by shaking our finger hard enough, we will influence the Oiligarchs and their political allies. But the power in mass-movement is threatening to them because we have the numbers. This is possibly why they've been practising how to eliminate large numbers of us and keep us from breeding.
I will be buying land next year, I will have to pay rates but it will be mine. I will be passing to my kids, and they will own it.
It will be outside of a town or city, in what would be an exclusion zone.
There will be no cameras watching me.
All I can say is 'lucky you' that you are in a country with still some hope of purchase, that you are a (young?) man with family around you to motivate your altruistic principles. Will you also be getting a gun? (for target practice on the drones). People who have been dutifully paying their mortgages can still be thrown off land they've lived on for generations. The bank foreclosures during the 80/90's across America are still possible for eg., and there was no 'mass-movement' of people to rally and prevent that. Fair use and long-term ownership of a collective nature should be the conditions of entitlement, not just being able to buy in to the banking system of individual ownership.

I don't know what you are talking about with all due respect.
The indigenous have a concept of ownership that is collective. For eg 200 people of a Maori 'tribe' they call 'Iwi' can own a piece of land and decisions made include having a say and vote. They know how to share. I think modern urban humans, whether living in human habitations or able to buy 'more space' around them should try it.

I don't fully understand why you posted a link denouncing Ocasio-Cortez and Robert Hockett's proposition to 'change the entire economic structure' (and which the commentator found so 'alarming'..) Dismantle the Oiligarchs in other words. Is that a problem for you? David, Sam? Are you similarly planning on buying a bit of mountain somewhere, and 'digging in'? How does this save the rest of us who don't have that option?
Be careful it's not another form of 'survival of the fittest, richest, cleverest, selfish etc.'
 
A

Aliceinunderland

I do agree with the collaboration between us bit. That was how it was overturned in the Alaskan town. But only if you know what it truly means can people be motivated.
Great! Imo people do know what is going on and can get motivated when it affects them. Individual success stories are encouraging, but whether there was no legal precedent at the time or an 'unknown' contingent that affects these outcomes is relevant if the Alaskan town result becomes a real threat to them. Laws can change, they have the military and police, limiting information etc. People are motivated, right now, to save the planet. Bu it is going through the usual channels, protest and calling for legislation change for eg, and hoping to succeed that defeats me.
 
Can I recommend you watch 'Capital in the 21st Century' directed by Justin Pemberton
Will do, thanks.

we will influence the Oligarchs and their political allies. But the power in mass-movement is threatening to them because we have the numbers. This is possibly why they've been practicing how to eliminate large numbers of us and keep us from breeding.
This is why I was suggesting watching the documentary. It is the Oil oligarchs that are responsible for the climate change agenda. It is The Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission, the Rockefellers , The Rothschilds, The IMF, The World Bank, The Bank of International Settlements and of course the UN. This is one reason why you should have doubts beyond the science. It is about more power and control. You are not threatening them you are empowering them.

All I can say is 'lucky you' that you are in a country with still some hope of purchase, that you are a (young?) man with family around you to motivate your altruistic principles. Will you also be getting a gun? (for target practice on the drones). People who have been dutifully paying their mortgages can still be thrown off land they've lived on for generations. The bank foreclosures during the 80/90's across America are still possible for eg., and there was no 'mass-movement' of people to rally and prevent that. Fair use and long-term ownership of a collective nature should be the conditions of entitlement, not just being able to buy in to the banking system of individual ownership.
I live in Australia, I'm almost 50. No won't be getting a gun. I do not believe the plan will come to fruition for a couple of reasons.

I'll be paying probably around half the cost of the land straight up, maybe even all of it straight up If I just buy land without a house, I plan on building myself. My mortgage won't be much of an overhead if I even have one.

The indigenous have a concept of ownership that is collective. For eg 200 people of a Maori 'tribe' they call 'Iwi' can own a piece of land and decisions made include having a say and vote. They know how to share. I think modern urban humans, whether living in human habitations or able to buy 'more space' around them should try it.
Yes, we have those here as well, I did look into those, it's still a remote possibility.

