How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Sounder]

But, Dr. Evil, what about that mil. contractor that projected a 15 million reduction population for Australia in the near future. Surely there are no climate models that told them that.

Our social betters and wanna-be social engineers will sacrifice any number of 'common people' to prove that they are smarter than the rest of us and must be relied on to 'guide' the less gifted.

But let me ask; what society will be robust for the long term? One where everyone is given the tools and responsibility to think for themselves and community, or one where a few people know how to think and use that position to unfair advantage?

The sparkler dust spreading is so fitting; It's a remake of Nero's gambit, set fires and create the insurance industry. Bit different, not much.

Pretty sad to think that a corporation would kill whole populations just so their clients can better strip mine the place, and then get cover for the activities from 'environmentalists' because of the misplaced guidance provided by the Climate Alarmist anchor belief.

Sad, but none the less Happy Holidays to all.

[Elvis]

Climate Alarmism is an anchor belief that ties its victims to the will of those whose business it is to manufacture consent.

Right, that's why big business has spent millions of dollars on a disinformation campaign to convince Americans that there is no climate crisis.

I guess it's working?

[coffin_dodger]

We are so far down the road, that it is difficult to see a way back - to undo what has been done.

Each of Dr Evils points (thank you for taking the time to answer my question) a few posts back could be addressed in detail - to include the staggering cost, both in social and economic terms to implement them, not to mention the willpower and determination required by billions of human beings to act in a single, unified way.

The global warming narrative is a multi-tiered mind-fuck in so many ways;

With the onward march of technology that almost everyone finds essential, the winding down of carbon emissions is an impossible task and one which can only cause angst and anger amongst those that believe wholeheartedly in global warming. I understand your exasperation Dr Evil, but I still maintain that calling people names will get you nowhere, it may make the feeling of impotence dissipate a little, but in a counter sense, it alienates many that feel the same way about the overall system, but simply disagree with your viewpoint on global warming.

The effort required to combat any amount of global warming - if it even exists in the form that the media is hyping (the same media that we know lies, constantly, to please it's owners) - would require such an upheavel in not only social terms, but thinking terms, that the symptoms become trivial when considering the root causes.
And the root cause is the ascribing of everything a monetary value.

A member of my family recently told me about the money he received for selling his yearly allocation of carbon credits. Whilst he was glad to receive the money, it really opened his eyes to the money that can be made on the back of what the global warming 'threat' has become. It's all about the money, now.

[FourthBase]

^^Obviously the privatization and exploitation of water resources aren't helping, but the fires are caused by the extreme heat, which is made worse by climate change. Australia is currently breaking heat records left and right with temperatures around 110 fahrenheit in some places, and summer has barely even started yet.

As for Soderlund (who claims he wasn't actually proposing cannibalism as a solution), who cares? What he said or didn't say has zero effect on the science. The worst thing about it is that deniers are now using it to distract from the actual issue.

Also: epoch times is a far right, rabidly pro-Trump (and Qanon) site run by Falun Gong. They're not exactly known for their adherence to truth.

Who cares?

If that were a Rockefeller, would you care? If that were Maurice Strong, would you give any credence to his post hoc disclaimer that he didn't really mean to encourage mass cannibalism?

