B
Baccarat
Skeptics make careers exposing low hanging fruit
I'm afraid it reflects extremely badly on the whole of climate science.Alex,
I disagree with this analysis but let's say ONE study did get lazy or fudged some data or do whatever it is that you think was done. So what? Does that affect that literally thousands and thousands of other studies that mostly point in one direction -- many of which are independent of government and corporate grants and funding? Let me reframe -- so because ONE study on NDEs or PSI or non-local consciousness comes across as flawed, fraud, or exaggerated (or simply has a few issues that give us question marks on the process), we should, therefore, assume all studies on NDEs, PSI, etc are wrong or compromised? C'mon Alex. You are simply finding any way you can to reach the conclusions you already have. Keep the standards consistent. Otherwise, you should hang up the mic and end the podcast because the standards you have for Climate Change are not consistent with the subjects you cover on this podcast.
The Australian wild fires are often attributed to climate change . However, think for a moment, suppose you had a bonfire and had difficulty lighting it. Would it make sense to:
a) Use a hair drier to raise the temperature 1 C round the fire to make it ignite. 1 C is the maximum you can possibly attribute to global warming.
or
b) Stuff paper or other dry inflammable material into the fire and light that.
Utterly obviously the answer is b. The basic problem is that houses have been built in idyllic spots in woodland. This has meant that every forest fire had to be put out pronto to protect property. This in turn means there is a build-up of dry dead material, which reaches the point where the fires are hard to control.
The very fact that these fires are used to justify the idea of CC, illustrates the fraudulent arguments used to justify this vague concept.
David
I'm unsure how to interpret this. Do you mean that more people should die earlier, and that is what we are working against -- put another way, should be finding some way to facilitate? How could we without killing them? And if we did find a way, would you be amongst the first to volunteer your services?
Me, I'm an optimist. I don't believe things are as bad as is being made out. Your fears, everyone's fears, are greatly exaggerated, as they have always tended to be. We always seem to have to have a bogeyman of some description threatening us. If the "climate crisis" is proven wrong, sooner or later something else will rear its ugly head.
Hey Michael
Yeah, I was pushing a few buttons with intent here. The logic is that when you have a high attrition rate you need to breed to ensure replacement. I was born in spitting distance of the end of WW2. My mother went on to have 5 kids, all of whom have survived thus far. But we were raised with an allowance of risk. There seemed to be a sense that some of us were expendable. My step daughter has one child. He is not expendable. He has cost a heap to raise, and there is no fallback. Parenting is risk averse, and so the kid has not a lot of resilience.
My point is that you can't sensibly have a breeding rate that is designed to account for attrition and bust your arse to keep the old and ill and inform alive - and then get alarmed about population. If we are sensible we need a balance between birth and death rates.
Anglo breeding rates are below replacement, except in the 'lower classes'. Whites are trending toward comparative minority status in their own lands. Indeed in the US it is projected whites will enter minority status in the next 10-15 years. At the same time the better off are living longer. Oh dear.
I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.
Would I be among the first to volunteer my services? I have always figured I'd pop my clogs when I hit 70. So, if the offer is not untimely .....
Yes, I increasingly see Green policies as positively harmful, and this is a tragic example, which I hope gets fully exposed.Forest fuel levels have worsened over the past 30 years because of "misguided green ideology", vested interests, political failure and mismanagement, creating a massive bushfire threat, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist has warned.
I think this is an excellent question. I tend to look at it from a different angle. When I hear people "arguing for the existence of a Transcendent Realm" (or a spirit realm or an astral realm or heaven or whatever), it feels to me like it downplays meaning and significance in THIS realm.
So I tend to think that any perspective that downplays the Transcendent or the Metaphysical can be a Good Thing.
This is not to say that I want to downplay NDEs and other mystical experiences. But for myself, I want to hold the INTERPRETATIONs of such experiences lightly or provisionally so as not to end up forsaking the realm that is my day to day life.
Obviously, interpreting NDEs, etc can in itself be a useful and meaningful activity, and I don't begrudge anybody who wants to overtly argue that their perspective is the Absolutely Correct perspective and accurately reflects the nature of the universe and the "realm(s) beyond."
Personally, I have been trying to see if there is a way to be neither in the "biological robot in a meaningless universe camp" but also not in the "this world doesn't matter because there's a realm of light and love waiting for us beyond space/time." Something "in between" these camps perhaps.
I have been interested in a book called ZeroTheology, that is written by a minister who considers that religion that is based on belief in doctrine is a rather weak form of religious practice, which is appealing to me:
"If you want or need religious belief you cannot have the liberated religious life. If you lack belief you do not want or need the liberated religious life. The liberated religious life can only be had by those who think that because they neither need nor want belief they are disqualified from living the liberated religious life. A person can choose the religious path as long as that person does not need belief. When you give a reason for having belief, you are expressing a need to have belief. If you need to have belief, you have to have belief, because it is a requirement. The second you express your need for belief, the liberated religious life becomes impossible. If you do not hold a religious belief, you do not need it and therefore, cannot be persuaded to choose it. If you are persuaded that you need it, then what you have been persuaded you need, is not the liberated religious life. Any reason that persuades you is a reason that leads to the idolatry of the belief paradigm."
