How Bad Is Global Warming?

[DrEvil]

Why would they be spending decades trying to downplay global warming if the master plan is to use global warming to control us?

There's an answer in there if you look hard enough.

Let me guess, something something four dimensional chess?

Which one sounds more likely:

1. Humanity is pumping insane amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it's changing the atmosphere, or

2. Physics is wrong and it's all a giant conspiracy involving every government on the planet, all the climate scientists, all the oil companies (who stand to lose a shit-ton of money), the media, and numerous think tanks and billionaires, all designed to make us do whatever the end goal is.

[FourthBase]

I get a little queasy when an RI member tells us that the government and media are trustworthy because they accept the science. Same thing for accepting the science of, say, the magic bullet theory? Come on, now. There must be part of you that wonders why the same institutions you distrust the shit out of are worth totally believing about this one other thing.

Oh no! Brown people! If the climate scientists are right there is going to be a hell of a lot more immigration in the future, so it would be in your interest to argue for doing something about it instead of spreading fud.

There will be a hell of a lot more attempts to immigrate. Nobody will be obliged to accept those immigrants, though. Not America, anyway. Maybe the Euros will be forced thanks to their new world order. Which all points to even more reason for you to be worried about climate change. All that attempted mass immigration will almost certainly incite a massive reactionary backlash. Think of the right wing in Europe now, times 100. And all the while, how many of those poor old brown people will themselves be regressives and fascists? It's one thing to pat yourself on the back for smiling at the occasional Muslim neighbor. It's quite another when millions and millions of Muslims start reshaping your society. You will then be saying, very unironically, "Oh no!"

[FourthBase]

Why would they be spending decades trying to downplay global warming if the master plan is to use global warming to control us?

There's an answer in there if you look hard enough.

Let me guess, something something four dimensional chess?

Which one sounds more likely:

1. Humanity is pumping insane amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it's changing the atmosphere, or

2. Physics is wrong and it's all a giant conspiracy involving every government on the planet, all the climate scientists, all the oil companies (who stand to lose a shit-ton of money), the media, and numerous think tanks and billionaires, all designed to make us do whatever the end goal is.

#1 sounds more likely, but let's not pretend that #2 would involve an impossibly large number of people. It's a small world. It'd only take several thousand people, at most. Given the cascading effect of groupthink, far fewer. The tricky part would be the science, the data, the math. Which can only be faked if everybody qualified to pronounce judgment is in on it. Unlikely, but possible. There aren't that many people in the world capable of understanding and willing to investigate and open to dissent. The few who do? Discredited shills, right?

[Sounder]

Your words are wasting space in your last post addressed to me Dr. Evil. Show some guts and answer to a more direct assertion good doctor.

Lets see, How much does big money spend, well reflected by major media content and foundation and govt. money support, on climate alarmism versus say; effects of pesticide runoff, risks of nuclear power and decommissioning costs, effects of electromagnetic fields on human physiology, or risks created by depleted uranium, radiation runoff in to the ocean, or GMO pesticide use as a desiccant resulting in messed up guts for most people, or industrial chemical use and regulation etc. etc. and on and on.

The pollution lobby achieves its objectives by diverting general attention away from the actual nasty shit that gets done, and toward the goat.

If true, Climate Alarmists (as well as the reactionary class among the deniers) are the ones participating in obscuring the existence and mode of functioning of the pollution lobby.

Surely you have some deflection or redirect slander ready at hand.

[Harvey]

I'm looking forward to the thread on Great Barrier Reef Coral Crisis Actors. So many trees are playing along too. And the Koala bear is functionally extinct, those fuzzy little bastards deserve an Oscar.

[Harvey]

You're fucking right that was sarcasm.

[norton ash]

Thanks, Harvey. The special effects going on worldwide are a helluva job too. Dynamiting ice shelves, poking big holes all over the tundra. And of course we all know about the Hungarian-American contributions to Hollywood.

[FourthBase]

I'm looking forward to the thread on Great Barrier Reef Coral Crisis Actors. So many trees are playing along too. And the Koala bear is functionally extinct, those fuzzy little bastards deserve an Oscar.

That phenomena may be all true, but it's possible the effects are being exaggerated. The warming and weirding may be real, but the data may be skewed to make it seem worse. The warming may be real, but the role of CO2 may be smaller than claimed. There are a lot of possibilities. Look, if exaggerating the crisis is the only way to stop the real crisis, then I can understand that. Like I said, if there's even a 10% chance the alarmists are right, we ought to be acting like there's a 100% chance. But our little community here is a sanctuary for paranoia. Here we get to think up ways that the narrative might be hiding taboo realities. I know the tradition here is to assume that conspiracies are only ever rooted in fascist, capitalist motives. That any conspiracy theory which implicates the left or spoils a leftist narrative is a Conspiracy Theory, the truly ugly bad disreputable kind which, of course, must only be a right wing psy op. I hate to piss in the punch bowl and ruin the camaraderie, but every side is quite capable of conspiring. I know this won't be a popular opinion, but the cultural hegemony of religious militaristic profiteering conservatives is long, long over. If the left wanted to plot something, they'd have plenty of powerful allies to enable them in the news, in the entertainment industry, in high schools, in colleges, in the sciences, in social media giants and other corporations, in government, even in (gasp) the intelligence world. So, for example, if some enterprising eco-fanatic decided to help accelerate the appearance of climate disaster by starting fires in California, few would either think to investigate the possibility or even want to uncover it, because hey, it's for a good cause, the greater good, etc. Does anyone here really think that's an impossible scenario? Can you not easily imagine a hyper-zealous climate change activist sparking fires in the Amazon? Given the magnitude of the crisis as you see it, could you even blame such an arsonist for trying?