I have doubts about the science, but I generally give the majority of climate scientists the benefit of the doubt. I am scientifically illiterate, basically, so I'm forced to trust them to some extent. Do I think they may be skewing the evidence to create actionable hysteria? Yeah, probably. But if I were a climate scientist who genuinely expected doom if nothing changes, and nothing was changing, I would certainly be tempted to exaggerate the threat so that something gets done. That's a scenario of intentional, good-willed deception. It could also be unconscious confirmation bias, the whole field could be gaslighting itself with groupthink, ignoring any evidence or arguments that contradict the consensus, captive to a hyper-pessimistic paradigm. That's a scenario of innocent error. But hey, this is RI, where we're supposed to contemplate the improbable, right, so of course I'm also going to wonder about scenarios where a relatively minuscule percentage of people could be gatekeeping the international conversation and directing it in a certain way to enable a power play of epic proportions. How many climate science authorities are there, really? Hundreds? Several thousand, at most? Aren't we used to suspecting smallish insular groups of conspiring to manipulate us? It's possible that many of them are crypto-communists who want to use climate change as a lever to overthrow capitalism. It's possible some of them are secret Luciferians who want to use the narrative of climate change to coerce people into a collective shift in consciousness toward the dark side. I don't know, a lot of shit is possible. I do still fear the shit out of climate change, of course. If there's any Luciferian agenda regarding climate change it would more likely be that a misanthropic evil ruling class is pushing us into an extinction-level situation, profiting along the way from the petroleum causing it, and gleefully awaiting the social chaos in store. I have my doubts about the climate models that project disaster, partly because I can imagine those models being rigged, partly because computer models are terrible at predicting complex developments in the distant future. But like Taleb says, even if there's only a 10% chance those models are right, that's more than enough risk to warrant massive change like our lives depended on it. I remember that PBS documentary Dimming the Sun and how it frightened the everloving fuck out of me. I see that the military is treating climate change as a national security threat, and I think, well, if even they are scared, then the threat must be real. I would prefer not to take the chance that the IPCC is wrong. The anarcho-primitivist side of me is looking forward to reversing much of our technological "progress", in fact. I eagerly anticipate a future where, even if the reasons are phony, everyone stops eating mammals and birds. But let's not pretend that there aren't other possibilities.

[chump]

I tend to agree with almost all of the doctor’s prescriptions, but don’t forget hemp and forget the idea of mixing seaweed with my sirloin steaks.

Carbon Recapture? Is probably bullshit and Wall Street’s just waiting for Carbon Taxes and Carbon Credits.

Remember Peak Oil?

But, considering the preponderance of propaganda, it’s no surprise how many continue to constantly tout the party line. Seems like a scam to me!

———————


Colorado skies a few days ago

https://youtu.be/t8XmlMpJSJ8
-

Contrails are said to consist of “sulfate, metallic aluminum, aluminum oxide, barium, titanate, strontium 90, and other things as well. But barium, strontium and aluminum are common in all chemtrails. What might these be used for? … Have a look at the components of sparklers (the common handheld fire works that sparkles colored flames and other effects): …aluminum, iron, and titanium… You can use any one of these and aluminum is one of them, and down here we have barium nitrate oxidizer, mandatory in order for it to flame up… You need the oxidizer to flame the aluminum: Barium nitrate, strontium nitrate. That’s what’s in the chemtrails, folks!

Also relevant was Igan’s presentation of an official projection for the future population of Australian people.

fwiw

I don’t like being the bearer of bad news, but it really does seem that we’re both projecting a very bleak future for most of mankind and probably the planet.

At a Christmas party I somehow attended decades ago, someone asked their well paid friend, “How can you stand to live in LA?”

He (basically) replied, “We just kinda stay in our world (he and his wife), back and forth from home to work, or out to eat at the places we like…”. They had beautiful kitchen but don’t like cook.

I guess you’re a member or essentially an outsider who doesn’t deserve the same considerations.

I was recently encourage to read a Christmas letter from some distance relative I don’t remember being introduced, in which Denver was described as some sort of a ‘Utopia (or maybe utopia)’; which struck me as somewhat bittersweet… because I remember how it used to be, and the hopes we had back then.

Max Igan also presents of brief description of humankind’s (or whoever want you want to call them) astounding capability to mechanically manipulate our planet’s conditions… which, instead of the negative, could also be a positive sign for saving ourselves.

Space Force?

Mars, baby!

[DrEvil]

But, Dr. Evil, what about that mil. contractor that projected a 15 million reduction population for Australia in the near future. Surely there are no climate models that told them that.

What contractor? What does this have to do with climate change?

Our social betters and wanna-be social engineers will sacrifice any number of 'common people' to prove that they are smarter than the rest of us and must be relied on to 'guide' the less gifted.

Powerful people are assholes. News at 11. What does this have to do with climate change?

But let me ask; what society will be robust for the long term? One where everyone is given the tools and responsibility to think for themselves and community, or one where a few people know how to think and use that position to unfair advantage?

What does this have to do with climate change?

