'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

It's a constant source of bafflement to me how people, often the ones who claim to think for themselves and routinely call others sheep, have gobbled up the oil industry propaganda so thoroughly. Even now, when climate change is glaringly obvious, they're desperately clinging to their narratives.

King of misrepresentation/mischaracterization.

No one here is swallowing 'oil industry propaganda'. I can understand how you can see it that way, of course, but needless to say it doesn't make it true.

You also continue to conflate questioning the extent of climate change with questioning the actual causes for climage change -- perhaps you're dense, perhaps you're too caught up in your own curated intake.

Climate change is not the key contention here. The questions raised repeatedly by me over the past year or so on this thread are (to repeat) primarily as follows:

What are the primary drivers of the current cycle of any climate change, and to what extent is everyday human consumption (of various forms of fuel/energy) truly a primary factor (as opposed to large-scale industry/elite-level consumption of gas/oil as a primary driver) for whatever change is actually occurring? What else, besides anthropogenic factors, can be contributing to any change (and are these non-human factors more involved than advertised in any change occurring over time), and are the solutions proposed by dominant narratives, such as solar, wind, and electricity, truly as 'clean' as advertised, and can they be efficient at scale and developed without significant use of gas and oil?

And: to what extent are the same/similar vile operators responsible for the egregious affronts over the last 2 years in particular (and far longer, historically) utilizing current mainstream programming on 'climate change' for their own greedy/power-hungry/ill-intentioned gains at the expense of the many rubes and plebes that go right along with the narratives with minimal, if any, discernment (not to mention all those that get pulled down with all the rubes and are negatively impacted by disastrous policy changes or 'initiatives')?

Notice there are no absolutes above.

These questions have yet to receive compelling replies, or have been simply ignored.

This blindly accepted notion that carbon dioxide is absolutely a key contributor to whatever climate change may actually be occurring is simply foolish. Even in mainstream circles this is in contention.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chi ... ruitt.html

Of course, this was back when 'global warming' was the thought-stopping phrase du jour. It has since shifted (yet again -- in the 70s it was 'another Ice Age/global cooling') to 'climate change'.

But keep liking and following Greta and her ilk. Keep thinking you're on the side of what's 'right'. You're savvy and hip to the current thing.

Associating any scrutiny of current dominant 'climate change' narratives with 'oil industry propaganda' is the same simpleton approach many of your ilk ascribe to scrutiny of covid-related policies as 'anti-vaxx propaganda'.

Are there groups of people that may well subscribe to aspects of each topic that could be swallowing portions of 'big oil' propaganda when it comes to climate change storylines, or, with respect to covid, dis/misinfo on the more extreme ends of the actual drivers & harms Re: mRNA products? Sure. It's bound to happen given all the white noise out there.

But your take is increasingly lacking in any nuance; it's also increasingly tone deaf, rigid, and either dishonest or straight-up dense. You're far from alone, tho -- many others that refuse to acknowledge the shifting of the ground beneath them are reacting along similar lines as you've been to this point.

While you and quite a few others here have never outright acknowledged how wrong you were about covid and related agendas, it appears you and many others like you haven't learned a thing from that experience. You continue to refuse to even consider recalibration or adjustment.

And I tire of it, so I'll be opting out. There are many other venues for me to observe largely vapid takes, and it's one of the reasons I'm tuning out, increasingly, from the interwebs altogether.

Oh, and don't forget to swap out your gas stove for an electric one!

[Grizzly]

Acts of Criminality:

The new killer
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/investigations/2016/11/18/heroin-deadlier-companion-fentanyl/94087694/

Theodore Stanley is a prominent researcher of fentanyl and derivatives like carfentanil (a kg of which could theoretically kill 50 million people). For a decade he worked for the CIA, FBI and Army, supposedly examining whether carfentanil "would make a good agent to immobilize large groups of people"

[DrEvil]

.

It's a constant source of bafflement to me how people, often the ones who claim to think for themselves and routinely call others sheep, have gobbled up the oil industry propaganda so thoroughly. Even now, when climate change is glaringly obvious, they're desperately clinging to their narratives.

King of misrepresentation/mischaracterization.

