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

Perhaps I mean morally judgemental?

Oh yes, I’m quite sure that I’ve been guilty of that on the forum, but I do feel better when I know I’m doing it and have come to the conclusion that I am quite content having doing so. In this case I didn’t think I was. I thought I was simply stating a fact. My mistake. :)
 
The thing is David, there are moral issues in this climate question. Facts only deal with objective data, and neglect the inevitable emotional content. This is where Science fails us, trying to deny, ignore, refute the subjective experience. And yet enjoys the higher moral ground in this unreal detachment, given that emotions currently have social-pariah status.
Yes, but you seem to neglect the fact that both I and LS have an emotional side as well. I used to believe in the environmental movement, and I feel upset that it has been corrupted and subverted by some group of people. I don't know for sure what it is, but it might be one or more of:

1) LS's theory that big oil is moving out of oil into carbon credits.

2) The UN wants to grab control of the entire world - simply because some people crave power.

3) Soros harbours a hatred of Western nations and wants to destroy them.

4) Extreme lefties want to take over - one of them more or less admitted as much to Tucker Carlson.

5) Something demonic wishes to collapse civilisation.

The fact that large numbers of well meaning people such as your self, may be unwittingly aiding this process, disturbs me greatly. Also, the sheer waste of resources involved in 'decarbonising' will set back real environmental improvements massively.

Perhaps you fail to realise that a lot of people are likely to die if decarbonisation goes ahead. There is no sense that it is worth decarbonising as a precaution, regardless of the facts.

David
 
2)The UN wants to grab control of the entire world - simply because some people crave power.

The UN is a stage-magic-type legitimation show for an American / Western / First World Empire, devoid even of cultural power, let alone political and economic. To attack it is to attack a straw man (not in logical-fallacy sense!), rather than the real governmental, corporate and academic powers who built and maintain this old and empty dummy.

3)Soros harbours a hatred of Western nations and wants to destroy them.

Why destroying the main source of your wealth, power and prestige? Soros wants to participate in ruling them (along with other elite types), not in devastating them.

4)Extreme lefties want to take over - one of them more or less admitted as much to Tucker Carlson.

If the Western power elites are the extreme Lefties, why are they so enthusiastically supporting the extreme Righties outside of the West - say, in Latin America and Eastern Europe - rather than help local Left movements and governments?

5)Something demonic wishes to collapse civilisation.

Hardly anyone want to destroy civilization (apart from a miniscule number of powerless anarcho-primitivists). The worst powers in our society want to rather to sustain the current condition of the civilization, with all its ugliest manifestations, indefinitely, since it is highly remunerative for them, and prevent any genuine progress and positive (for majority, but not for them...) change.
 
Last edited:
The UN is a stage-magic-type legitimation show for an American / Western / First World Empire, devoid even of cultural power, let alone political and economic. To attack it is to attack a straw man (not in logical-fallacy sense!), rather than the real governmental, corporate and academic powers who built and maintain this old and empty dummy.



Why destroying the main source of your wealth, power and prestige? Soros wants to participate in ruling them (along with other elite types), not in devastating them.



If the Western power elites are the extreme Lefties, why are they so enthusiastically supporting the extreme Righties outside of the West - say, in Latin America and Eastern Europe - rather than help local Left movements and governments?



Hardly anyone want to destroy civilization (apart from a miniscule number of powerless anarcho-primitivists). The worst powers in our society want to rather to sustain the current condition of the civilization, with all its ugliest manifestations, indefinitely, since it is highly remunerative for them, and prevent any genuine progress and positive (for majority, but not for them...) change.
So what is your understanding of the situation?

David
 
So what is your understanding of the situation?

David

To summarise it very shortly: there is a small section of extremely powerful, wealthy and respectable people in the First World, connected with each other by a network of formal and informal social links. They built their high social status and success on the aspects of the modern life that are severy harmful for most people, yet are highly beneficial for this elevated minority: a combination of perpetual war / new colonisation abroad with police-prison-surveilance state at home, corporate exploitation of people, environment and creativity, impoverishment of science and scholarship by the knowledge monopolies etc. So, they are interested in maintaining the state of events that is harmful for most yet wonderful for them.

These people are not evil geniuses weaving centuries-long plans or dark sorcerers communicating with demons. In fact, they are quite primitive in their goals, that can be effectively summarised as "let's keep our dominance as long as we can, let the world burn after we die". Yet the simplicity of their motivations also provide a kind of twisted advantage to them: being largely devoid of idealism and principle, they can claim allegiance to any ideology and salute any flag, as long as it keeps them on a top of social hierarchy. They can simultaneously support "Left", "Right" and "Center" with the similar fake enthusiasm - as they do now, as they are interested in censorious and authoritarian Left and Center types in the First World, and in censorious and authoritarian Right and Center types in the Third World.
 
