'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Joe:

Australia has lost between 5 and 10 thousand homes to climate disasters since 2019.

I mentioned in my prior posting that I misread portions of your comment on Gates, but specific to your point about homes lost due to climate disasters:

Globally, there are far fewer lives lost and far less damage to property/structures now compared to years past due to advances in structural planning, preparedness and other factors (which include the use of historical forms of energy — gas, carbon, oil, etc — to facilitate).

But beyond that, as I’ve been repeating for some time: changes to climate does NOT by default = changes are due primarily to human-based activities/emissions, especially when compared to climate/weather patterns going back thousands of years, well before modern human industry (and also the notions that human-generated CO2 levels are primary drivers of increased CO2; and the extent higher CO2 is a cause for imminent concern as currently broadcast by those subscribing to these theories, without consideration to myriad other factors that influence climate fluctuations over time).

To be clear, none of the above suggests no action should be taken to address climate changes.

But we are being told the reasons for climate changes are due principally to human activities as primary factor, and importantly, that commoners everywhere will need to submit to imposed broad-scale austerity measures and restrictions on human agency/rights as a ‘critical’ need to ‘combat’ these changes.

It’s alarming that so many are perfectly willing (and clamoring) to adopt these measures, seemingly without a hint of scrutiny or discernment. Which is precisely what we just observed from 2020-2023 for another ‘crisis’ we very recently endured. The parallels are clear and myriad, regardless of any attempts to silence such comparisons.

While the below link includes indications that human-based activities contribute to climate change (as expected — the aim of this piece is not to challenge the current narratives), NOTE the non-human factors cited in the below excerpt, specifically with respect to Australia and causes for the recent extreme weather conditions:

Climate influences

A major global-scale cause of the extreme weather conditions in 2019 was the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), which last year moved into its strongest positive phase since 1997. The IOD is an oscillation that occurs in the sea-surface temperature between the western and eastern tropical Indian Ocean, analogous to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation in the Pacific Ocean. The relatively cool sea-surface temperatures near Australia during a positive IOD typically are linked to southeast Australia’s reduced spring rainfall. Last year’s IOD persisted into the beginning of summer, before being dissipated by a delayed monsoon.
Most often, hot and dry conditions occur when a positive IOD coincides with an El Niño; this year’s extremes occurred in the absence of one. “The fact we’ve had a really serious drought with only one of those factors is quite exceptional,” says Mark Howden, director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University (ANU).
Positive IODs don’t occur that often. From 1960, when records began, there were 10 such events through 2016, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology. Scientists disagree on whether they will increase in number and strength as the climate continues to warm. “There are papers suggesting that the positive IOD will become stronger and more frequent, leading to drier conditions in winter and spring,” says Julie Arblaster, an associate professor of Earth atmosphere and environment at Monash University. Some analyses indicate that a doubling of strongly positive IODs will occur with a global rise of 1.5°, says Howden.

A rare event
One highly unusual occurrence, a breakdown of the Antarctic polar vortex due to sudden stratospheric warming, worsened fire conditions in Australia last year. Such events occur with some frequency in the Northern Hemisphere winter, but they are rare in the Antarctic. Prior to last year, the only other sudden warming was observed in 2002, though weakenings of the vortex have occurred more frequently. By coincidence, a paper Arblaster coauthored in the November 2019 issue of Nature Geoscience describing the effects of those weakenings on Australia’s climate was in review when the actual event was in progress.
Like its counterpart in the Arctic, the southern polar vortex annually weakens in late spring as the atmosphere warms. But last August’s sudden breakdown occurred months ahead of schedule. The effect was to increase the likelihood of spring hot and dry extremes across subtropical eastern Australia, as Arblaster and her colleagues described in their statistical analysis of observations over 40 years. Last year’s collapse of the vortex caused the SAM and the surface westerlies to move northward and prevented the typical moisture-laden southeast trade winds from the Tasman Sea from reaching Australia’s southeastern coast, says Karoly. It’s far too early to draw a connection between climate change and the sudden warming, researchers agree.
Howden points to the extreme low humidity that accompanied the drought and heat waves as an apparent signal of climate change. The relative amount of moisture in the atmosphere has dropped across the midlatitudes that Australia occupies, compared with historical levels.
At the synoptic scale, the current fire season has featured a persistent high-pressure system, centered over the Tasman Sea, that circulated hot, dry air from Australia’s interior desert to the southeastern part of the country, says Howden. When approaching cold fronts increased the pressure gradient in front of the high pressure, winds picked up and added fuel to the fires. Turbulent winds from multiple directions followed passage of the fronts and made the fires difficult to manage. According to Howden, some analyses have suggested that this pattern is likely to grow in frequency as the climate continues to transform.