No one here is swallowing 'oil industry propaganda'. I can understand how you can see it that way, of course, but needless to say it doesn't make it true.

So you didn't post a useless declaration by a life long oil industry insider then?

You also continue to conflate questioning the extent of climate change with questioning the actual causes for climage change -- perhaps you're dense, perhaps you're too caught up in your own curated intake.

Climate change is not the key contention here. The questions raised repeatedly by me over the past year or so on this thread are (to repeat) primarily as follows:

What are the primary drivers of the current cycle of any climate change, and to what extent is everyday human consumption (of various forms of fuel/energy) truly a primary factor (as opposed to large-scale industry/elite-level consumption of gas/oil as a primary driver) for whatever change is actually occurring? What else, besides anthropogenic factors, can be contributing to any change (and are these non-human factors more involved than advertised in any change occurring over time), and are the solutions proposed by dominant narratives, such as solar, wind, and electricity, truly as 'clean' as advertised, and can they be efficient at scale and developed without significant use of gas and oil?

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this, it still isn't true. Pretending there's even a debate any more about humanity's responsibility for the observed warming is like saying there's debate over the shape of the Earth because flat-Earthers exist. While technically true, there are people disputing the shape of the Earth, they're obviously and painfully wrong.

And: to what extent are the same/similar vile operators responsible for the egregious affronts over the last 2 years in particular (and far longer, historically) utilizing current mainstream programming on 'climate change' for their own greedy/power-hungry/ill-intentioned gains at the expense of the many rubes and plebes that go right along with the narratives with minimal, if any, discernment (not to mention all those that get pulled down with all the rubes and are negatively impacted by disastrous policy changes or 'initiatives')?

Notice there are no absolutes above.

These questions have yet to receive compelling replies, or have been simply ignored.

What questions? It's just a stream of consciousness word salad that boils down to "people have been wrong and/or lied before, ergo the climate change narrative is wrong". It was stupid the last ten times you said it, and it's stupid now.

Plus, I'm guessing it never occurred to you it cuts both ways. Have you considered the possibility that you've fallen into the same trap on climate change? That you're the rube and the plebe?

This blindly accepted notion that carbon dioxide is absolutely a key contributor to whatever climate change may actually be occurring is simply foolish. Even in mainstream circles this is in contention.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chi ... ruitt.html

Of course, this was back when 'global warming' was the thought-stopping phrase du jour. It has since shifted (yet again -- in the 70s it was 'another Ice Age/global cooling') to 'climate change'.

Really? Scott Fucking Pruitt? You don't have the faintest clue who he is, do you? Short recap: Christian nutjob, climate change denier, election campaign funded by fossil fuel contributions, got the job at the EPA so Trump could deliver on his promises to the coal industry to gut the EPA and make it worthless, resigned his position after ending up the target of fourteen federal investigations.

And once again, the ice age/global cooling stories from the seventies were bullshit even then. Most of it stems from some sensational media front pages, and some research into the possibility that quickly found that it was wrong. At the time the majority of climate science already agreed we were looking at global warming. There was actually some cooling, or at least slowdown of the warming, between the end of WW2 and the seventies, but that was also man-made and the cause of acid rain, so we banned the shit that was causing it and the acid rain stopped. In other words: human emissions changed the climate so much that everyone noticed it.

But keep liking and following Greta and her ilk. Keep thinking you're on the side of what's 'right'. You're savvy and hip to the current thing.

Associating any scrutiny of current dominant 'climate change' narratives with 'oil industry propaganda' is the same simpleton approach many of your ilk ascribe to scrutiny of covid-related policies as 'anti-vaxx propaganda'.

Are there groups of people that may well subscribe to aspects of each topic that could be swallowing portions of 'big oil' propaganda when it comes to climate change storylines, or, with respect to covid, dis/misinfo on the more extreme ends of the actual drivers & harms Re: mRNA products? Sure. It's bound to happen given all the white noise out there.

But your take is increasingly lacking in any nuance; it's also increasingly tone deaf, rigid, and either dishonest or straight-up dense. You're far from alone, tho -- many others that refuse to acknowledge the shifting of the ground beneath them are reacting along similar lines as you've been to this point.