I don't fully understand why you posted a link denouncing Ocasio-Cortez and Robert Hockett's proposition to 'change the entire economic structure' (and which the commentator found so 'alarming'..) Dismantle the Oiligarchs in other words. Is that a problem for you?
Not sure I did. The plan has always been to transform the economy to one of energy. It is the Oligarchs plan as I mentioned. You see, for the major oil companies it has never been about oil, it has always been about energy and control. This puts the entire way you live in their control.
 
A

Aliceinunderland

Excuse me, how am I "empowering them"? I know you will say, by asking them to 'please behave better' behind Greta. I'm not and I don't, but I do sympathise with the motives.
I'll be paying probably around half the cost of the land straight up, maybe even all of it straight up If I just buy land without a house, I plan on building myself. My mortgage won't be much of an overhead if I even have one.
Again, lucky you, but that's not going to 'change the world'. It's a selected 'solution' of private ownership, something the Oiligarchs have practised for centuries, and currently 'allow' us to imitate on a small scale, conditional on huge mortgage repayments, but that too can change.
Sorry, yes, it was in David's Fox news link #1,049 with a repost of your NewAmerican link. Sorry for my confusion.
This puts the entire way you live in their control
Do you understand that it has always been in their control? Asking them to make it fairer control is naive and bound to fail. But that doesn't change the fact that people can get motivated and share the wealth, but how to topple the Oilies?

Thanks tho for alerting to this true scenario of power and deceit. Good luck on your 'solution'.

[edit:] ps my brother-in-law Frank has had a piece of land in n.queensland and been 'off-grid' for over 20 years; he's a lovely guy and full of good advice if you're interested.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excuse me, how am I "empowering them"? I know you will say, by asking them to 'please behave better' behind Greta. I'm not and I don't, but I do sympathise with the motives.
By endorsing their agenda, my apologies if this is inaccurate.

Again, lucky you, but that's not going to 'change the world'. It's a selected 'solution' of private ownership, something the Oiligarchs have practised for centuries, and currently 'allow' us to imitate on a small scale, conditional on huge mortgage repayments, but that too can change.
I am not out to change the world, only myself and the way I live. I would love to share my land with friends and family but it will be somewhat remote.

Do you understand that it has always been in their control? Asking them to make it fairer control is naive and bound to fail. But that doesn't change the fact that people can get motivated and share the wealth, but how to topple the Oilies?
Yes of course I understand. This agenda is about a centralized global control. I do not know how to topple them, except for my far reaching ideas earlier. All I can do is to live as self sufficiently as possible, which is my plan.

Thanks tho for alerting to this true scenario of power and deceit. Good luck on your 'solution'.
Thank you, I am very excited about it.
 
A

Aliceinunderland

Ha! She has been manipulated and conditioned to of course. Yeah, she is endorsing the agenda for centralized unelected governmental control over every aspect of life. A real beaut for a very few ultra rich elite.
Just to clarify..I meant I'm sure your land with hand-built home will be beaut!

As to whether Greta Thunberg has been manipulated to take the stance she has, and whether her intentions are to endorse the rich elite agenda will require a little more evidence from you beyond that assertion. It may be an 'accidental' outcome of her actions, but where do you get your info on that from?
 
As to whether Greta Thunberg has been manipulated to take the stance she has, and whether her intentions are to endorse the rich elite agenda will require a little more evidence from you beyond that assertion. It may be an 'accidental' outcome of her actions, but where do you get your info on that from?
I mean manipulated, just as any of us are by what information and influence we are exposed to. Her parentage, education, peers , culture, media etc...

It is certainly accidental on her part and not intentional. People would never accept what is proposed as the solution, that being global centralized power unless they are coerced into believing it is for the best, or the only solution. This is the Hegelian dialectic. Rulers, Kings and governments have always known this, and have always used it against the people. The public has to be motivated and rallied to take up arms against another nation for example, that is the role of propaganda.

