'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[Belligerent Savant]

When I typed the following, in part, on the prior page:

They are preying on the virtue-signalers and the easily misled, for profit.

Not in all cases, of course. Some pursuits are genuine. And even some that are primarily for profit have their benefit as well.

It's an incomplete statement, as these agendas are not only for profit but also as a means to instill a new paradigm of control mechanisms (which in turn facilitates power/wealth expansion).

The excerpt I shared on the prior page, re-pasted below, exemplifies this.

Whatever the actual extent, and harms, of 'climate change' in the near/mid-term, powerful interests are relying on marks/rubes to subscribe to front-facing selling points while wholly missing the longer-term objectives.

.

.

...

The move toward digital IDs and central-bank digital currencies is part of a broader economic shift. Corporations are already subject to ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) ratings, so their behavior can be shaped to suit the priorities of financial institutions in the name of “diversity,” “sustainability,” and other abstract values. Not only can ESG scores be used to dissuade investors from decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, credit agencies have also started using ESG scores to alter credit ratings for corporations. The ruling class is thus using ESG to promote a specific agenda that can manufacture sweeping societal changes. This is effectively what “stakeholder capitalism” means: Businesses aren’t being reoriented to serve the interests of communities, customers, or workers, but to serve the ideology of elite stakeholders on whom companies are dependent to maintain their stock value.

Stakeholder capitalism is supposedly being advanced with combating climate change as a main motivation. Yet the plans of entities like the WEF involve ever-growing reliance on digital services and data storage. The data centers necessary for such plans already have carbon footprints equivalent to that of the aviation industry, and their energy usage is only expected to expand. This makes climate change more of an excuse to assert control, rather than a plausible motivation behind ESG ratings. The reason executives like BlackRock CEO Larry Fink push stakeholder capitalism is because it allows the financial industry to supersede shareholders’ immediate interests in favor of an ulterior long-term plan.

So what is this long-term plan? If a digital ID and central-bank digital currencies are used in tandem with ESG principles, banks and governments will have the ability to fully blacklist noncompliant citizens. Profitability is no longer the only goal—the goal is also to change the way economic transactions occur in the first place, so that they become closer to a form of bondage than to monetary exchange. Instead of sums of money, a bank account would come to represent tokens that could be turned on and off based on good or bad behavior. The vaccine passport and the crackdown against Covid dissent served as a test run for this model. But the inability of unvaccinated people to access a gym or a bar will pale in comparison to the types of punishments that can be meted out through such a system, not just for members of a political opposition, but for their families or anyone who dares to help them.

...

The public still has the will and the ability to organize resistance through protests, labor actions, and civil disobedience. Such resistance is essential for anyone who doesn’t wish to live in a dehumanizing and nightmarish dystopia.

[Joe Hillshoist]

What about the harms from climate change that have already happened?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

My focus is how 'climate change' is being utilized/exploited by monied/powerful interests for ends that have little true interest in saving or ameliorating lives, especially -- or particularly -- the lives of commoners.

Climate change, in my view, is caused by a number of factors, and not all of it is human-caused (anthropomorphic). To the extent the human race can, at this point, slow/alter Climate Change (at least the aspects of it attributed directly to anthropomorphic causes), our best attempts would come from Enterprise/Multinational businesses and/or actions by the Billionaire class, as their activities -- not the energy usage of the common man -- would have far more potential for direct impact on change, for better or worse.

@Scardanelli2

all these detestable ecofash weaklings so emboldened now imagining covid and climate change as two burly enforcers standing behind them poised to pummel anyone who objects to their murderous forced poverty agenda

https://twitter.com/Scardanelli2/status ... tPAZhXPSmQ

[DrEvil]

Climate change, in my view, is caused by a number of factors, and not all of it is human-caused

With no human contributions the planet should be cooling, but it's not, because of us. And if you're about to say "but the sun/volcanoes/cosmic radiation/etc.", don't. It's all accounted for and makes no difference. It's just a drop in the ocean compared to us. Most estimates put our contribution at around 100%. No one but paid shills and idiots still dispute that. The halfway competent deniers have moved on to the price of doing something (far less than the price of business as usual) being too high and we should just bend over and adapt (read: let poor people deal with the consequences of our actions).