Said the guy who consistently ignores anything that goes against his preferred narrative. I noticed you conveniently skipped my reply to you about the airport in the Maldives, and me pointing out you're apparently oblivious to the fact there used to be an ice age a few thousand years ago. But hey, keep ignoring the bad thoughts and I'm sure they'll just magically go away.

While you and quite a few others here have never outright acknowledged how wrong you were about covid and related agendas, it appears you and many others like you haven't learned a thing from that experience. You continue to refuse to even consider recalibration or adjustment.

And I tire of it, so I'll be opting out. There are many other venues for me to observe largely vapid takes, and it's one of the reasons I'm tuning out, increasingly, from the interwebs altogether.

Oh, and don't forget to swap out your gas stove for an electric one!

Joke's on you. No one in Norway cooks with gas.

Might I suggest Breitbart as a more suitable place for your brainfarts? Or a street corner?

The only thing you've demonstrated throughout this thread is your breathtaking ignorance on the subject, and your complete lack of understanding of even the most basic things, like the difference between weather and climate, or science and oil industry propaganda, or probability and causality, or that there used to be an ice age (seriously, you were baffled at the massive floods that happened some thousands of years ago and claimed that it could happen again since we don't really know what caused them, yet the very Wikipedia article you posted spelled out the various explanations that have been considered and what the causes could have been), and every time I point out one of your misconceptions you either ignore it for a couple of weeks or go on the attack with yet another word salad screed utterly devoid of actual content or thought. You never admit to getting anything wrong, it's always everyone else being rubes or plebes. You're a true conspiracy theorist. Anything that doesn't fit your view is either dismissed, ignored or part of the conspiracy.

[Joe Hillshoist]

It's a constant source of bafflement to me how people, often the ones who claim to think for themselves and routinely call others sheep, have gobbled up the oil industry propaganda so thoroughly. Even now, when climate change is glaringly obvious, they're desperately clinging to their narratives.

Some people don't think critically they think oppositionally.

This thread has 10 years of climate disasters catalogued in it:


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26525&hilit=global+warming

[Harvey]

Some people don't think critically they think oppositionally.

This thread has 10 years of climate disasters catalogued in it:


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26525&hilit=global+warming

Don't we all do both? Unless I'm mistaken and you're perfect.

Isn't the trick to continue to become aware of it, even as one forgets the fact? Don't you yourself routinely discount a wide range of ideas with considerable prejudice, just as I do?

We're swamped by fictional experience, a storm of ersatz throughout our lives. Over time hard earned knowledge gained inside this vortex must become less reliable as a guide to the present. Not just because we forget the complexity of the circumstances which led to each learned reflex, but because our culture is utterly corrupt and utterly irrational (though somehow maintains a veneer of rationality in all who continue to believe in it).

And it would seem our culture has been controlled by generational, interlocking and close knit private clubs composed of homicidal psychopaths, for some considerable time. Do you disagree? Infernal, creative insanity is an inevitable companion of great power it seems. Prevention of the accrual of great power in principle seems, erm, difficult to achieve in the longterm.

We have given you a Republic. It remains to be seen if you will be able to retain it.

Ben Franklin

We are in a relationship very much like that between livestock and farmer except less one sided. In that we, the sheep, can transform into wolves at any moment. It is one task of power to try to suppress any widespread recognition of this fact. In general today, the veneer of rationality has seemed to suffice. However the last three years have changed all prior relationships, in the Anglosphere at least. Perhaps because we, the workforce of the colonisers, have been just been colonised ourselves.

I'd go so far as to say, our continued survival is probably dependent upon a clear and widespread understanding of the meaning of the last three years.

As Stickdog wrote rather magnificently, all of our our finest feelings are routinely used against us by those who have none at all. Perhaps to them, our feelings are merely reflexes and an easily exploitable resource. But then, that notion can cut both ways.

Climate change is a case in point. If the society of total propaganda and consumerism in which we live had any inclination to tackle it, then it would have done so six to twelve decades ago, the span of knowledge of the potential for global warming caused by exhaust gasses. Instead, the powers that be chose to force arguably three world wars* and Consumerism down our throats. Climate change denial is absolutely a necessary corollary of consumerism. Is it not?

