Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

24 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Is it even possible to be a Ph.D. and be so totally stupid?

Is this a trick question?  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Is this a trick question?  

Tom!  You totally slay me!

[James Regan + 1,776]

Their is an unfounded sense of crisis that dominates public discussion of environmental issues, and shrill demands for urgent action to mitigate climate change thrive at the expense of genuine, illuminating, nuanced debate about how to make the best of an uncertain future.

A lot has happened in the last couple of years and while I don’t disagree with any of it, it’s about time we gave them a polish. So…

1. There is good scientific evidence that human activities are influencing the climate. But evidence is not fact, and neither evidence nor fact speak for themselves.

2. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is neither as strong nor as demanding of action as is widely claimed.

3. Our ability to mitigate, let alone reverse any such change through reductions in CO2 emissions is even less certain, and may itself be harmful.

4. The scientific consensus on climate change as widely reported inaccurately reflects the true state of scientific knowledge.

5. How society should proceed in the face of a changing climate is the business of politics not science.

6. Political arguments about climate change are routinely mistaken for scientific ones. Environmentalism uses science as a fig leaf to hide an embarrassment of blind faith and bad politics.

7. Science is increasingly expected to provide moral certainty in morally uncertain times.

8. The IPCC is principally a political organisation.

9. The current emphasis on mitigation strategies is impeding society’s ability to adapt to a changing climate, whatever its cause.

10. The public remain unconvinced that mitigation is in their best interests. Few people have really bought into Environmentalism, but few people object vehemently to it. Most people are slightly irritated by it.

11. And yet climate change policies go unchallenged by opposition parties.

12. Environmentalism is a political ideology, yet it has never been tested democratically.

13. Widespread disengagement from politics means that politicians have had to seek new ways to connect with the public. Exaggerated environmental concern is merely serving to provide direction for directionless politics.

14. Environmentalism is not the reincarnation of socialism, communism or Marxism. It is being embraced by the old Right and Left alike. Similarly, climate change scepticism is not the exclusive domain of the conservative Right.

15. Environmentalism will be worse for the poor than climate change.

16. Environmentalism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Mathew 7:16 - “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves”

[James Regan + 1,776]

On 7/8/2019 at 1:49 PM, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Scientific awareness of the greenhouse effect, and human influence on the climate, has existed for over three decades. During the 1980s, there was a strong environmental movement and a political consensus on the issue, but in recent years, climate change denial - denying that changes to the climate are due to human influence on the environment - has increased.

"Two strong groups have joined forces on this issue - the extractive industry, and right-wing nationalists. The combination has taken the current debate to a much more dramatic level than previously, at the same time as our window of opportunity is disappearing."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/cuot-ccd082118.php

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, James Regan said:

3. Our ability to mitigate, let alone reverse any such change through reductions in CO2 emissions is even less certain, and may itself be harmful.

All true, James   (the 16 points).  Yet there are some interesting tidbits I would float. 

1.   Society could "sequester" quantities of CO2, if it was considered a good idea, by building oversize "McMansions."   Wood is a storage of CO2, and thus felled timber will sequester quantities of the stuff.  Building large houses in numbers ironically has the unintended effect of sequestering CO2, which otherwise would be released back into the atmosphere when that mature tree dies or falls down, then rots.  Cutting the mature tree and harvesting the planks effectively seals up the CO2 contained within.  

2.   Society can, on the cheap, halt and reverse desertification on the three great deserts on Earth.  There is the Sahara, the Gobi, and the Great Australian Desert.  Diverting river water into these deserts and planting trees, grasses and bushes will both convert desert back into savannah and forest, and provide lots of new-growth material to absorb lots of CO2  (if that is the goal, or a goal).  Also, halting desertification dramatically reduces local temperatures, and may well reduce overall surface temperatures.  That last thought is more in the category of "hope," but I toss it out there for consideration.    

3.   You can make gasoline from bulk scrap plastic, which is kinda neat, and also deals with the big issue of scrap plastic. 

Cheers.

[remake it + 288]

9 hours ago, James Regan said:

1. There is good scientific evidence that human activities are influencing the climate. But evidence is not fact, and neither evidence nor fact speak for themselves.

2. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is neither as strong nor as demanding of action as is widely claimed.

Writing in a manner which contradicts your following points is self defeating.

[James Regan + 1,776]

3 hours ago, remake it said:

Writing in a manner which contradicts your following points is self defeating.

The manner is 100% correct for the intended purpose and is justified so by your reply. Each point slides into position perfectly.

[specinho + 439]

On 7/12/2019 at 1:03 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

.. "If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice," the researchers conclude.  ...