[norton ash]

Ffs, anyone over 50 who's appreciated nature since childhood sees it happening at home and abroad. This is not a 'cycle' it's an unprecedented progression. And having attempted to Christmas shop lately in my mid-sized flyover city, I can say that there have never been so many cars on the road.... there's been no notable increase in our population, but sparsely-parked streets are now clogged. City highways have never been so congested and the suburban arteries are clogged... The powers have found a way to force every family to be 2-car... they're lightweight and plastic, but bad-mileage for some odd reason... so carbon fuels will have a longer lifespan than we will. There's your conspiracy. I laugh when I take my cloth bag to the grocer's but would feel shamed if I didn't.. I want those SUV-driving women to like me, y'know.

[DrEvil]

I get a little queasy when an RI member tells us that the government and media are trustworthy because they accept the science. Same thing for accepting the science of, say, the magic bullet theory? Come on, now. There must be part of you that wonders why the same institutions you distrust the shit out of are worth totally believing about this one other thing.

Oh no! Brown people! If the climate scientists are right there is going to be a hell of a lot more immigration in the future, so it would be in your interest to argue for doing something about it instead of spreading fud.

There will be a hell of a lot more attempts to immigrate. Nobody will be obliged to accept those immigrants, though. Not America, anyway. Maybe the Euros will be forced thanks to their new world order. Which all points to even more reason for you to be worried about climate change. All that attempted mass immigration will almost certainly incite a massive reactionary backlash. Think of the right wing in Europe now, times 100. And all the while, how many of those poor old brown people will themselves be regressives and fascists? It's one thing to pat yourself on the back for smiling at the occasional Muslim neighbor. It's quite another when millions and millions of Muslims start reshaping your society. You will then be saying, very unironically, "Oh no!"

I don't trust them, I trust the scientists, and the media is just repeating what the scientists are telling them. I also wouldn't dream of reading the science reporting of CNN or Fox, but stick with more reputable sites like Ars Technica, which has actual scientists doing the reporting.

And yeah, there's going to be hell to pay when there's millions of people knocking on our doors. The US is lucky in the sense that they have two giant friggin' oceans between them and the unwashed masses, while Europe is just a hop and skip away. It's going to be an epic shitshow with fascists running amok and culture clashes blowing up in people's faces, which is why it makes so much more sense to try mitigating and limiting the damage before it gets to that point.

[FourthBase]

There's a reputation that STEM majors are way less liberal than other majors, and fundamentally married to objective analysis. But how many non-progressives are there really in climate science? It's a field that progressives with science career ambitions have been drawn to for, what, 30-40 years now? Are there any reliable surveys of climate scientists' political biases? If 90% of that 97% are loyal to the left side of the political spectrum, doesn't that introduce quite a temptation to be selective about data, err on the side of the most ideologically useful conclusions, ignore models that undercut the narrative?

You're familiar with things like the Replication Crisis and p-hacking, I assume. There are a shitload of ways that science can be manipulated.

Do you trust pharmaceutical scientists? Do you trust the math of the economic experts repeated by the media? Do you trust the "science" of False Memory Syndrome that the media loves to hype?

[Sounder]

Harvey wrote...

I'm looking forward to the thread on Great Barrier Reef Coral Crisis Actors. So many trees are playing along too. And the Koala bear is functionally extinct, those fuzzy little bastards deserve an Oscar.

Yes, misapplied sarcasm and puffery.

It's ironic that upthread a Great Barrier Reef expert was fired for suggesting that something other than temp. change was killing the reef. He was awarded damages of 800,000.00 and the university did nothing to advance understand of the reef by firing the fellow. But they did signal well to the other 'experts' what is expected of them. And good on you in choosing the Koala as your emotive trigger, given that polar bear populations are thriving and yet another prof. was recently fired from Alaska uni for saying so.

Yeah free speech, fuck the deniers and punch them in the face.

[Harvey]

Yeah free speech, fuck the deniers and punch them in the face.

May this comment receive nothing but the utter contempt it deserves.

[FourthBase]

Harvey wrote...

I'm looking forward to the thread on Great Barrier Reef Coral Crisis Actors. So many trees are playing along too. And the Koala bear is functionally extinct, those fuzzy little bastards deserve an Oscar.

Yes, misapplied sarcasm and puffery.

It's ironic that upthread a Great Barrier Reef expert was fired for suggesting that something other than temp. change was killing the reef. He was awarded damages of 800,000.00 and the university did nothing to advance understand of the reef by firing the fellow. But they did signal well to the other 'experts' what is expected of them. And good on you in choosing the Koala as your emotive trigger, given that polar bear populations are thriving and yet another prof. was recently fired from Alaska uni for saying so.

Yeah free speech, fuck the deniers and punch them in the face.

I didn't want to punch him in the face for being a denier. I wanted to punch him in the face for being a smug asshole. The stakes are extinction, and he's acting like a snide clown, and he didn't even have any substantive reasons to doubt the Exxon Knew situation. Just snark. I want substantive denial. Plausible, logical explanations for why Exxon would have thought it worth it to shoot themselves in the foot for a decade.

[Harvey]

FB, it isn't remotely clear who or what you're referring to above. Any chance you could clarify?