The sparkler dust spreading is so fitting; It's a remake of Nero's gambit, set fires and create the insurance industry. Bit different, not much.

Pretty sad to think that a corporation would kill whole populations just so their clients can better strip mine the place, and then get cover for the activities from 'environmentalists' because of the misplaced guidance provided by the Climate Alarmist anchor belief.

What are you talking about? How does environmentalists give them cover?

Sad, but none the less Happy Holidays to all.

I posted this back in November:

Oh, look! Sounder has disappeared again. How predictable. He's now going to ignore my latest post for a couple of weeks until there's a few more posts below it, and then he will pop back in with something else equally wrong and vague and pretend our latest argument never happened. Rinse and repeat.

I'm psychic!

[DrEvil]

^^Obviously the privatization and exploitation of water resources aren't helping, but the fires are caused by the extreme heat, which is made worse by climate change. Australia is currently breaking heat records left and right with temperatures around 110 fahrenheit in some places, and summer has barely even started yet.

As for Soderlund (who claims he wasn't actually proposing cannibalism as a solution), who cares? What he said or didn't say has zero effect on the science. The worst thing about it is that deniers are now using it to distract from the actual issue.

Also: epoch times is a far right, rabidly pro-Trump (and Qanon) site run by Falun Gong. They're not exactly known for their adherence to truth.

Who cares?

If that were a Rockefeller, would you care? If that were Maurice Strong, would you give any credence to his post hoc disclaimer that he didn't really mean to encourage mass cannibalism?

I have doubts about the science, but I generally give the majority of climate scientists the benefit of the doubt. I am scientifically illiterate, basically, so I'm forced to trust them to some extent. Do I think they may be skewing the evidence to create actionable hysteria? Yeah, probably. But if I were a climate scientist who genuinely expected doom if nothing changes, and nothing was changing, I would certainly be tempted to exaggerate the threat so that something gets done. That's a scenario of intentional, good-willed deception. It could also be unconscious confirmation bias, the whole field could be gaslighting itself with groupthink, ignoring any evidence or arguments that contradict the consensus, captive to a hyper-pessimistic paradigm. That's a scenario of innocent error. But hey, this is RI, where we're supposed to contemplate the improbable, right, so of course I'm also going to wonder about scenarios where a relatively minuscule percentage of people could be gatekeeping the international conversation and directing it in a certain way to enable a power play of epic proportions. How many climate science authorities are there, really? Hundreds? Several thousand, at most? Aren't we used to suspecting smallish insular groups of conspiring to manipulate us? It's possible that many of them are crypto-communists who want to use climate change as a lever to overthrow capitalism. It's possible some of them are secret Luciferians who want to use the narrative of climate change to coerce people into a collective shift in consciousness toward the dark side. I don't know, a lot of shit is possible. I do still fear the shit out of climate change, of course. If there's any Luciferian agenda regarding climate change it would more likely be that a misanthropic evil ruling class is pushing us into an extinction-level situation, profiting along the way from the petroleum causing it, and gleefully awaiting the social chaos in store. I have my doubts about the climate models that project disaster, partly because I can imagine those models being rigged, partly because computer models are terrible at predicting complex developments in the distant future. But like Taleb says, even if there's only a 10% chance those models are right, that's more than enough risk to warrant massive change like our lives depended on it. I remember that PBS documentary Dimming the Sun and how it frightened the everloving fuck out of me. I see that the military is treating climate change as a national security threat, and I think, well, if even they are scared, then the threat must be real. I would prefer not to take the chance that the IPCC is wrong. The anarcho-primitivist side of me is looking forward to reversing much of our technological "progress", in fact. I eagerly anticipate a future where, even if the reasons are phony, everyone stops eating mammals and birds. But let's not pretend that there aren't other possibilities.

I don't think they're all secret communists, but I agree with your general assessment: even if there's only a ten percent chance that the scientists are right then we should treat it as fact, because the consequences are really fucking bad.

Also, if the models are rigged then they are rigged the wrong way. The worst case scenarios from a couple of decades ago are the best case scenarios today, and scientists are constantly surprised by things happening decades before they predicted they would. If anything they downplayed the risks.

