Great interview.
It sparked a conversation with me and my sisters, especially at the blindness of Alex on a couple of subjects- global warming for the most part.
If I understand Alex's argument, because the expected waters haven't risen, therefore global warming doesn't exist.
And Alex's insistence that it's not worth talking to people who can't get past that comes off as nutty as The Great Reset conspiracy.
For example, every specific detail about the Great Conspiracy doesn't pass the smell test. Most recently passed around was the famous Pfizer CEO interview where he says that by 2023 we will have 50% of the population left... until you actually look at the raw footage and see that he never said that at all. He said that they would reduce the number of people in the world who CAN NOT afford their medicines by 50%. (Typical plutocrat making money off of human misery- Jack insert).
I shared this with a friend of mine who said that it was EASIER to insert words than to cut them out in edits. That was his response.
While I disagree with him, I do agree that there may be something TO the Great Reset idea (in my opinion rich people fleecing us as they've done all through the pandemic) but this particular part was dead wrong.
Similarly, I've yet to hear Alex argue about Global Warming and the other factors. The fact that in Nova Scotia we've seen our climate change significantly in the past twenty years. We've seen invasive species move into Canada that never could exist here. We've got bloody black widow spiders of all things! If you told me we had black widow spiders when I was a kid, I would have called you a liar. They couldn't exist up here in the Great White North. Well, they do now.
We've got perma-frost for the first time in recorded history melting into soupy swamps- no longer perma-frost. We have cruise lines creating routes around the arctic through places that were previously ENTIRELY impassable throughout the entire year. We've got roads to distant communities intractable because they have warmed significantly and they can no longer support transport trucks to provide goods and services.
My sister pointed out last night, that the lupins started to bloom at the beginning of July in Nova Scotia when she moved here twenty plus years ago, and now they are nearly here now. Three weeks earlier, and earlier still all the time.
We have Forest Rangers talking about changes in habitats and different species of birds other animals and fauna dying off because of climate change. We have record forest fires as forests dry up in record time all around the year like kindling waiting for a spark.
We have freaky weather we can't account for.
The lists go on and on.
Now, are their groups of people USING the global warming crisis to create false data, and make bank? OF COURSE. Any crisis for some is an opportunity for others. The more dangerous the situation the bigger the rewards.
This is why for all their posturing, you don't see the powers that be ACTUALLY do anything to change global warming. They are paid off by the oil companies and cartels and the greatest polluters to make it look like they are for change when they are not.
Simply follow the money. While there's a ton of cash to be made on Greenwashing. The REAL money continues the status quo polluting the planet.
That being said, I found that the discussion circles around the natures of people who tend to be articulated in the political left/right spectrums but honestly have more to do with traditional versus innovation and the varieties that come between those.
You may be traditional on social issues but innovative on economic issues.
You could be traditional in religious beliefs but innovative in family ideals.
There are all kinds of varieties and of course, the older you get, the more the traditional aspects take hold.
They tend to also glom on to various elements about safety and security. Someone who is more traditional is likely to be more suspicious of politicians who provide new solutions to old problems and vice versa.
This is why so many people on the political right are so suspicious of politicians talking about LGBTQ+ rights, climate change, higher minimum wage, and the like.
I've noticed that there are three responses to conspiracies from the conspiratorial mindset as to the purposes of the conspirators and those who are fighting them. Take those who have problems with anti-vaxxers. They either are:
1. Deluded by false information and easily lied to
2. Influenced into believing false information about vaccines (lately by the vaccines themselves who people claim with no evidence that they make people more likely to take vaccines)
3. Outright moustache-twisting evil individuals who want to kill most of the population on the planet.
Where is the reasonable argument that these are people who- through their own efforts and studies- have reasonably understood the risks of the vaccines and decided this was the best choice for them healthwise when faced with the first truly global pandemic in modern times?
Isn't that a better descriptive understanding than the prescriptive suggestions of the three above?
I'm always stunned when on one hand Alex can adeptly describe that people dismissing all other evidence- like Near-Death Experiences for example, because one data set doesn't fit are ridiculous when you look at the mountain of evidence otherwise, and yet when it comes to the Pandemic and Global Warming that ideology is flipped.
It comes down to our willingness to support our pre-conceived notions more often than not, than to honestly look at the evidence before us.
J