Greta does not know it but she is doing exactly what she has been manipulated into doing.


 
Last edited:
This is what we would watch for in Intelligence, and is taught in counter-intelligence graduate schools.

A three stage 'solution', implemented through an often unseen or unappreciated agency's manipulation of a population, as is occurring in Bolivia right now. There are three steps to this.
1. Hegelian Dialectic – three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction; an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis; and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. In more simplistic terms, one can consider it thus: proposition → anti-proposition → solution.​
However, the proposition and anti-proposition become stuck in a thing called self-sublation​
2. Self-Sublation (aufheben) - Hegelian principle of a dialectic which is stuck in stasis through an idea both canceling and sustaining itself at the same time. A doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time.​
The proposition/anti-proposition tension now stuck as its own perpetual argument, this gives rise to the surreptitiously played​
3. Machiavelli Solution - a third party creates and/or exploits the self-sublation condition of a Hegelian dialectic bifurcation at play, in order to sustain a conflict between two opposing ideas or groups, and eventually exploit those two groups’ losses into its own gain in power.​
The key was to not get caught up in the self-sublation of two opposing Hegelian ideals, but rather watch for the third party (actually often a fourth party behind them) who stands to gain from the sustained conflict. You will see me avoid the self-sublation stasis in ideas like 'conservative vs liberal', 'AGW vs non-AGW', 'capitalism vs socialism', 'atheism vs theism', 'evolution vs creation', etc. - choosing instead to point out often that BOTH are wrong and are being manipulated by a third (fourth) party who stands to gain from the bifurcation.

This is not 'riding the fence' nor 'being in the middle'; as there is no fence nor middle to begin with - that is the deception. Rather it is a separate condition of suspension called epoché. Hence my website's tag line epoché vanguards gnosis.

All of these self-sublated dialects are posed in order to deceive. With theism and atheism in particular, this is why I choose the path of ignosticism for instance - I am watching for the hidden Machiavelli behind the curtain.

Finally, often there will be a fourth party, who is working behind the Machiavelli Party. That is who you either ally with, or take out...

For example, this is what fake and celebrity skeptics are doing to us today - they work to foment conflict between the public and science/scientists - in order to exploit the self-sublation into their own power and enforcement of their own religion, sol-nihilism.

However, in the case of fake skepticism - it is who benefits from the ignorance of sol-nihilism - THAT is who I watch for - The Fourth Party. ;)
 
Last edited:
3. Machiavelli Solution - a third party creates and/or exploits the self-sublation condition of a Hegelian dialectic bifurcation at play, in order to sustain a conflict between two opposing ideas or groups, and eventually exploit those two groups’ losses into its own gain in power.
That' what Authoritarian / Elitist Center always does with the Liberatrian / Populist Left and the Liberatrian / Populist Right - it constatnly tries to put them against each other with the aim to distract them, disrupt them and discredit them, and maintain its dominance indefinitely.
 
A

Aliceinunderland

It does seem as if 'the climate' needs to take second place, as in first - depose the 'rulers' and second - clean up their mess.
Hope I don't sound facetious, and apologies for stating the bleeding obvious to those who are aware.
Also thank goodness (and Alex) it is 'safe' to say these things.
 
A

Aliceinunderland

Aside from the very convincing argument that there are oligarchs dominating the world's socio-economic-political system who have no intention of losing their hold or wealth, there is a real risk of losing sight of the actual issue - the climate, which remains unresolved for me, despite, or perhaps because of, so much debate.


And I don't care if some don't like Wikipedia here, I think this is a good article.

Page
 
While we have had high temperature heat waves, we have also had record setting cold for the past few years. Some say the heatwaves out number the cold. But keep in mind the weather stations gathering this data are mostly in violation of the parameters set for them. With many in dense urban heat islands, and irregularly situated across the landmass of the globe. There is no way we can truly get an average global temperature this way. Satellite data is the most accurate.

Despite the many, many failed predictions that the arctic would be ice free over the past decade and more, and despite failed predictions of an impact on the ski industry, and claims that winters will be getting warmer, and the next generation may never see what snow is....