[FourthBase]

Could be that the rigged models from decades ago weren't enough to prompt the desired changes, so the models had to be rigged upward to 11. But the evidence is confirming those old models? Maybe. But like I said, the evidence itself could be manipulated. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the world's climate scientists, who are relatively few in number, all happen to be fudging the data. How would we know? You'd have to be a climate scientist to know. There's a tiny minority of climate scientists who think that's happening, and of course the working assumption is that they are all either Exxon shills or reactionary ideologues. What would impress me is if one of those deniers turned apostate. Sure, a very tiny part of my mind would suspect that maybe a crypto-commie Luciferian cult blackmailed or threatened that dissident scientist into such apostasy. But his or her arguments would still be especially interesting. Any such apostate? (Any reverse apostasy, from alarmism to denialism?)

But yes, let's act like the world could end, anyway.
For real. The precautionary principle will save lives.

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

[DrEvil]

We are so far down the road, that it is difficult to see a way back - to undo what has been done.

Each of Dr Evils points (thank you for taking the time to answer my question) a few posts back could be addressed in detail - to include the staggering cost, both in social and economic terms to implement them, not to mention the willpower and determination required by billions of human beings to act in a single, unified way.

That's just the thing, it won't cost a bajillion dollars to fix it, but it will cost a lot more to fix the damage if we do nothing. There's several studies indicating that switching to a green economy will actually be beneficial, and improve the economy.

Renewables are already winning on price. Bob Murray (eat shit Bob!) is in bankruptcy proceedings right now because coal isn't viable in the US anymore.

Electric cars can replace gas guzzlers with the right subsidies, like lower taxes, no toll payments, allowing them in bus lanes, free parking, etc., and as the old car fleet is phased out through natural attrition the subsidies can be wound down as people will buy electric cars simply because most new models will be electric or hybrid, and they're cheaper to own in the long run.

Insulating your house and sticking some solar panels on your roof and a battery in your garage will pay for itself in a few years, maybe a decade, depending where you live.

Mixing a small amount of seaweed with cow feed can reduce the methane they release by up to 99%.

The global warming narrative is a multi-tiered mind-fuck in so many ways;

With the onward march of technology that almost everyone finds essential, the winding down of carbon emissions is an impossible task and one which can only cause angst and anger amongst those that believe wholeheartedly in global warming. I understand your exasperation Dr Evil, but I still maintain that calling people names will get you nowhere, it may make the feeling of impotence dissipate a little, but in a counter sense, it alienates many that feel the same way about the overall system, but simply disagree with your viewpoint on global warming.

There's really nothing to disagree on. The science is crystal clear, and the effects of global warming are already having serious impacts many places. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as everywhere else and I can literally see the changes from year to year (and I'm not even above the Arctic Circle). We barely get any snow anymore where I live, not even in the mountains where it used to be several feet deep when I was a kid. We used to climb on the roof of our cabin and jump off into the snow. Last year they had to cancel the children's ski race because there wasn't even enough snow for that, and that's becoming the norm. Svalbard is 4C warmer on average than it was in the seventies and they're having to move parts of Longyearbyen because it's not safe anymore, and the Doomsday seed vault flooded as soon as it was built.

It's not some hypothetical future scenario, but something that people can see with their own eyes right now, and it naturally has people worried.

The effort required to combat any amount of global warming - if it even exists in the form that the media is hyping (the same media that we know lies, constantly, to please it's owners) - would require such an upheavel in not only social terms, but thinking terms, that the symptoms become trivial when considering the root causes.
And the root cause is the ascribing of everything a monetary value.

Don't listen to the media, they're full of shit and couldn't read a scientific paper if their life depended on it. The one exception I can think of is Ars Technica, which has excellent coverage, often doing in-depth articles on things like how climate models work.

A member of my family recently told me about the money he received for selling his yearly allocation of carbon credits. Whilst he was glad to receive the money, it really opened his eyes to the money that can be made on the back of what the global warming 'threat' has become. It's all about the money, now.

Good for him. That means he didn't release as much carbon and made a small windfall off it (I'm assuming it was his business and not his personal carbon credits?).