[Belligerent Savant]

.

"should be" cooling? Based on what? Who's the authority on what the Earth should be doing right now, and how can this be known with confidence unless we had 'another Earth' nearby available for testing, without humans on it, to study as a 'control'?

[PufPuf93]

.

"should be" cooling? Based on what? Who's the authority on what the Earth should be doing right now, and how can this be known with confidence unless we had 'another Earth' nearby available for testing, without humans on it, to study as a 'control'?

Are you aware of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

entropy

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Yes, but when? Entropy is perpetual and -- relatively -- gradual.

Who's to say what temperature the Earth should be right now, naturally?

The process of cooling may take some years. Hundreds, perhaps thousands.

[DrEvil]

.

"should be" cooling? Based on what? Who's the authority on what the Earth should be doing right now, and how can this be known with confidence unless we had 'another Earth' nearby available for testing, without humans on it, to study as a 'control'?

There's these people called "climate scientists" who study this shit for a living. You should listen to what they have to say some time (I know, they're all lying. Every single one of them, except that one guy on Twitter who says what you want to hear).

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-wh ... -to-humans

If you want ecofascism you should continue doing exactly what you're doing. The longer we drag our feet the greater the chance things get so bad we end up with a green authoritarian regime simply because the alternative is worse. Personally I would prefer to avoid that.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Quite presumptuous commentary.

Once more, I never claimed human activity isn't a factor in current climate change (though to say it's 100% due to human activity is hubris, in my view); I'll repeat: my interests lie in the exploitation of this premise for other ends. I suspect they'll be tightening the screws on the 'climate change' narrative very soon, now that "Covid" and "Ukraine/War" are losing steam. The climate change agenda would also tie in nicely with social credit plans and future 'lite' lockdowns, etc.

All of which it appears you'll be happy to oblige, right? Or am I now being the presumptuous one? We'll find out.

Breadcrumbs along the lines articulated in the following excerpts (from 2019, pre-Covid Mania):

...anthropogenic climate change is real and serious, and it’s being exploited by political and corporate interests to push a dubious agenda on the public. Many people these days don’t seem to be able to keep both these ideas in their heads at the same time. If you find it hard to do that, dear reader, I’m going to encourage you to make the effort, because a great deal of rhetoric is being deployed these days to make you forget that real problems can have fake solutions.

...

The difficulty, here as so often, lies in the complex relationship between scientific knowledge and the collective discourse of our time. In those disciplines that haven’t been wholly corrupted by money and fame, scientists tend to be highly cautious when talking to other scientists; they hedge every statement with caveats, because they know perfectly well that the people who are reading those statements have the necessary background to pick them apart, find the flaws, and send a letter to this or that scientific journal exposing your mistakes for all your colleagues to see. That’s a key part of the scientific method, and when it stops happening—when criticism within a discipline is no longer permitted and a rigidly defined consensus governs what you can and cannot disagree with—you know the discipline has sold out.

On the other hand, if you approach a discussion outside of the scientific community with all those caveats, and the subject is anything even remotely controversial, you can expect to have the caveats shoved down your throat by your opponents, who are used to a different mode of discourse. Scientists who find their feet in the public sphere thus quickly stop offering the caveats, and start using the same rhetorical tricks as their opponents. Unfortunately one of the most common of those tricks involves taking your argument further than the evidence will go, and making whatever claims you think you can get away with.

...

Don’t tell them about the 1972 climate conference at Brown University here in Rhode Island, which brought together 42 of the world’s top climate scientists, and ended up sending a letter to President Nixon and putting papers in Science and Quaternary Studies warning of imminent global cooling and a possible new ice age. If you do that, I promise that they’ll get angry and start shouting, because you’ve caught them behaving like politicians rather than scientists, and they’ll know it. You can get the same effect by asking dieticians why we should believe what they say about cholesterol now, when we all know perfectly well that in another ten years they’ll have changed their minds again. Laypeople aren’t supposed to question scientists like that—at least that’s what scientists like to tell themselves.