We're seeing the commodification and weaponisation of climate unease to accrue more power, money and control and soon enough all corporate media (and even some of those present) will be cheering climate censorship. Just as readily as they cheered Russiagate censorship and as they tacitly accepted Covid Censorship, just as they chose to believe that any scepticism of science uncer the shadow of gigantic Pharmaceutical corporations (who purchase mass propaganda as a cost of doing business) might be a bit right wing, a little bit too working class, or fash, or elitist, they couldn't quite make up their mind about that one.

Those who fight the commodification of environmentalism recognise that it is absolutely necessary to understand what made otherwise rational and reasonable people to discard much of their prior knowledge for much of the the last three years. What made those people incapable of understanding relative risk? What made them trust in literal oligarchs for their very safety?

Let them perhaps recognise that climate change denial may prove to be a valuable line of defence against the coming climate lockdowns, restrictions, controls, total loss of freedom and the seizure of the private wealth of the middle and working class, followed by the inevitable justifications for mass murder of all those who disagree, in the name of climate.

All this is coming. Those who don't realise that yet will either be very surprised or once again, fail to recognise it once it happens.

*The American Century has already been a third world war with as many as 40 million victims.

[Gnomad]

Yes.

And there can be no ethical consumption under capitalism, really. Imho that is the elephant in the room that is not talked about at all (in the mainstream politics).
This system is a cancer - both of the planet and of the people. It is just a pyramid scheme - quite literally too.

Co-operation and empathy are a greater force (in principle) than competition and greed, but we are not allowed to go there.

And it would seem our culture has been controlled by generational, interlocking and close knit private clubs composed of homicidal psychopaths, for some considerable time. Do you disagree? Infernal, creative insanity is an inevitable companion of great power it seems. Prevention of the accrual of great power in principle seems, erm, difficult to achieve in the longterm.
....
As Stickdog wrote rather magnificently, all of our our finest feelings are routinely used against us by those who have none at all. Perhaps to them, our feelings are merely reflexes and an easily exploitable resource. But then, that notion can cut both ways.

That is certainly true, and it is made even worse by the fact that most "regular" people cannot fathom that there are people like that, and that people like that are the ones ultimately holding power in our economic and political systems.

Furthermore, our culture is totally lacking the spiritual component at the moment - the western culture has made it completely taboo, and it is only hinted at through watered-down, symbolic religions, so people have been cut off from the connection to the Source. We have been sold fake idols in the form of material worship instead, and we treat everything living as resources only. And this is what is the real problem - we are sucking the actual life and diversity out of all ecosystems - climate change is just a side effect of that, and fixing that alone will not help.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 194911.htm

Cowie and co-authors estimated that since the year 1500, Earth could already have lost between 7.5 and 13% of the two million known species on Earth -- a staggering 150,000 to 260,000 species.

https://www.livekindly.com/60-of-all-ma ... new-study/

As of the study’s publication date (May 21, 2018), the 7.6 billion humans on Earth equated to just 0.01 percent of all the world’s inhabitants, however, the species maintains a significant impact on other life forms. Since civilization was established, the human race has caused the loss of 83 percent of all wild animals and 50 percent of all plants. Simultaneously, livestock farmed for human consumption represents a large portion of animals on Earth, meaning the natural harmonious balance between species is decreasing while farming animals for food is increasing.

The study also revealed that 70 percent of all birds on Earth are farmed poultry, leaving a mere 30 percent to be wild. However, the percentage of wild mammals was far and few between; 60 percent of the mammals on Earth are livestock (predominantly cattle and pigs), 36 percent are humans, and just four percent of the living mammals on the planet are wild animals.

Additionally, the whaling industry, that has operated for 300 years, is responsible for the 80 percent decline in marine life.

Overall, 82 percent of life on Earth is made up of plants, 13 percent is bacteria, and just five percent of life on Earth is animals.

But this is how it goes -
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/ ... emic-davos

$26tn of new wealth created since start of pandemic went to richest, Oxfam report reveals

Oxfam has called for immediate action to tackle a post-Covid widening in global inequality after revealing that almost two-thirds of the new wealth amassed since the start of the pandemic has gone to the richest 1%.