[DrEvil]

Could be that the rigged models from decades ago weren't enough to prompt the desired changes, so the models had to be rigged upward to 11. But the evidence is confirming those old models? Maybe. But like I said, the evidence itself could be manipulated. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the world's climate scientists, who are relatively few in number, all happen to be fudging the data. How would we know? You'd have to be a climate scientist to know. There's a tiny minority of climate scientists who think that's happening, and of course the working assumption is that they are all either Exxon shills or reactionary ideologues. What would impress me is if one of those deniers turned apostate. Sure, a very tiny part of my mind would suspect that maybe a crypto-commie Luciferian cult blackmailed or threatened that dissident scientist into such apostasy. But his or her arguments would still be especially interesting. Any such apostate? (Any reverse apostasy, from alarmism to denialism?)

But yes, let's act like the world could end, anyway.
For real. The precautionary principle will save lives.

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

Sure, the entire field could be corrupt, but I don't think that's very plausible. The Koch brothers actually hired some climate scientists to get to the bottom of things, and then went into full denial when their own, paid scientists told them that it was all true.

[FourthBase]

Could be that the rigged models from decades ago weren't enough to prompt the desired changes, so the models had to be rigged upward to 11. But the evidence is confirming those old models? Maybe. But like I said, the evidence itself could be manipulated. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the world's climate scientists, who are relatively few in number, all happen to be fudging the data. How would we know? You'd have to be a climate scientist to know. There's a tiny minority of climate scientists who think that's happening, and of course the working assumption is that they are all either Exxon shills or reactionary ideologues. What would impress me is if one of those deniers turned apostate. Sure, a very tiny part of my mind would suspect that maybe a crypto-commie Luciferian cult blackmailed or threatened that dissident scientist into such apostasy. But his or her arguments would still be especially interesting. Any such apostate? (Any reverse apostasy, from alarmism to denialism?)

But yes, let's act like the world could end, anyway.
For real. The precautionary principle will save lives.

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

Sure, the entire field could be corrupt, but I don't think that's very plausible. The Koch brothers actually hired some climate scientists to get to the bottom of things, and then went into full denial when their own, paid scientists told them that it was all true.

Yeah, Fuller going from skeptic to mostly-orthodox alarmist, all while being funded by Koch, is compelling. As is the reversal that Exxon made itself from believers to deniers. If I were a climate activist, I would just hammer the shit out of those two things. Forget the rest of the consensus. Show the average independent that a Koch-funded scientist changed his mind. Show the average conservative that Exxon was an early believer in fossil-fuel-fueled climate change for years. There's really nothing else they need to be shown.

But then, if I were a climate activist, I would also purge the absolute fuck out of the communists and socialists in the movement. The reason why the average conservative resists the climate change narrative is that it seems to be created as communist propaganda. Granted, Exxon's reversal shows that, yeah, maybe the communists have a point about some despicable, suicidally profit-obsessed capitalists and maybe the energy industry should be nationalized. But there is absolutely zero need to dispense with capitalism altogether.

All the leftists who mix their climate change activism with their anti-capitalism are just about as guilty as petro companies and right wingers of jeopardizing the planet in order to satisfy their own personal agenda. There are definitely commies who look forward to the catastrophe as an opportunity for a global revolution. Meaning, if the climate crisis could be solved within the boundaries of a non-socialist, capitalist framework they wouldn't want it to succeed.

Everybody here is aware of disaster capitalism. Nobody thinks about disaster communism. Does the left really want capitalism to economically reform itself with a big fix here and a big fix there, to become as strong and socially beneficial as it can be? Hell no. They want capitalism to be as brutal and as fragile as possible, until it collapses. Does the left really want to see racial inequality disappear? Of course not. They need the inflammation as leverage. Does the left really want to see a green market that prevents global warming? Nope. They want the world to burn enough to inspire revolutions. And so, of course, the left will say that capitalism is inherently so evil that a solution to such problems is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism. Just in case that doesn't work, the Fabians are more moderate, gradually pushing the reform angle. But no, the real left doesn't want justice, or a habitable earth, or a fairer economy, unless and until it's the result of their glorious revolution. And so, for that reason, if you care about stopping climate change, if you want to see a future where the polar ice still exists and coastal cities aren't flooded, if you don't want your grandkids to be murdered by the weather and the sun: Fight the deniers, sure, but also shut the fucking pinkos up. They're ruining every chance you have to persuade the people whose minds need to change.