This has not stopped the newer claim that global warming, (yes they changed the name but the phenomena is still the same) causes extreme cold.

This basically boils down to warm air entering the arctic and disrupting the jet stream, well OK. But this is a new excuse in contrast to what was previously projected. It is ad hoc after the fact. It is in stark contrast to those older projections and talking points. If your theory predicts both the positive and negative, both ends of the scale, what does it actual predict? Well it can predict anything and nothing.

So what about the polar vortex? Can there be other possibilities. Well get a load of this, No one talked about this except a independent magnetic field observatory. At the same time the polar vortex was disrupted at the beginning of the year. The North magnetic pole split into two! And the antartic pole has now moved away from Antarctica! This is huge! And no body said a thing! Except for this one independent observatory. We are in the accelerated stage of geomagnetic reversal. The geomagnetic models where updated around this time yet again, because this was not foreseen. There may be only a couple of decades left, the end of the next Gleissberg cycle. Maybe even sooner. You'll wish we had the luxury of human influenced climate change when this goes down. The powers that should not be are well aware, they know what is looming.



A Birkeland current connects to the pole, here we may have a split in that current. Two of them. A new discovery shows that the structure of a birkeland current is made up of counter rotating shells or sheets of charge. It is far too simplistic to say warm air enters the arctic, from where? Why? There is much more going on here. Yes we are having whether extremes. Climate scientists no nothing of the electrical interactions with the Sun and the earth and the plasma atmosphere the Earth dwells in. This is where particle forcing comes in.

So alarmists, be alarmed. But it should not be about Co2!
When hot is cold, black is white and up is down.

Tony Heller refutes the theory that warm arctic air is responsible for the record breaking cold that is sweeping parts of the US as it did in the previous year as well. Warm arctic air is not unusual. To add floods in Venus have also happened on this scale before, Bush fires of large magnitude likewise have happened before, rapid oscillation of New York sea levels is apparently normal. All of this compounds the fact that we have to be careful with what has been known for a long time. Correlation does not equate to causation.

A similar wavier jet stream occurred in the seventies and it was blamed on global cooling. This also refutes my personal theory of a disruption in the magnetic field. Once again correlation is not causation. There has been a lot in the media lately about climate change being the cause of everything but they can all be refuted by simply looking to the past when it was not the go to knee jerk excuse.

 
Aside from the very convincing argument that there are oligarchs dominating the world's socio-economic-political system who have no intention of losing their hold or wealth, there is a real risk of losing sight of the actual issue - the climate, which remains unresolved for me, despite, or perhaps because of, so much debate.


And I don't care if some don't like Wikipedia here, I think this is a good article.

Page
Stephen Schneider was also an advocate of Global Cooling during the 70's.

“There is little food stored to cushion the shock of the kinds of weather problems that so suddenly and unexpectedly damaged crops in 1972, 1974 and 1975, and there is growing evidence that such damaging weather may occur more frequently in the next decade than in the last one. The most imminent and far reaching [danger] is the possibility of a food‐climate crisis that would burden the well to do countries with unprecedented hikes in food prices, but could mean famine and political instability for many parts of the nonindustrialized world.”
So writes Stephen Schneider, a young climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., reflecting the consensus of the climatological community in his new book, “The Genesis Strategy.”
It is a matter, as Schneider explains, of statistics. The last 15,000 years have been unusually warm when compared to global temperatures for the last 150,000. The last 200 years have been unusually warm when compared to the last 1,000. But there is considerable evidence that this warm period is passing and that temperatures on the whole will get colder. For example, in the last 100 years mid‐latitude air temperatures peaked at an all‐time warm point in the 1940's and‐have been cooling ever since.
https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html

Here we see another consensus of climate scientists, that time has shown to be a failure. We also see an admission that a peak of temperature in th 40's was followed by cooling into at least the late 70's all the while Co2 levels would be increasing.

Stephen Schneider was instrumental in changing the language of the science through his manipulative philosophy.