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/artic ... fires-It-s

I can understand agreement with the currently dominant narratives Re: anthropogenic factors (which are particularly promoted among most if not all first world govts, institutions and organizations that, perhaps not coincidentally, have also been undertaking/pushing increasingly overt and brazen power/control efforts, globally).

The level of desperation, concern and worry will only increase, for a variety of reasons, which puts us all in positions of compromise and vulnerability.

[Joe Hillshoist]

WTF???

You don't know what you're talking about.

That stuff you posted talks about rare breakdowns of the polar vortex, which I lived thru btw, doing shit you wouldn't believe.

What caused that sudden warming of the stratosphere? See I know what the fuck those people are talking about in your little quote. The sudden breakdown in August - do you know how that happened? I do. Explain it to me in your own words without web searching.

Actually you won't be able toso i'll do it quickly. The darkness over the pole and the sun on the southern ocean drive the antarctic polar vortex. As Spring comes the sun moves south and warms the pole slowly ending the vortex.

That year a whole lot of low atmospheric heat moved south in winter, driven by the associated pressure changes and eventually rose into the stratosphere. A large amount of that heat came from the unprecedented heat waves over south eastern Australia during the summer of 2018/19. In central western NSW the temp didn't drop below 100F for months. Most of the time it was over 105F. And the nights were regularly warm, rarely under 75F. A key indicator ot CO2 driven warming is the higher night temperatures, obviously.

I also don't care about this shit:

[i]It’s far too early to draw a connection between climate change and the sudden warming, researchers agree.[/i

especially when its contradicted in the very next line. Its rubbish spread by gutless people who have been intimidated by their need for jobs in the mainstream media. Have you read that article properly? Its basically describing the stable climate systems we knew breaking down from even minimal amounts of climate change. But then that's how chaotic dynamic systems work isn't it. Small inputs result in large chaotic and unpredictable outputs.

The event was obviously driven by climate change and the incidental conditions prove that. I know what I'm talking about. You don't and that's why I'm getting annoyed at the way you constantly post stuff you don't understand then say it means things it doesn't in a pointless quest to find some relevance.

Anyway that was only one of the influences on those fires that year but it was bastard of a thing.


BTW its flooding here again. Fucken rain.

[Grizzly]

Absolute Zero and the Western Holodomor

How they will control humanity this century

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 116

You have probably heard of "Net Zero," the unrealistically ambitious target of having no net greenhouse gas emissions by some point in the relatively near future (2030, maybe 2050 at the latest). A report filed in 2019 by the prestigious government-funded UK organization of engineers and scientists, UK FIRES (https://ukfires.org/), thinks Net Zero is not enough and is pushing for an insanely aggressive program called "Absolute Zero" (https://ukfires.org/absolute-zero/), absolutely zero emissions by 2050. What does it entail? Among other things, no flights, no container shipping, no red meat consumption, no cement, no new steel production, and no fossil fuel use for any reason, even plastics, by 2050. How do they expect this to be possible? Draconian governmental action combined with drastic semi-voluntary reductions in individual quality of life for all citizens. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay reads the Executive Summary of the UK FIRES "Absolute Zero" report [pdf (https://newdiscourses.com/wp-content/..., hosted by Cambridge University, by the way] to expose the unworkable, catastrophic insanity of their zero-emissions program in the UK and beyond, warning that it sets the stage for a Western Holodomor

https://ukfires.org/)
https://ukfires.org/absolute-zero/)

[Belligerent Savant]

WTF???

You don't know what you're talking about.

That stuff you posted talks about rare breakdowns of the polar vortex, which I lived thru btw, doing shit you wouldn't believe.

What caused that sudden warming of the stratosphere? See I know what the fuck those people are talking about in your little quote. The sudden breakdown in August - do you know how that happened? I do. Explain it to me in your own words without web searching.