In report to coincide with the annual gathering of the global elite at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the charity said the best-off had pocketed $26tn (£21tn) in new wealth up to the end of 2021. That represented 63% of the total new wealth, with the rest going to the remaining 99% of people.

Oxfam said for the first time in a quarter of a century the rise in extreme wealth was being accompanied by an increase in extreme poverty, and called for new taxes to be levied on the super-rich.

Policies introduced to combat the economic impact of Covid 19 – such as cuts in interest rates and the money creation process known as quantitative easing – boosted the value of property and shares, which tend to be owned by richer people.

The report said that for every $1 of new global wealth earned by a person in the bottom 90%in the past two years, each billionaire gained roughly $1.7m. Despite small falls in 2022, the combined fortune of billionaires had increased by $2.7bn a day. Pandemic gains came after a decade when both the number and wealth of billionaires had doubled.
-------------
In support of its call for redistribution of wealth, Oxfam said:

* Food and energy companies had more than doubled their profits in 2022, paying out $257bn to wealthy shareholders at a time when more than 800 million people were going hungry.

* Only 4 cents in every dollar of tax revenue came from wealth taxes, and half the world’s billionaires lived in countries with no inheritance tax on money they give to their children.

* A tax of up to 5% on the world’s multimillionaires and billionaires could raise $1.7tn a year, enough to lift 2 billion people out of poverty, and fund a global plan to end hunger.

In a foreword to the report, Colombia’s finance minister, José Antonio Ocampo, said: “Taxing the wealthiest is no longer an option – it’s a must. Global inequality has exploded, and there is no better way to tackle inequality than by redistributing wealth.”

Quite the steal.
But hey, inflation, covid and war is what you should be blaming!

---
Edit: I think perhaps a more accurate description of the present planetary culture is adversarial, empire culture that is far older than capitalism. We have considered nature an enemy to tame violently, to repress and reap for our benefit. Now the empire's reach is global - there are no more frontiers to spread to for new growth, we are starting to think of even dredging the seafloor for mineral resources as the last place to expand to...While all ecosystems are starting to crack under pressure.

The previous collapses of empire always happened because the local resources were exhausted - think of the Roman empire for example, which cut all the mediterranean forests to fuel its growth.

"The final empire : the collapse of civilization and the seed of the future"
http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/index.html - This link has the full book available to read

Individual empires have suffered cyclical collapse since civilization began. The Babylonian, Greek and Roman empires are classical examples. These civilized empires initially expanded, funded by their base of arable land, grazing areas and forests. As they reached out, conquering new lands and peoples, their growth was fueled by slave labor and appropriated resources. Their growth continued until the ecological base of the empire was exhausted. At that point, the empires imploded. Sumeria and Babylonia stripped their lands through overgrazing and deforestation. This brought down huge amounts of erosion material that threatened the irrigation works. They also inexorably salinized their soil by irrigation. Early on, in the history of the Greek Empire, Plato complained of the ecological devastation in the area of Attica. By the end of that empire the ecology of the whole of Greece was severely injured. Both the Greek and Roman empires used North Africa as a "breadbasket" and by the close of the Roman Empire it was ecologically destroyed along with much of the rest of the Roman territories.

Though the standard political and social histories of these empires do not stress an ecological view, there is certainly no question that at the end of their cycles these empires had little ecological energy remaining.

Anywhere the culture of empire (a.k.a., civilization) has spread one finds devastated ecologies. The life is literally "rubbed out," the original life is gone. Much of the living flesh of the planet does not now exist in those places. But, we know that it did exist. The life in those areas has suffered a die-back. The forests are gone, the topsoil is depleted and the land is eroded. The richness of the land has been used up. The wealth of the earth’s life has been spent by the extortion of empire.

Empires implode. They collapse from within. This is beginning now on the edges of world civilization where the ecology has been stripped, the population is exploding and the resultant social turmoil insures further decline. These implosions of the colonies will eventually become general throughout the cultural system.