From a 1989 interview in Discover magazine.
On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
In 1996 Schneider co-chaired a conference that put his idea of being effective without being honest into operation. It was a non-IPCC conference but included all the key players involved in the IPCC corruption ,and the CRU leaked emails. In fact, the conference titled was a manifesto on how to proceed, how to end-run science and the truth in every way. The conference titled “Characterizing and Communicating Scientific Uncertainty.” I urge you to read and weep but learn what Schneider did. Here is the opening paragraph.
Uncertainty, or more generally, debate about the level of certainty required to reach a “firm” conclusion, is a perennial issue in science. The difficulties of explaining uncertainty become increasingly salient as society seeks policy prescriptions to deal with global environmental change. How can science be most useful to society when evidence is incomplete or ambiguous, the subjective judgments of experts about the likelihood of outcomes vary, and policymakers seek guidance and justification for courses of action that could cause significant societal changes? How can scientists improve their characterization of uncertainties so that areas of slight disagreement do not become equated with purely speculative concerns, and how can individual subjective judgments be aggregated into group positions? And then, how can policymakers and the public come to understand this input and apply it in deciding upon appropriate actions? In short, how can the scientific content of public policy debates be fairly and openly assessed?


This is not science, this is manipulation.

He more than any other person created and drove the biggest deception in history; intellectualized most perversely the concept of uncertainty into certainty and provided the method for converting inadequate and incorrect evidence into a form powerful enough to be the basis of world-changing philosophy and policy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04...-caused-global-warming-agw-stephen-schneider/
 
Last edited:
Incredible synchronicity (as I explored my Alert to LoneShaman's posts above).

I came here to post this article for those who still resist opening their mind to the possibility they are being scammed.

Scientists: Dishonest or Afraid?
By Walter E. Williams
November 20, 2019

"The absolute worst case of professional incompetence and dishonesty is in the area of climate science. Tony Heller has exposed some of the egregious dishonesty of mainstream environmentalists in a video he’s titled “My Gift To Climate Alarmists.” "

read here
 
A

Aliceinunderland

Stephen Schneider was instrumental in changing the language of the science through his manipulative philosophy.
It seems to me that Schneider is describing the difficulty of informing the public of complex, unpredictable global weather conditions through media channels that are both enamoured of alarmist 'paper-selling' phraseology and owned by politically-manipulative entrepreneurs. This includes referencing the inevitable misunderstanding of the meaning of words and trying to establish definitions. His honesty is in describing all aspects of this as a "double ethical-bind" (thanks for providing the entire paragraph) I don't understand the term 'end-run' but Schnieder shows a broad and 'philosophical' consideration of the difficulty of communication.

Most people here and in the general public don't really know much more than what can be found on popular info-outlets. Science-study in different areas to calculate climate behaviour takes time and leads to specialising so that a complete picture is only possible by collaboration which I don't see a lot of. I see a tendency to jump to contention and controversial positions, when we are all concerned in the climate condition, or should be. When there are agendas of intended outcome and perception the information becomes even more select and suspect, as of course there is subversion and corporate-political interference to divert or dilute the public's concerns. Why not expend your energy to counteract the manipulation at its source? Take on the real scammers, not criticise the unwitting victims of it.
Stephen Schneider was also an advocate of Global Cooling during the 70's.
It is far too simplistic to say that because there are instances of cooling that global warming is false. If you understand anything of Nature you will know that she is liable to fluctuate between these conditions in a bid to maintain equilibrium without waiting for us to deal with it. Variation is natural and the intensity and frequency in context of time is relevant. As are many other factors.

I am struggling to comprehend the origin of your concerns and where your intentions in this discussion lie. It is not sufficient for me to accept that because the Oligarchy have chosen to pretend a concern for climate change after decades of creating climate pollution and using that to endorse their self-serving, world-domination agenda, that those who are truly concerned are being "manipulated". We know all they are concerned with is maintaining their elitist status and rich comforts at the public and the planet's expense. Similarly it is distracting to to also focus on CO2 emissions as the only contentious chemical at large, we know it is not. There is also excessive concrete surface and heat produced by human activity to contribute to this global temperature imbalance.