To summarise it very shortly: there is a small section of extremely powerful, wealthy and respectable people in the First World, connected with each other by a network of formal and informal social links. They built their high social status and success on the aspects of the modern life that are severy harmful for most people, yet are highly beneficial for this elevated minority: a combination of perpetual war / new colonisation abroad with police-prison-surveilance state at home, corporate exploitation of people, environment and creativity, impoverishment of science and scholarship by the knowledge monopolies etc. So, they are interested in maintaining the state of events that is harmful for most yet wonderful for them.

These people are not evil geniuses weaving centuries-long plans or dark sorcerers communicating with demons. In fact, they are quite primitive in their goals, that can be effectively summarised as "let's keep our dominance as long as we can, let the world burn after we die". Yet the simplicity of their motivations also provide a kind of twisted advantage to them: being largely devoid of idealism and principle, they can claim allegiance to any ideology and salute any flag, as long as it keeps them on a top of social hierarchy. They can simultaneously support "Left", "Right" and "Center" with the similar fake enthusiasm - as they do now, as they are interested in censorious and authoritarian Left and Center types in the First World, and in censorious and authoritarian Right and Center types in the Third World.

Well said Vortex, I would also add that it does not have to be entirely monolithic for these things to transpire. There is a selfishness to it, naturally certain goals will coalesce to serve these selfish interests.
 
Oh yes, I’m quite sure that I’ve been guilty of that on the forum, but I do feel better when I know I’m doing it and have come to the conclusion that I am quite content having doing so. In this case I didn’t think I was. I thought I was simply stating a fact. My mistake. :)
I think very few people can claim to be free of moral judgement, even when they believe they are stating 'a fact'. We all evaluate from our own point of view and is not necessarily accurate about someone else's (covert) motives or intention. Therefore it is an opinion, not a fact. Happiness with one's feelings and actions is another matter.
 
Yes, but you seem to neglect the fact that both I and LS have an emotional side as well.
I know you do, well I know you do. And most of your postulations could be seen as valid extrapolations in a given context or belief. But you (or LoneShaman) have not included: 6) People are genuinely concerned with apparent unstable weather patterns and want to address any possibility for autogenetic reasons, without it being the only reason for CC or necessarily having arrived at that belief by having been coerced, corrupted or subverted by a ruling elite. This is not to say that the ruling elite are not corrupt or subverting. I like to think I can draw my own conclusions without having been manipulated. I am in full agreement that there is always a plot to manipulate the public, but that is not my reason for believing in CAGW.

There is already such a waste of resources, decisions made without public referendum and attention to environmental improvement has long been neglected. I am alarmed that there is no potential for progress out of the dilemma of elitist coercion and political manipulation. What do we do with these conclusions? The next move must be 'how to take down the elitist empire' but would that be a suitable subject for a thread?
 
Yet another incredible synchronicity. I responded to Laird about this only just this morning. I swear the universe just serves this up right into my lap.

Hiding Australia's Hot Past

The question isn't whether Australia is and always[*] has been a hot country - everybody knows that the answer to that is "Yes, it is and has been". The question is whether it's going to get even hotter.

[*] Ice Ages etc excluded.
 
1) If this type of thing (heat, fires,etc) has happened many times in the past, how can the cause be man made?

Again, the question is not whether they already happen / have happened, but whether they are going to get worse. LoneShaman's video contends that a few days in the past were over 50 celsius - the concern is that this will become typical rather than rare.

I heard a guy this morning say at the time of the Cambrian evolution period, CO2 levels were 15 times the present level.

And I've read that during the period when CO2 levels were very high in the past (presumably the same period to which you're referring), the sun's output was several degrees lower, which counteracted the effect of increased CO2.

2) Why are graphs being manipulated?

Your question assumes that they are being. An allegation was made in the video LoneShaman shared, but very little was done to substantiate it other than presenting it as fitting with a perceived agenda to "hide the heat". The video did not, however:

  1. Provide sources for its data/charts.
  2. Seek out or provide an explanation from those who created the charts as to how and why they chose their starting point, and how they respond to claims that it was to "hide the heat".

We should be wary of accepting its claims as to manipulation.
 
The question isn't whether Australia is and always[*] has been a hot country - everybody knows that the answer to that is "Yes, it is and has been". The question is whether it's going to get even hotter.

[*] Ice Ages etc excluded.

So you were just cherry picking those articles right?

So you are not blaming the heatwaves and fires on AGW, because we all know it was hotter in the past when AGW cannot be blamed. Massive bush fires also like black Thursday as well.

So there is actually no weather out of the normal natural cycles and we are still waiting for it to happen?

For shame Laird. How Dare you!

Greta-Thunberg-GETTY.jpg
 
So you were just cherry picking those articles right?

No, I was pointing out that you were choosing data (low summer temperatures in certain parts of Australia) as evidence against global warming, whilst ignoring conflicting data which is consistent with global warming.