In point of fact, we don’t know what’s going to happen if we keep on dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Linear models—the sort that predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean by 2013—clearly don’t work, and anyone familiar with complex dynamic systems knew in advance that they wouldn’t work: in a system of any complexity, linear change in one variable doesn’t produce linear change in other variables, it sets off unpredictable feedback loops and turbulence that makes slow background shifts difficult to track. That’s what we’re seeing with the climate: increased unpredictability and turbulence over a background of slow change. The Arctic Ocean will almost certainly end up ice-free one of these days, but it may be a while, and Florida’s going to be underwater eventually but it may take a couple of centuries for that to happen. That’s how climate change happens in the real world.

So the shrill insistence that we’re facing a climate emergency and we have to take drastic action right now is a political claim, not a scientific one. The drastic action—well, that’s another matter. The open secret of climate change activism is that the solutions being offered by activists have uncomfortable similarities to the claims of the fellow with the bullhorn in my metaphor. Decades of heavily subsidized growth in solar and wind power haven’t dented the steady increase in carbon dioxide emissions, for example—not least because solar and wind power technologies depend on vast fossil fuel inputs for their manufacture, installation, maintenance, and disposal—so it’s disingenuous to claim that putting even more money into solar and wind power will do the job. As for vegan diets, bans on plastic straws, and the like, those are virtue signaling covering up an unwillingness to accept meaningful change.

https://www.ecosophia.net/heating-up-th ... l-climate/

[DrEvil]

(though to say it's 100% due to human activity is hubris, in my view)

You accuse people of hubris, while at the same time dismissing decades of work by thousands of scientists, just because.. what, exactly? You don't like what they're saying? Your gut feeling trumps all the actual experts? Hubris indeed.

The climate change agenda would also tie in nicely with social credit plans and future 'lite' lockdowns, etc.

All of which it appears you'll be happy to oblige, right?

I literally said the exact opposite in the post you're replying to you disingenuous troll.

And of course the article had to bring up global cooling from the seventies. The majority consensus already back then was global warming, not cooling, there was just a bit more room for differing views since we didn't have the information available back then that we do now (btw: the conference mentioned was led by a geologist, not a climate scientist). Some people did take it seriously for a while, until it became clear that it was wrong. The cooling trend they claimed was natural was mostly aerosols released by humans, which we banned, so the cooling went away.

As for your bread crumbs: Duh! We live in a hypercapitalist system. Of course the fuckers are going to jump at any and all chances of profit and control so they can get richer and maintain the system. Disaster capitalism 101. Which is why the fuckers need to be brought down, hard. They need to be stomped into the ground so hard they won't dare lift their heads for the next five generations. Working for the WEF or Goldman Sachs or McKinsey should be the kind of job that comes with hazard pay and alternate routes.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

you typed:

The longer we drag our feet the greater the chance things get so bad we end up with a green authoritarian regime simply because the alternative is worse.

I have a differing view as to just how dire the near-term prognosis is, and also, you seem to hint/suggest here that you're willing to accept an authoritarian regime because the "alternative is worse". Really? How much worse, and what do you believe is the timetable for this worse alternative to happen? This is the sentiment that concerns me, as it's this type of sentiment -- this near-desperation -- that allows an opening to accept authoritarian encroachment.

Just as significant portions of populations passively accepted medical totalitarianism as 'tolerable' because we're in a 'pandemic' (or we were; one that was manufactured. Another, perhaps worse, may be around the corner, if we're to believe Gates. He seems to have an inside track on certain future events). It's necessary. For the betterment of all.

Out of the total amount of climate change caused by human activity, what percentage do you believe is caused by Enterprise, by Uber-Capitalist Multi-national activities vs typical commoner activity? What would be the priority order of immediate change, in your view?