 

On 7/12/2019 at 8:58 PM, Jan van Eck said:

2.   Society can, on the cheap, halt and reverse desertification on the three great deserts on Earth.  There is the Sahara, the Gobi, and the Great Australian Desert.  Diverting river water into these deserts and planting trees, grasses and bushes will both convert desert back into savannah and forest, and provide lots of new-growth material to absorb lots of CO2  (if that is the goal, or a goal).  

There might always be two sides to a story or a coin....?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, specinho said:

There might always be two sides to a story or a coin....?

To answer the teacher's question  (she is portrayed as a woman), you keep the schools clean by scrupulously avoiding sleeping with the students.  To illustrate where that goes, I remind readers that the wife of the current President of the French Republic, Brigitte Macron, started sleeping with, and eventually married, the student who became the President.  Apparently that sex stuff started in high school.  His parents did not approve, but she refused to leave him alone.  She was 26 years his senior in age.  A fine-looking woman, to be sure, but that age difference meant that President Emmanuel Macron would not sire any children  (at least, not within that marriage).  Here she is:

To keep the school lickety-split clean, avoid the temptation to start sleeping with the children!

Edited July 13, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[specinho + 439]

21 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

To answer the teacher's question  (she is portrayed as a woman), you keep the schools clean by scrupulously avoiding sleeping with the students.  To illustrate where that goes, I remind readers that the wife of the current President of the French Republic, Brigitte Macron, started sleeping with, and eventually married, the student who became the President.  Apparently that sex stuff started in high school.  His parents did not approve, but she refused to leave him alone.  She was 26 years his senior in age.  A fine-looking woman, to be sure, but that age difference meant that President Emmanuel Macron would not sire any children  (at least, not within that marriage).  Here she is:

To keep the school lickety-split clean, avoid the temptation to start sleeping with the children!

Read it somewhere she is the heiress to somebody super-wealthy but do not remember who..............

Edited July 14, 2019 by specinho

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Climate change cheerleaders strongly linked to the Chicken Little Syndrome....

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

19 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Climate change cheerleaders strongly linked to the Chicken Little Syndrome....

Zinger

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

On 7/12/2019 at 7:37 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

But dammit Tom! The science is settled and the debates been over for three decades! What's wrong with your head?

(Bold sarcasm font, in red...)

Yes, the scientific debate is over, and you did not even notice, because you failed the basic prerequisite - to parse your opponent's arguments and evidence and take them into consideration in the next iterative step of the debate. You, instead (because you don't understand the evidence submitted by the opposing party) just pause, pretending you are parsing them, and then you repeat the same, now long irrelevant arguments from the past. That is not a debate, however. A debate is always iterative. 

http://www.caneurope.org/about-us/514-about-us/archive/603-the-debate-is-over-ipcc-confirms-humankind-to-blame-for-climate-change-2

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Yes, the scientific debate is over

Phew. So settled it deserved repeating. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Guest

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Didn't read the thread but the title should be "Being stupid is strongly linked to hate."

Edited October 22, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Well, that’s it then! If the IPCC and Yoshiro say the debate is over...who can argue with them?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

10 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Well, that’s it then! If the IPCC and Yoshiro say the debate is over...who can argue with them?

Sand Dunes:  Nebraska style.  https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1483&context=greatplainsresearch

Were active 1000 years ago and denuded of vegetation with minor movements every ~300 years since.  Of course this also coincides with the IPCC's glossing over of the midevil warm period and actual eye witness accounts of the rivers in Europe running dry or tree ring data.   Also have evidence from early explorers in North America that the dunes were active in the 19th century and why it was called the Great American Desert and not the great plains which is a very modern name.  No one really cares about the stats of the dunes orientation etc, so jump to the end: Note Figure 17 using C14 data and overlying sand etc.  Unlike large portions of the Great American desert which currently grows grass... Nebraska has a source for sand creating dunes. 

There are dunes throughout the other states as well and into Canada(https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=usgsstaffpub,) but in much smaller areas as they do not have sources for sand.  Rather desertification turns into giant dust storms.  This shows that while the Great American Desert(the great plains) truly turns into a desert on fairly regular intervals, it does not STAY a desert for all that long otherwise the wind blown dust would eventually hit bedrock and create more sand.

This shows very cyclical weather patterns which are not constant in severity and have nothing to do with humans.  How severe a weather cycle is, no one knows the reasons behind. Ah, but the IPCC crowd it is positive it is humans this time even when we cannot model the past yet we are *** trust **** them about the future..... yea pull the other leg.

Edited October 22, 2019 by footeab@yahoo.com