So you are not blaming the heatwaves and fires on AGW, because we all know it was hotter in the past when AGW cannot be blamed. Massive bush fires also like black Thursday as well.

That ignores the very statement to which it is responding: the question is not whether these things already happen / have happened, but whether they are getting worse and more frequent.
 
Further re Steve's question #2:

Without re-watching the video to confirm, it seems to me that two different sets of data were being compared. The first was "temperature of hottest day on record for a given period of time taken from a pool of cities in Australia", and the second (which was claimed to be "hiding the heat") was "temperature anomaly for a given period of time for the whole of Australia". That the former contains unusually high data points in the period pre 1910 is no guarantee that the latter would. We would need to see the "hidden" data to be sure.
 
P.P.S. Global warming anyway isn't about Australia in isolation; it is - as the name indicates - about global temperature anomalies.
 
No, I was pointing out that you were choosing data (low summer temperatures in certain parts of Australia) as evidence against global warming, whilst ignoring conflicting data which is consistent with global warming.



That ignores the very statement to which it is responding: the question is not whether these things already happen / have happened, but whether they are getting worse and more frequent.

You can't admit when you are wrong.
 
You can't admit when you are wrong.

On certain issues, there is a weight of evidence that has to be balanced against perceived anomalies. I'm not going to just discard that weight of evidence because of the perceived anomalies. That's what my admitting to being wrong on this topic (in general) would entail. That's why I haven't done it.

Same with the moon landings.

ETA: and on the specific issue which you accuse me of being wrong on: a short period of time in the past in Australia with higher than usual temperatures doesn't disprove global warming, dude. Global warming is about systemic and ongoing change, not one-off events.

ETA2: for a start, we would want to know of any unusual climatic factors that might have contributed to those higher temperatures. Those weren't addressed in the video you shared.
 
Last edited:
Keep on shifting those goal posts Laird, you might score yet.

OK... so, why don't you lay out my original "goal posts", and then explain what I have "shifted" them into? (I don't mind if you choose not to, though, because arguing becomes tedious after a while...).

FWIW, here's the exchange as I see it (with implied sentiments made explicit):

LoneShaman: Parts of Australia are experiencing an unusually cold summer; this is inconsistent with global warming and falsifies it.

Laird: But other parts of Australia are experiencing unusually fierce and extensive fires and heatwaves, and this is consistent with global warming. You are cherry-picking your data.

LoneShaman: Over a century ago, Australia also experienced unusually fierce and extensive fires and heatwaves, perhaps even worse than currently experienced, so the current experiences you cite aren't proof of global warming.

Laird: That's right, they aren't proof of global warming, because global warming is about long-term global trends, not short-term local events - but they are consistent with the projected long-term global trends.

LoneShaman: Bah, you can't admit when you're wrong.

Laird: Also, if you are to show (by implication) that the unusually cool summer temperatures in parts of Australia are inconsistent to such an extent that they (tend to) falsify global warming, then you need to do more than you have done: you need to demonstrate that there are no known climatic or meteorological factors which are causing them despite global warming. [ETA: Admittedly, this is a more tenuous implication - I actually suggested a need to demonstrate the lack of existence of unusual climatic factors that might have caused the unusually hot temperatures a century ago in Australia. Apologies if it seems to misrepresent the conversation. I hope it's understood that this sentiment applies to both scenarios (which is how it became confused in my mind when I wrote the summary), even if I actually only applied it in the conversation to one of them.]

LoneShaman: You're shifting the goalposts.
 
Last edited:
OK... so, why don't you lay out my original "goal posts", and then explain what I have "shifted" them into? (I don't mind if you choose not to, though, because arguing becomes tedious after a while...).

FWIW, here's the exchange as I see it (with implied sentiments made explicit):

LoneShaman: Parts of Australia are experiencing an unusually cold summer; this is inconsistent with global warming and falsifies it.

Laird: But other parts of Australia are experiencing unusually fierce and extensive fires and heatwaves, and this is consistent with global warming. You are cherry-picking your data.

LoneShaman: Over a century ago, Australia also experienced unusually fierce and extensive fires and heatwaves, perhaps even worse than currently experienced, so the current experiences you cite aren't proof of global warming.

Laird: That's right, they aren't proof of global warming, because global warming is about long-term global trends, not short-term local events - but they are consistent with the projected long-term global trends.

LoneShaman: Bah, you can't admit when you're wrong.

Laird: Also, if you are to show (by implication) that the unusually cool summer temperatures in parts of Australia are inconsistent to such an extent that they (tend to) falsify global warming, then you need to do more than you have done: you need to demonstrate that there are no known climatic or meteorological factors which are causing them despite global warming.

LoneShaman: You're shifting the goalposts.

I think everyone can read what has happened here and make their own judgement.
 
Back
Top