Rest assured, however immediate the threat is, it appears decisions have already been made on how to address the "problem", to the great profit and benefit of the very, very few. The solutions have been underway in earnest since 2020 (I mean, it's been in place well before that, but it's been in high gear since 2020, clearly), and they're only just getting started. All by decree, of course. And all the deeply concerned climate change 'activists' on the sidelines had no say in the matter.

Think they'll be making any tangible adjustments to Elite-level consumption, or any major adjustments to how the mega corps with the highest output of energy/waste will apply 'cleaner' solutions to manage their consumption/pollution? ESG won't save the day.

Or will they simply look for ways to depopulate via (manufactured, or otherwise byproduct) disease, 'controlled demolition' of food/supply chains, wars, and other atrocities all targeting the common populations, and all touted as very necessary to combat imminent/drastic climate change?

(Calls to mind that line by Lord Farquaad in Shrek: "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make".)


In a just world, there's absolutely local/community adjustments that can/should be made, but that would require notable, not necessarily drastic, lifestyle changes -- don't see many 1st World citizens signing up for that en masse anytime soon. We're too selfish, collectively. We've moved further away from community, placing largely blind trust in authority/govt instead, in part due to years of incremental programming. But the biggest sweeping changes would need to happen at the govt/major corp/fortune 1000 level to move the needle on climate in any meaningful way. Don't see that happening -- at least not beyond pantomimes offering the illusion of action.

The issue with this topic, as it is with the medical/pharma industries, the food/supply chains, etc, is the extent of capture by bad actors, and the funding/resources at their disposal, diluting much of the earnest efforts. I see the battles being lost near-term, but perhaps things will turn around. Maybe not until things get worse first.

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

I have a differing view as to just how dire the near-term prognosis is, and also, you seem to hint/suggest here that you're willing to accept an authoritarian regime because the "alternative is worse". Really? How much worse, and what do you believe is the timetable for this worse alternative to happen? This is the sentiment that concerns me, as it's this type of sentiment -- this near-desperation -- that allows an opening to accept authoritarian encroachment.

You're already slaves in the US. You don't need authoritarian encroachment, meanwhile the fucken arctic and antarctic both recorded temperatures 70F/40C above average for this time of year.

Where I live, SE Australia has had a decade of ongoing climate emergencies with a death toll in the thousands. We are losing crop production, national livestock herds and cities that were built to take advantage of flooding during the paddle steamer era are no longer viable because ongoing flooding is beyond their ability to recover and rebuild before the next flood comes along. Global warming caused flooding so bad in Lismore (twice) over the last six weeks no one wants to release an official death toll right now.

Our prognosis is we're fucked.

(Calls to mind that line by Lord Farquaad in Shrek: "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make".)

Yeah some rich cunts in the US took that attitude 30 years ago and as a result threads like this are filled with garbage.

In a just world, there's absolutely local/community adjustments that can/should be made, but that would require notable, not necessarily drastic, lifestyle changes -- don't see many 1st World citizens signing up for that en masse anytime soon. We're too selfish, collectively. We've moved further away from community, placing largely blind trust in authority/govt instead, in part due to years of incremental programming. But the biggest sweeping changes would need to happen at the govt/major corp/fortune 1000 level to move the needle on climate in any meaningful way. Don't see that happening -- at least not beyond pantomimes offering the illusion of action.

The issue with this topic, as it is with the medical/pharma industries, the food/supply chains, etc, is the extent of capture by bad actors, and the funding/resources at their disposal, diluting much of the earnest efforts. I see the battles being lost near-term, but perhaps things will turn around. Maybe not until things get worse first.

We're fucked. Nothing's being worked out, no one is fixing anything. Food and resource prices are soon to start climbing and they will never go down again, meanwhile more extreme storms, more floods and fires, more crop failures and stock losses across the planet as we spent the next five or six decades dying off.

That's the reality.

Do what you fucken like. It doesn't matter any more.

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^^^

Another example of the near-desperation I referenced above.