[Sounder]

Sounder » Sat Dec 21, 2019 9:05 pm wrote:

But, Dr. Evil, what about that mil. contractor that projected a 15 million reduction population for Australia in the near future. Surely there are no climate models that told them that.

What contractor? What does this have to do with climate change?

You did not watch the vid. Why did the contractor predict a fifteen million population reduction for Austrailia? What do they know that we don't?

Our social betters and wanna-be social engineers will sacrifice any number of 'common people' to prove that they are smarter than the rest of us and must be relied on to 'guide' the less gifted.

Powerful people are assholes. News at 11. What does this have to do with climate change?

You would need to watch the vid.

But let me ask; what society will be robust for the long term? One where everyone is given the tools and responsibility to think for themselves and community, or one where a few people know how to think and use that position to unfair advantage?

What does this have to do with climate change?

It's rude to skip a question by deflecting with your own question.

The sparkler dust spreading is so fitting; It's a remake of Nero's gambit, set fires and create the insurance industry. Bit different, not much.

Pretty sad to think that a corporation would kill whole populations just so their clients can better strip mine the place, and then get cover for the activities from 'environmentalists' because of the misplaced guidance provided by the Climate Alarmist anchor belief.

What are you talking about? How does environmentalists give them cover?

The speculation in the vid is that 15 million will be killed so the rest of the world can see the results of CC and finally DO SOMETHING.

Sad, but none the less Happy Holidays to all.

I posted this back in November:

Oh, look! Sounder has disappeared again. How predictable. He's now going to ignore my latest post for a couple of weeks until there's a few more posts below it, and then he will pop back in with something else equally wrong and vague and pretend our latest argument never happened. Rinse and repeat.

I'm psychic!

If there is engagement between us I will generally answer, but most of the time there is only traded rhetoric which deserves no answer.

[Sounder]

Sounder wrote:

Climate Alarmism is an anchor belief that ties its victims to the will of those whose business it is to manufacture consent.

Elvis wrote....
Right, that's why big business has spent millions of dollars on a disinformation campaign to convince Americans that there is no climate crisis.

I guess it's working?

The MSM reflects and does the bidding of its advertisers. Those advertisers are large corps with interlocking boards and ownership. MSM and academia are solidly behind Climate Alarmism.

All the big corps are signed on to the UN Climate initiatives.

I take Koch brothers as being poison pills who's money is well spent, from their POV.

At any rate, Elvis, you response may shield you from considering the substance of what I wrote, but the words remain, to nag at your consciousness.

[Sounder]

Elvis, you want to talk about the money involved, lets talk about it then.

Hey FourthBase, check out Corbett report for perspective on Exxon.
https://www.corbettreport.com/tag/climate-change/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-m ... il/5690209

The hidden truth behind the Climate Debate at COP25, Madrid. This article was first published in September 2019.

Climate. Now who wudda thought. The very mega-corporations and mega-billionaires behind the globalization of the world economy over recent decades, whose pursuit of shareholder value and cost reduction who have wreaked so much damage to our environment both in the industrial world and in the under-developed economies of Africa, Asia, Latin America, are the leading backers of the “grassroots” decarbonization movement from Sweden to Germany to the USA and beyond.

Is it pangs of guilty conscience, or could it be a deeper agenda of the financialization of the very air we breathe and more?

Whatever one may believe about the dangers of CO2 and risks of global warming creating a global catastrophe of 1.5 to 2 degree Celsius average temperature rise in the next roughly 12 years, it is worth noting who is promoting the current flood of propaganda and climate activism.

Green Finance

Several years before Al Gore and others decided to use a young Swedish school girl to be the poster child for climate action urgency, or in the USA the call of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a complete reorganization of the economy around a Green New Deal, the giants of finance began devising schemes for steering hundreds of billions of future funds to investments in often worthless “climate” companies.