But there's the rub, we might have to give up our 'expensive' pleasant lifestyle. Self-interest is an abiding characteristic of humans, as apparent in Schnieder's sceptical audience. They are worried about losing their incomes and familiar economic condition. Some may resort to survivalist solutions such as 'running for the hills' which of course is everyone's right, although not everyone's option. But then one has 'opted-out' and can no longer claim to be truly participants in 'the cause' which for me has always been the well-being of the Earth, her species and lastly the innocent and good of the human race. I will do nothing to jeopardise a movement that has that at heart, for then I am truly being manipulated, by fear.

Looking at your and Sam's links I see fearful emotive language by Walter Williams:

"why do scientists allow environmentalists to get away with the claim that it’s a result of man-made global warming? Why aren’t there any reporters to highlight leftist statements such as those by Edenhofer, Stewart and others who want to ride global warming as a means to defeat capitalism and usher in socialism and communism?"

and Tim Ball:

"The problem is that people like Schneider are evil geniuses."

Another example from:
GulagBound.com
The Plan, Agenda 21: The Death Knell of Liberty
February 27, 2011, 2:31 am by Jim O'Neill
"Call them Communists, Marxists, Fascists, or Globalists — call them what you will, they are collectivists who despise America’s middle class, capitalism, and free enterprise."

This is Alarmist. Let me give you some emotive language to trigger your imagination. American policies have cast some countries "back to the stone-age". Can you imagine sitting in your basement trying to calm your kids, while bombs fall around them and they don't know if they're going to die, or if you are and they will be orphaned? Have you felt the intense pain of real hunger, knowing that most people in the West are too fat? Don't you think that is a threat to the planet? All I'm hearing is that 'Environmentalism is anti-American'. That you're worried your precious comfy middle-class lifestyle is threatened. You fear your 'loss of freedom' to maintain an arrogant, selfish 'right' to a nice life. And you think Greta Thunberg is a sad little dupe?
 
A

Aliceinunderland

I came here to post this article for those who still resist opening their mind to the possibility they are being scammed.
Our society seems prone to scamming Sam, from the simple to the sophisticated. Not everyone does it, I suspect only those who have something to gain.

To say others are refusing to 'open their mind' simply because they choose to resist accepting what you accept, so wholeheartedly, is a leading evaluation; it is judgemental, and as you point the finger, don't forget the three pointing back.
 
It seems to me that Schneider is describing the difficulty of informing the public of complex, unpredictable global weather conditions through media channels that are both enamoured of alarmist 'paper-selling' phraseology and owned by politically-manipulative entrepreneurs. This includes referencing the inevitable misunderstanding of the meaning of words and trying to establish definitions. His honesty is in describing all aspects of this as a "double ethical-bind" (thanks for providing the entire paragraph) I don't understand the term 'end-run' but Schnieder shows a broad and 'philosophical' consideration of the difficulty of communication.
It is what it is Alice, you are welcome to your interpretation of course. I don't see how it can be anything else but lying by omission. That is my interpretation.

Most people here and in the general public don't really know much more than what can be found on popular info-outlets. Science-study in different areas to calculate climate behaviour takes time and leads to specialising so that a complete picture is only possible by collaboration which I don't see a lot of. I see a tendency to jump to contention and controversial positions, when we are all concerned in the climate condition, or should be. When there are agendas of intended outcome and perception the information becomes even more select and suspect, as of course there is subversion and corporate-political interference to divert or dilute the public's concerns. Why not expend your energy to counteract the manipulation at its source? Take on the real scammers, not criticise the unwitting victims of it.
This subject is no longer about science, observation has taken a back seat to computer models. I am not concerned about the climate. I am not concerned about this subject at all. I am no longer concerned about the oligarchs goals to be honest. As for your bolded comment, I take a more metaphysical view on these things. There is a war against everything, and it gets us nowhere, it only continues the illusion that it it is something outside ourselves that needs to be fixed. It is only when we learn the truth that it is the lower levels of consciousness, that of matter and the ego that is driving these things (Demiurge). The world is a reflection of us so every war is a war against ourselves. It is only when we connect with our inner world, our higher selves will the outer world come into alignment.