It all boils down to soil and the erosion of the soil we need to grow food -
https://www.umass.edu/news/article/soil ... tudy-finds

In a discovery that has repercussions for everything from domestic agricultural policy to global food security and the plans to mitigate climate change, researchers at the University of Massachusetts recently announced that the rate of soil erosion in the Midwestern US is 10 to 1,000 times greater than pre-agricultural erosion rates. These newly discovered pre-agricultural rates, which reflect the rate at which soils form, are orders of magnitude lower than the upper allowable limit of erosion set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
-----------------
Unfortunately, the USDA’s current limit for erosion is 1 mm per year—twenty-five times greater than the average rate Larsen’s team found. And some sites are experiencing far greater erosion, disappearing at 1,000 times the natural rate. This means that the USDA’s current guidelines will inevitably lead to rapid loss of topsoil.

Not only is the topsoil crucial for U.S. agriculture—the annual cost of diminished agricultural productivity and environmental degradation due to erosion is estimated to be tens of billion dollars per year—as well as world-wide food security, but most climate-mitigation plans rely heavily on storing carbon in the soil.

[stickdog99]

By way of introduction, I have felt my whole life that we humans could easily embrace a new environmental ethic in which we greatly reward anyone and everyone who makes the effort to leave the Earth more livable for future mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles and make this endeavor a fundamental concern of every human with the clear expectation that those who have personally profit the most from our current system must personally contribute the most to this effort. But to me, this beneficial instinct that I believe everyone here shares with most educated, non-sociopathic people on Earth is a far cry from the infallible tenets our current quasi-religious Church of COVID and Climate Change (CCCC).

The Nicene Neoliberal Creed

There are far too many humans on Earth. These humans are destroying our precious environment by emitting far too much carbon and nitrogen. This human activity is the sole cause of any and all bad weather. The only way to avert total imminent environmental disaster is to dramatically depopulate our planet of humans while strictly controlling the personal carbon allowance of each individual on the planet using digital IDs, a central bank digital currency, centrally controlled sustainable insect and lab grown protein sources, and authoritarian artificial intelligence control.

Because of all this, the most virtuous thing any individual can do is to slightly lengthen the lives of the elderly and comorbid first and foremost by always getting every injection approved by any committee of officially sponsored public health technocrats. This also requires always staying at home while plugging into the Metaverse every waking minute other than to accept Amazon deliveries of state sanctioned rations.

Most importantly, any scientific data that question any of these clear and undeniable facts must be completely censored. "Free speech" is nothing but a code word for dangerous Russian disinformation that threatens democracy and inclusivity.

Any questioning of any element this inviolable sacrosanct creed will be deemed "oppositional thinking" and will be met with the full force of authoritarian censorship, tribal expulsion, employment restrictions, a severe reduction in personal carbon allowance, and the forfeiture of all personal CBDC balances.

[DrEvil]

It's a constant source of bafflement to me how people, often the ones who claim to think for themselves and routinely call others sheep, have gobbled up the oil industry propaganda so thoroughly. Even now, when climate change is glaringly obvious, they're desperately clinging to their narratives.

Some people don't think critically they think oppositionally.

This thread has 10 years of climate disasters catalogued in it:


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26525&hilit=global+warming

I may have posted once or twice in that thread. Or 291 times. I forget.

What I don't get is this: people are worried about encroaching fascism in the name of climate change mitigation, and at the same time they're fighting tooth and nail to stop people actually doing something about it, thereby increasing the chance of their worst nightmares coming true.

In the current system increasing surveillance and authoritarianism is baked in. It's not going to stop if climate change suddenly becomes a non-issue, they'll just find another excuse (my money is on bio-terrorism). On the other hand, if climate change becomes a serious issue it will only give them an excuse for more surveillance and authoritarianism, and the worse things get the more people will cheer it on.

Worst case of dealing with climate change nothing changes, fascism marches on regardless, best case we help a lot of people and remove one excuse from the fascist playbook.

Worst case of not dealing with climate change sees our biosphere collapsing, mass starvation, mass movement of people, war and straight up totalitarian rule. Best case, nothing changes.

Climate change happening as predicted is a fascist wet dream (I wonder why it's almost always right-wing fucknuggets opposing climate action?). The vast majority of dead people will be poor and brown. And don't forget, there's a massive business opportunity there too: decades of war and chaos in developing countries, and any spillover into western countries could be used to rile up the people to willingly elect fascist front men for the elites to save them (if you think Syria did a number on European politics, that's nothing). Just think of all the weapons we could sell, not to mention all the resources we could plunder on the cheap.