I appreciate this may be a minority opinion, even here, but I'm currently agnostic with respect to how imminent the threat of disastrous climate change may be in the near-term, and the extent the actions of average humans has any meaningful impact on the speed of this change.

A few historical examples of the alarmism:

"But the end of the Maldives... could come sooner if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted."

—Canberra Times, 1988

"[By 1995]... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

~~Senator Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

"The Everglades National Park faces a decisive threat to its existence. On a site at the northern edge of the park, Miami proposes to build the world's biggest airport, covering 39 square miles."

The New York Times, 1969

"Rainfall with an acidity level of vinegar... has been reported in widely separated areas of the earth in recent years. And the trend toward more acidic rain has been accelerating in [large parts of North America, Europe, Asia]"

--The New York Times, 1979

I don't necessarily fully agree with the connotations behind these examples. But I believe there are other factors in play here, and it wouldn't be a stretch to operate with this mindset (that there are lies being told Re: imminent climate change), given current trend lines (trend lines that have been developing over the years but took several bold leaps more recently). Which groups/entities are most responsible for human-based climate change? Is it possible there's been manipulation of certain weather/climate patterns? To what ends?

Food shortages, famine, calamity may well -- already have -- occur(ed) in the near-term, but much of it is not due to 'climate change', but rather, other manufactured actions in the food/supply chains and/or other activities perpetrated by the very few.

[Joe Hillshoist]

^^^^^^^

Another example of the near-desperation I referenced above.

I appreciate this may be a minority opinion, even here,[b] but I'm currently agnostic with respect to how [b]imminent the threat of disastrous climate change may be in the near-term, [/b]and the extent the actions of average humans has any meaningful impact on the speed of this change.[/b]


Food shortages, famine, calamity may well -- already have -- occur(ed) in the near-term, but much of it is not due to 'climate change', but rather, other manufactured actions in the food/supply chains and/or other activities perpetrated by the very few.

Its already fucken disasterous and has been for over a decade. Since 2009 in Australia we've had 2 worst in thousands of years fires and three so called "one in a thousand year" floods. The damage from these events is increasing faster than the rate of repair in parts of Australia. So things haven't been fixed from the last disaster and the next one comes along and does more damage. Its not just here that this is happening either.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
what's causing this, though? Again, I'm not arguing that there haven't been notable changes more recently, but the causes may well be distinct, at least in certain key respects, than what's been repeated to us by interests that, more often than not, do not have the well-being of the commoner in mind, despite their rhetoric.
(That's not to say everyone clamoring about 'climate change' have bad intent. Many of them -- especially those not funded by larger interests -- are earnest, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have it all right).

Adding a portion of this lengthy piece here for consideration.

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/1 ... our-peril/

The Climate Change Alternative We Ignore (to Our Peril)

Posted on February 16, 2020 by The Ethical Skeptic

I read a very interesting study that a friend forwarded to me yesterday ["Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019": https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... 9283-7.pdf], one which piqued my interest in summarizing some of the research I have done over the last ten years regarding climate change. Yes, it is generally acknowledged by mainstream science and society at large that our planet’s oceans are heating very fast.1 2 3 4 The result of this warming is an increasingly unhealthy environment for our ocean’s flora, fishes, microbiota, mollusks, crustaceans, and fauna.5 To varying degrees, this emergent condition threatens everything which lives on planet Earth. The vast preponderance of scientists agree that we are well underway on the sixth mass, or what could be reasonably titled, Anthropocene Extinction. Much of this the result of extreme and recent climate change brought about through man’s activity.

Now before reviewing this article, I must ask two things of its prospective reader. First, before getting one’s more-sciencey-than-thou Underoos all askew and succumbing to the temptation to assign me an ‘anti-‘ label, understand that I am a proponent of addressing anthropogenic global warming as a first priority for mankind. I have worked harder than the vast majority on this planet inside issues targeting mitigation of volatile organic compounds, alkanes, methane, carbon monoxide and dioxide contribution on the part of mankind. I have conducted professional studies regarding the value chain of carbon inside the economy, and have developed businesses and worked to change markets, with a principal focus of mitigating carbon contribution by the various industries involved. I am gravely concerned about human contribution to the stark rise in global temperatures now obviously underway.