It is far too simplistic to say that because there are instances of cooling that global warming is false. If you understand anything of Nature you will know that she is liable to fluctuate between these conditions in a bid to maintain equilibrium without waiting for us to deal with it. Variation is natural and the intensity and frequency in context of time is relevant. As are many other factors.
It is not simplistic, it is history. Global cooling was the failed consensus of the 70's. But yes she does fluctuate in these modes and has always done so. This is no different. It will be the same story in time.

I am struggling to comprehend the origin of your concerns and where your intentions in this discussion lie. It is not sufficient for me to accept that because the Oligarchy have chosen to pretend a concern for climate change after decades of creating climate pollution and using that to endorse their self-serving, world-domination agenda, that those who are truly concerned are being "manipulated". We know all they are concerned with is maintaining their elitist status and rich comforts at the public and the planet's expense. Similarly it is distracting to to also focus on CO2 emissions as the only contentious chemical at large, we know it is not. There is also excessive concrete surface and heat produced by human activity to contribute to this global temperature imbalance.
I am not concerned. It seems to me you may be getting it.

But there's the rub, we might have to give up our 'expensive' pleasant lifestyle. Self-interest is an abiding characteristic of humans, as apparent in Schnieder's sceptical audience. They are worried about losing their incomes and familiar economic condition. Some may resort to survivalist solutions such as 'running for the hills' which of course is everyone's right, although not everyone's option. But then one has 'opted-out' and can no longer claim to be truly participants in 'the cause' which for me has always been the well-being of the Earth, her species and lastly the innocent and good of the human race. I will do nothing to jeopardise a movement that has that at heart, for then I am truly being manipulated, by fear.
It is easy for someone in a first world country to say these things, how is your lifestyle, perhaps you are part of the problem, do you take responsibility for that truly? Do you not see the danger? there is no replacement for the energy deficit that will be created. People will die. Are you ok with that for the well being of the Earth? In there eyes it is people who are the problem, it is you, it is me, it is everyone you know and love.

This is Alarmist. Let me give you some emotive language to trigger your imagination. American policies have cast some countries "back to the stone-age". Can you imagine sitting in your basement trying to calm your kids, while bombs fall around them and they don't know if they're going to die, or if you are and they will be orphaned? Have you felt the intense pain of real hunger, knowing that most people in the West are too fat? Don't you think that is a threat to the planet? All I'm hearing is that 'Environmentalism is anti-American'. That you're worried your precious comfy middle-class lifestyle is threatened. You fear your 'loss of freedom' to maintain an arrogant, selfish 'right' to a nice life. And you think Greta Thunberg is a sad little dupe?
The result of this will be no different to what you describe. Can you imagine what it will be like to survive in the energy deficit that would be created? It won't be bombs, it will be access to the simplest of things. You seem to exclude yourself from the comfy middle class. This is what I was talking about, we fight because it maintains the illusion that it is not our fault. The change has to occur from within. You are projecting things on me that are completely false to put your point forward. I have never called Greta a sad little dupe, she is a child. If you really knew me you would know I am anything but materialistic. I don't place value in things or strive for tokens for a illusory social standing. I am working to simplify, to be self sufficient and to give up what you are describing as the problem. I want the freedom to exercise this, if it would come to pass I would not. That is really the only stake I have in any of this. What you are alluding to will prevent me (us) from achieving the only true solution. Are you prepared to do the same? What is preventing you from leaving the confines of the comfy middle class? You say you can't, don't you think the rest of the people you are demonizing (while excluding yourself) do not have the same problems? Do you think these protesters are truly doing the same? They are putting the blame on anything but themselves. This is the problem, and not just the environmental issue but all the worlds ills.
 
Last edited:
Top