Actually you won't be able toso i'll do it quickly. The darkness over the pole and the sun on the southern ocean drive the antarctic polar vortex. As Spring comes the sun moves south and warms the pole slowly ending the vortex.

That year a whole lot of low atmospheric heat moved south in winter, driven by the associated pressure changes and eventually rose into the stratosphere. A large amount of that heat came from the unprecedented heat waves over south eastern Australia during the summer of 2018/19. In central western NSW the temp didn't drop below 100F for months. Most of the time it was over 105F. And the nights were regularly warm, rarely under 75F. A key indicator ot CO2 driven warming is the higher night temperatures, obviously.

I also don't care about this shit:

[i]It’s far too early to draw a connection between climate change and the sudden warming, researchers agree.[/i

especially when its contradicted in the very next line. Its rubbish spread by gutless people who have been intimidated by their need for jobs in the mainstream media. Have you read that article properly? Its basically describing the stable climate systems we knew breaking down from even minimal amounts of climate change. But then that's how chaotic dynamic systems work isn't it. Small inputs result in large chaotic and unpredictable outputs.

The event was obviously driven by climate change and the incidental conditions prove that. I know what I'm talking about. You don't and that's why I'm getting annoyed at the way you constantly post stuff you don't understand then say it means things it doesn't in a pointless quest to find some relevance.

...

Right, Joe.

Nothing you typed above bolsters the case that climate change is caused primarily by anthropogenic factors

I understand the information shared here quite well.

Discerning information is not simply taking words typed at face value, but applying context and comparison to other datapoints, and understanding that science inherently is not infallible. It was never designed to be; the 'scientific method' was developed in part to apply healthy scrutiny and revision to existing/prevailing modes of thought.

You're getting all riled up but displayed no compelling information to support current dogma Re: anthropogenic factors as the primary cause of weather/climate fluctuations.

But you're well within your rights to believe what you choose to believe. We all are.

Though as we've observed, beliefs can have their consequences as well.

[Belligerent Savant]

@MisinformNoMore
·
Replying to @rjohnson_ca

Let me rephrase it for you...

Even if there's a very slim chance of a doomsday scenario, global devastation is too immense to ignore.

We are playing Russian roulette with our planet's fate. You are assuming the gun is unloaded, when gun experts say otherwise.
...

@rjohnson_ca

Thanks for the clarification. Everyone on the planet knows your argument. Let me clarify for you, very few climate scientists think we are in some doomsday scenario, the vast majority believe there is some impact by humans but have no idea how much. You are listening to activists, and leftish politicians who use the term "scientist say" with every utterance. You should actually read the IPCC report, not the summary for policy makers, but the report. You are willing to guarantee the death of millions with your climate policy based on ignorance. China and India are producing more CO2 than the rest of the planet combined, but your side says "net zero" will solve the problem. You are wrong.
...

Truth or Consequences
@MisinformNoMore

Please show your work.
...

@rjohnson_ca

You don't seem to understand science, Skeptical scientists don't have to show any work they just have to show your hypothesis wrong. Your own models do that, historical records show the hockey stick is wrong.

Here is a little historic climate change for you. Recorded in the rocks for posterity.



...

@MisinformNoMore

Sorry, a picture of a rock doesn't say much about global climate. If that's all you have, you probably should just leave this to the scientists.
...

@S_D_Mannix

Monstrous own goal
...

@pelchat_gerald

It's a perfect picture of the earth's history for millennia; ask any trained Geologist.
...

@Bhedin7
·
The example shows that climate changes on its own, for billions of years.
200 years of Industrialized man is a speck in time.
If 1 second were a year, it is 3 minutes and 20 seconds vs 143 years.

Man only accounts for 3% of the .04% CO2 in the atmosphere.

We need to settle down

https://twitter.com/rjohnson_ca/status/ ... 21728?s=20

https://twitter.com/rjohnson_ca/status/ ... 88160?s=20

[Grizzly]

Watch: Biden’s Deputy Energy Sec. evades Sen John Kennedy’s climate questions – ‘If we spent $50 trillion…by 2050…how much is that going to reduce world temps?’

https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/05/15/i-dont-watch-bidens-deputy-energy-sec-evades-sen-john-kennedys-climate-questions-if-we-spent-50-trillion-by-2050-how-much-is-that-going-to-reduce-world-temps/

[stickdog99]

Source

[stickdog99]

How The War on Climate Change Destroyed the Environmental Movement

The many overlaps between the military-industrial, medical-industrial, and climate-industrial complex.