In 2013 after years of careful preparation, a Swedish real estate company, Vasakronan, issued the first corporate “Green Bond.” They were followed by others including Apple, SNCF and the major French bank Credit Agricole. In November 2013 Elon Musk’s problem-riddled Tesla Energy issued the first solar asset-backed security. Today according to something called the Climate Bonds Initiative, more than $500 billion in such Green Bonds are outstanding. The creators of the bond idea state their aim is to win over a major share of the $45 trillion of assets under management globally which have made nominal commitment to invest in “climate friendly” projects.....

Much more at James site, interesting details about who owns who.


James explains well 'big monies' push for Climate Alarmism but we still need to know why academia supports alarmism so robustly. Dr. Doom and the experience of Mr. Ridd serves to illustrate the natural conformity habits of academics.

https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2 ... lobal.html

....... His university responded as most universities do when a professor disputes the narrative: they fired him. Yes, he had those job “protections” you supposedly have as faculty, but they’re worth very little when you try to work through the kangaroo campus court system.


The professor wisely takes his complaint to court instead of the kangaroo campus system (I remind the gentle reader I was part of this system: it’s a joke). How’d that work out?


In a judgment (pdf) issued on Sept. 6, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ruled to award Ridd “the sum of 125,000 AUD [$82,000] by way of pecuniary penalty” plus “1,094,214.47 AUD [$750,397.39] as compensation for loss” that the former James Cook University employee suffered at the hands of the educational institution.


While I’m happy for the professor, the gentle reader should take little comfort that other universities will start behaving—I’ve seen time and again that despite these kinds of judgments, university “leaders” won’t change their ways. They don’t pay the price, you see, the university does, and that usually just means the cost is passed on to the taxpayers to pay for their continued supply of misinformation.


A quick overview of just how far off the rails the university was in firing the professor:


In its decision, the Federal Circuit Court listed a total of 18 “contraventions” of legal acts that the university had in April been found guilty of, including imposing a gag order on Ridd “to keep the disciplinary process confidential;” trying to prevent him from making jokes about his ordeal by directing him to refrain from “make[ing] any comment or engag[ing] in any conduct that directly or indirectly trivialises, satires or parodies the University taking disciplinary action against [him];” and, finally, firing him.

To further reinforce the point about how the leaders won’t learn anything from this:


“The fact that JCU has not removed either of their press statements (despite my judgement) is almost tantamount to an attempt to ensure that Professor Ridd does not obtain employment in this field,” Judge Vasta noted.


The judge further suggested the university’s conduct bordered on “paranoia and hysteria fuelled by systemic vindictiveness” and Ridd must have felt he was being persecuted.


The professor’s career in academia is ruined, he’ll be basically unemployable, so the massive judgement is quite fair. Meanwhile, the “leaders” of the university who have destroyed this man for daring to question the narrative? They’ll continue to reap massive pay and benefits, and I promise the gentle reader not a one of them will be fired for their clear and documented transgression, and all will continue to rise up through the ranks in the higher education system.


Honest, there’s a real reason why our scientists agree to whatever the government wants them to say.

The intellectual class has always been sponsored by and in service to the elite. Why would things suddenly be different now? The ten percent are paid to protect the one percent, same as it ever was.

[FourthBase]

https://www.corbettreport.com/what-did- ... rbett-048/

I'm obviously open to all sorts of paranoid doubt about climate change activism. But Corbett's smug take that #ExxonKnew is just a nothingburger and a false flag seems pretty fucking vapid. Yeah, it might be a win-win for Exxon, they might be divesting from oil and ready to profit from a monopoly on new energy. But that would still be the case if climate change were happening exactly as the activists say. Exxon would be doing the exact same shit. What they would NOT have done, if anthropogenic climate change were a false narrative, is figure it all out for themselves 40 years ago. Honestly, it's one of the stupidest false flag theories I've ever heard. And despite how suspicious I am of climate change being used by pinkos to fulfill their totalitarian dreams, even I wanted to reach through my phone and punch Corbett in the fucking face. Please tell me you have better evidence than that asshole's empty speculation.