When you say:
I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.
Taken at face value, you seem to be saying that if one thinks about the alarm, one will uncover deep seated racism -- presumably in those who say it.
Why, exactly? It's not that I can't think of reasons why, only that I'm unsure what your reasons are. Sometimes I find you quite elliptical and ambiguous, and am often nonplussed by what you say. Could be I'm just dense; but whatever, is there any chance you could say whatever it is you want to say simply and directly for a bozo like me?
Sorry Michael
Its not you, its me.
Apparently in the US whites will be a minority come circa 2030. There seems to be a general reaction against declining white birth rates in Europe as well, and in a deeper analysis of geopolitics some argue the Putin is seeking to tap into the fear of white decline to stir right wing political movements.
It's way more complex than this, of course, but we do have a cultural mentality that asserts the superiority of whites - the best expression of human being was white, Christian, male and English - upper middle class and better.
In a brutally simple way I am not so sure that the human soul is quite that fussy. White Europeans have had around 1,000 years of self- constructed lime light and now things are changing and we should be resisting the transition? We find claims of superiority everywhere and through history, so taking ours as a serious and literal claim to divine virtue does seem like racist conceit.
Don't forget poor controlsAlex,
I disagree with this analysis but let's say ONE study did get lazy or fudged some data or do whatever it is that you think was done. So what? Does that affect that literally thousands and thousands of other studies that mostly point in one direction -- many of which are independent of government and corporate grants and funding? Let me reframe -- so because ONE study on NDEs or PSI or non-local consciousness comes across as flawed, fraud, or exaggerated (or simply has a few issues that give us question marks on the process), we should, therefore, assume all studies on NDEs, PSI, etc are wrong or compromised? C'mon Alex. You are simply finding any way you can to reach the conclusions you already have. Keep the standards consistent. Otherwise, you should hang up the mic and end the podcast because the standards you have for Climate Change are not consistent with the subjects you cover on this podcast.
You initially said:
I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.
Based on this response, I'm wondering if "minority" was a typo: whether you meant to say the complete opposite, "majority", in fact...
No. Its not my data. US trends show already that many states are shifting to non-anglo majorities. Globally the trend for Anglo/European populations is a decline as birth rates fall. In fact pro 'development' advocates say the best form of birth control is education and economic development. That means that in Anglo/European countries there are higher birth rates among 'lower class' people than upper/middle class. And that seems to be a global trend.
Generally speaking you have higher birth rates among people exposed to higher risks - so immigrant and refugee populations do tend to have a higher birth rate in countries they move to. Here we have two trends. For example, in Australia we tend to see high aspiration and high discipline cultures [Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese] pushing academic attainment for their children. In contrast low discipline cultures seem to push a more family/social/cultural aspiration.
The trend seems to be that those in power constitute a lower proportion of a contemporary multicultural society - with a resultant problem in a genuinely democratic culture. This is why 'voter suppression' tactics are common in the USA.
As adverse reactions to multiculturalism grow we do see a growth in xenophobic responses and consequent organisations. If we accept current analysis, Russia does seem to be the global cheerleader for this cause. How we position ourselves matters in ways more complex than we may care to consider.
I'm gonna try again.
You initially said:
I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.
That implies that whites are currently a minority but quite soon won't be (their birth rate could be increasing, for example). However, what you're implying in this second response (and your first one) to me is that whites are currently in a majority but quite soon won't be. This latter is also my understanding of the situation, because whites' birth rate is decreasing, primarily on account of better education and standard of living. In other words, we both share the same understanding, and yet you insist that your use of the word minority in the first instance was what you meant to say.
I'm left completely nonplussed. "Minority" and "majority" have diametrically opposed meanings. The point I'm trying to make isn't merely one of grammar. It's about semantics. You're arguing as if the two words have the same meaning, as if they're synonyms. Which makes no sense to me. I can only make it make sense if I assume that initially you typed mINority whan you really meant mAJority.
If you insist you didn't, then maybe that will explain why I often have such a hard time with your posts. Maybe you have some kind of word blindness or something, which makes some of your arguments seem elliptical. You might think you're saying one thing, but what you are writing might not actually say that.
Please don't think I'm trying to be pejorative here: I'm genuinely baffled and want to get to the bottom of it. Either there's something wrong with your apprehension, or something wrong with mine. If the latter, I want to know it, so it's as much about me as you.
Michael
You are perfectly right. Too distracted by bushfires to take care to write what I mean. And then just as distracted to not pick up on your correction.
Thanks. I'm so glad that I'm not going bananas and neither are you...:)