Second, what I am summarizing in very short form herein stems from hundreds of hours of research and literally multiple hundreds of references which I cannot possibly compile into this blog article by coherent sequence – without sacrificing the ability to deliver its core message. This is a summary of my analysis, observations, and thoughts, all of which I have developed on this issue over time. It is meant to provide a framework of sponsorship behind an idea which I have slowly formulated.

This article is not a ‘claim’; rather it constitutes an appeal for deductive hypothesis sponsorship – a distinction taught in the philosophy of ethics and science – framed particularly for the instance where an existing enforced hypothesis is based solely upon inductive inference.6 7



This petition regards a construct, a critical path of observation-to-inference which now aspires to be developed into real hypothesis. As such, this work is not posed under a pretense of residing at the level of a broad-scope scientific research effort. To do full justice inside this argument would require a great deal more research on the part of mainstream science. However, one can anticipate herein a greater depth of schema and level of sourcing recitation as compared to the standard media article. My hope is that you find this article both challenging and refreshing. Please understand that its purpose is a single theory’s petition for Ockham’s Razor plurality, and not any insistence (claim) as to a conclusive final answer. This idea is not posed as a denial of anthropogenic induced climate change. Therefore, I am not a ‘climate change denier’. Do not trust anyone who mindlessly employs such weaponized pejoratives, as it is their malicious conduct which is serving to create a mistrust of climate science to begin with.

Please note as well, that the idea that ‘climate heat must also be coming from under the ground’ is not a theory per se, as the mere notion of proximity bears neither mechanism, definition, parsimony, explanatory predictive power, nor test-ability – all necessary components of hypothesis.8 This is the first actual qualified theory of this nature – much of its critical path being based upon two decades of original research on the part of its sponsor (me).

If climate scientists obtained the wrong answer on their very first two real world model applications, carbon emissions concerning the ethanol value chain and the net negative impact of electric vehicles, and had to be corrected by ‘outsiders’ (actual value chain experts who craft systemic models as part of their profession) – then legitimate concern is raised regarding overall methodology and competence in the field.

If what I propose here as a supplementary contributor to climate change theory begins to explain more completely what we are observing globally – then the construct will have served its purpose. Further then, it is my opinion that its core kinetic-energy-derivation argument bears soundness, salience, elegance, logical calculus, and compelling explanatory power – key prerequisites of true hypothesis. Despite its need for further development and maturation, this argument should not be ignored through our polarization over this issue politically. We need fewer children with scowling faces, fewer leftist enforcement squads, and more unbiased thinking adults addressing this challenge.

The key issue entailed inside this argument is that of observed lithosphere and hydrosphere (oceans) heat increases, and these measures far-outpacing what atmospheric carbon capture models have predicted or could serve to induce.9 This is the critical path issue at hand.

Part of The Heat May Indeed Be Coming from Beneath Our Feet

I am not a climate scientist – however, nor am I carrying anyone’s water on this issue. I do not possess an implicit threat to my career if I say something forbidden or research an embargoed idea. During some of my agricultural and green energy work a number of peripheral observations I made have begun to linger in my mind over time. They have caused me to perceive the necessity to formulate and propose another idea. An idea that in my opinion fits the observation base much more elegantly, without forcing, and in more compelling fashion than simply the Omega Hypothesis of ‘man is causing it all – no need to look any further’. These notions stem as well from my time heading an exotic materials research company, and from working with several US oil exploration companies to reduce natural gas emissions. My point is, that this is an idea which requires a multi-disciplinary understanding of the physical phenomena involved.

In short, my alternative idea could be titled: ‘The Heat May in Part Be Coming from Beneath our Feet’. Its exegesis (at the end of this article), derived from a series of nine primary independent observations in order of critical path dependence and increasing inferential strength, follows:

Continued at link.