[Harvey]

I wonder why it's almost always right-wing fucknuggets opposing climate action?

Targeted propaganda. Divide and rule 101.

[Belligerent Savant]

I wonder why it's almost always right-wing fucknuggets opposing climate action?

Targeted propaganda. Divide and rule 101.

Yes.

It's also the same vapid/rube take that equates any questioning of mRNA products as largely emanating from "anti-vaxxers/MAGA-tards/Right-Wing talking points"
(As I already touched on in my prior post above).


Related:

Slothrop
@gnocchiwizard

i don't know how anyone could make it through covid without developing doubts about the scientific consensus behind climate chance, and the political consensus that extreme sacrifices must be made by the public to avert a calamity foreseen by scientists with supercomputers.

before covid when i identified as a left wing person there were a lot of beliefs that i didn't really have per se but to which i nevertheless paid lip service (because not to do so was a marker of belonging to the wrong tribe), but over time the lip service ate into my thoughts.

natural systems like global climate are far too complex to be accurately modeled. beware of false prophets.

https://twitter.com/gnocchiwizard/statu ... K-L9hXhnjw

[stickdog99]

Add to that all the recent flooding in endless drought California.

As to Dr. Evil's point, of course we should "do something" about energy conservation and generation. However, could we please leave out the centralization of authoritarian control over each individual human's "carbon footprint" as well as the proposed climate lockdown?

The current belief of hundreds of millions of Westerners that climate change is an impending emergency completely justifying those actions and far more is also a fascist wet dream. And that's not just a computer model projection.

[DrEvil]

It's flooding in part because of the droughts. Dry ground doesn't absorb water very well.

You seem to have completely missed the gist of my argument: we should do something about climate change now, before it gets to the point where the elites feel they can start imposing draconian measures. Take away their excuse before they get to use it.

And no one proposed climate lockdowns. That was, as usual, the media taking things out of context and idiots with zero reading comprehension freaking out about it. They were talking about a lockdown equivalent reduction in emissions, which is not even remotely the same thing.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Some people don't think critically they think oppositionally.

This thread has 10 years of climate disasters catalogued in it:


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26525&hilit=global+warming

Don't we all do both? Unless I'm mistaken and you're perfect.

Isn't the trick to continue to become aware of it, even as one forgets the fact? Don't you yourself routinely discount a wide range of ideas with considerable prejudice, just as I do?

That is critical thinking. But i reckon what I think stands up to analysis.

Saying climate change ain't real and humans aren't causing it if it is... well that doesn't. End of story.

We're swamped by fictional experience, a storm of ersatz throughout our lives. Over time hard earned knowledge gained inside this vortex must become less reliable as a guide to the present. Not just because we forget the complexity of the circumstances which led to each learned reflex, but because our culture is utterly corrupt and utterly irrational (though somehow maintains a veneer of rationality in all who continue to believe in it).

I'd advise you to spend a decade or two living outside towns or cities then use that as a basis of your evaluation for the state of the climate. IE use your experience of the environment as your basis of your assessment for it. If you live in a housein a town somewhere then sure you're in that particular vortex. The vortexes I experience most frequently are weather related and hard to attribute to some form of communal group think cos they are a direct experience of the world not mediated by other humans.

And it would seem our culture has been controlled by generational, interlocking and close knit private clubs composed of homicidal psychopaths, for some considerable time. Do you disagree?

No, not at all.

Infernal, creative insanity is an inevitable companion of great power it seems. Prevention of the accrual of great power in principle seems, erm, difficult to achieve in the longterm.

We have given you a Republic. It remains to be seen if you will be able to retain it.

Ben Franklin

We are in a relationship very much like that between livestock and farmer except less one sided. In that we, the sheep, can transform into wolves at any moment. It is one task of power to try to suppress any widespread recognition of this fact. In general today, the veneer of rationality has seemed to suffice. However the last three years have changed all prior relationships, in the Anglosphere at least. Perhaps because we, the workforce of the colonisers, have been just been colonised ourselves.

For alot of history people who earned a wage were considered slaves by the ruling class. You might want to include the modern era in that time frame. I do.

I'd go so far as to say, our continued survival is probably dependent upon a clear and widespread understanding of the meaning of the last three years.

New years day three years ago (2020) the sun didn't come up. At least here. It was black on the East Coast of Australia on New Years day. Literally the sun didn't (appear to) come up on New Years because of a climate disaster driven by human consumption. But nah, global warming isn't a thing....

Surely you understand why i find this particular line of argument nauseatingly stupid. Stuff our continued survival. At least in that state. Society is broken and fucked. I've had as little to do with it as I can for the last 30 years.

Climate change is a case in point. If the society of total propaganda and consumerism in which we live had any inclination to tackle it, then it would have done so six to twelve decades ago, the span of knowledge of the potential for global warming caused by exhaust gasses. Instead, the powers that be chose to force arguably three world wars* and Consumerism down our throats. Climate change denial is absolutely a necessary corollary of consumerism. Is it not?

Well obviously. But you don't have to buy new stuff and you can scavenge most things that you need if you develop a little ingenuity. you don't have to be a consumer. You can do other things. It is hard, and as humans we do consume stuff. But you don't need to feed the consumer economy the way the people that think they're our masters want you to.

We're seeing the commodification and weaponisation of climate unease to accrue more power, money and control and soon enough all corporate media (and even some of those present) will be cheering climate censorship. Just as readily as they cheered Russiagate censorship and as they tacitly accepted Covid Censorship, just as they chose to believe that any scepticism of science uncer the shadow of gigantic Pharmaceutical corporations (who purchase mass propaganda as a cost of doing business) might be a bit right wing, a little bit too working class, or fash, or elitist, they couldn't quite make up their mind about that one.

You are aware of climate censorship under the Bush and Howard governments ... yeah? Where people in powerful positions as scientific advisers were sacked because they acknowledged the reality of climate change? This is the thing, for most of my life, all of my adult life, the things you describe - the powers that be - have done everything they can to avoid acknowledging or effectively acting to mitigate climate change.

My kids generation (they are all under 12, really they should be called my grandkids generation because I had kids late, older than people I know who were grandparents,) are most likely gonna burn it all down. The next generation from them won't have to cos it will burning itself down. They will act to destroy economies. Some of them will most likely brew up the depopulation pandemics most of you lot think just happened, but they'll do it on their own using stuff that is available via the black market.

Those who fight the commodification of environmentalism recognise that it is absolutely necessary to understand what made otherwise rational and reasonable people to discard much of their prior knowledge for much of the the last three years. What made those people incapable of understanding relative risk? What made them trust in literal oligarchs for their very safety?

Let them perhaps recognise that climate change denial may prove to be a valuable line of defence against the coming climate lockdowns, restrictions, controls, total loss of freedom and the seizure of the private wealth of the middle and working class, followed by the inevitable justifications for mass murder of all those who disagree, in the name of climate.

Seriously that's such a bourgeoisie, first world attitude. Tough shit. You shouldn't have thrown your lot in with that bunch of cunts in the first place.

All this is coming. Those who don't realise that yet will either be very surprised or once again, fail to recognise it once it happens.

*The American Century has already been a third world war with as many as 40 million victims.

Its already come. The apocalypse has been here for half a millenium, depending on where you live. 40 million is low too.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Corporations are bad therefore climate change isn't real is one of the more fucked up takes on the world that i've seen.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Add to that all the recent flooding in endless drought California.

As to Dr. Evil's point, of course we should "do something" about energy conservation and generation. However, could we please leave out the centralization of authoritarian control over each individual human's "carbon footprint" as well as the proposed climate lockdown?

The current belief of hundreds of millions of Westerners that climate change is an impending emergency completely justifying those actions and far more is also a fascist wet dream. And that's not just a computer model projection.

Has California always had a cycle of drought then flood?

If so - how come its got some of the worlds most productive farmland? The climate there has been crazy this century was relatively stable for a long time before that, its why the central valley became such a productive agricultural area isn't it?

If not then why is it so fucked up now?