In the first part of this series (which must be read to understand many of the concepts here), I reviewed how many different industries are dominated by individuals who will put profits before human lives—and that this happens to a degree that is often difficult to even imagine. The military industrial complex, and the recent war in Ukraine best embody this grotesque facet of the human condition, but the same patterns are seen in many other fields as well.

As a longtime environmentalist, one of the most depressing things I have watched in my lifetime has been major polluters hijacking the environmental movement and transforming it from something that fought to against the destruction of our air and water to a fanatical crusade against (harmless) carbon dioxide. Sadder still, this crusade has gradually become a war and has adopted the same playbook used by the parties which lust for complete power over the citizenry.

(Disclaimer: some of what I will write here will likely raise strong disagreements with some of you. I am completely fine if you disagree with this piece, particularly since it is not my field of expertise, and I likely made some unintentional errors in writing this.)

The War on Climate Change

Before COVID-19 vaccines, the drugs best known for having a terrible risk-to-benefit ratio but nonetheless being pushed on entire populations were statins.

Note: I would argue the antidepressants were worse in this regard, but the issues with statins were better recognized.

When you dive into statins, you find a very familiar pattern—the evidence shows there is no benefit from them, the public is not even allowed to view most of the evidence, and all the bodies which mandated statins on the population (e.g., government health panels) were being bribed by statin manufacturers. Beyond the COVID-19 vaccines, this is precisely what happened (and can be clearly proven) with Remdesivir, which for a long time was the only approved treatment for COVID-19 despite it being deadly and ineffective.

One of the leading advocates against statins, Malcolm Kendrick MD, has advanced a compelling argument for why the drug industry will never let statins go. It took so much money (and time) to create the cholesterol market built upon the dogma that cholesterol is the primary cause of heart disease and that we must do everything possible to lower it, that the industry will never let that investment go.

Similarly, with global warming, because so much was invested into having it be the entire face of environmentalism, once its predictions failed to materialize, something else had to be done to preserve the investment. This was, of course, “climate change,” an even more vague and undefinable target that anything and everything could fit into, including every destructive effect of pollution that had nothing to do with carbon dioxide being emitted.

Throughout my lifetime, I have repeatedly read numerous documents either authored by or allegedly authored by government think tanks which have essentially said that to effectively control the population and exploit them (e.g., have a national unity behind a terrible policy), wars and crises are necessary. In each case, that emergency can be used to justify rapid changes in society, no one would otherwise accept, and the minority who go against them can be labeled as traitors and, in one way or another, neutralized.

In the old days, this was done with physical wars (best encapsulated by 1984’s reference to the totalitarian state the main character lived in, always being at war with one of the other two empires). However, when World War 2 happened, a significant issue with that approach emerged—war technology had advanced to the point that physical wars between major powers were immensely devastating and resulted in destroyed infrastructures no one could make money off of once the war ended.

This, along with the threat of mutually assured destruction, led to various alternative warfare methods being developed, such as economic conflicts between major powers, limited proxy wars in smaller nations (e.g., Vietnam), and pseudo-wars being created domestically.

In the case of pseudo-wars, the goal was to create a war against an “idea” so the war could never end, and it could be continually used to justify all the policies that normally required a war. In most of the documents I read, the typical targets for a pseudo-war were:

•An infectious disease.

•Terrorism.

•A widespread environmental threat.

Since we all lived through Bush’s War on Terror, it should be clear how that played out, and that it accomplished nothing besides making a lot of money for those invested in it and it diverted a lot of America’s attention toward non-existent terror threats (e.g., does anyone remember how long we had a color code of terror alert days?).

Early in COVID, a wise friend called me up and stated the following:

I just realized something. COVID-19 is the Democrat’s War on Iraq. It’s going to be built on a bunch of blatant lies the media will viciously uphold as truth, and everyone behind this is going to do as much profiteering off of it as they can for as long as possible, which is probably going to be a long, long time.

I guess I can’t complain though; at least we aren’t killing tons of Iraqis overseas to fund this.

In the book The Real Anthony Fauci, RFK Jr. provided the best case I have seen for just how much many members of government (e.g., the intelligence services) and the oligarchs have pushed for a “war” against a disease. To share two of its many quotes:

[Bill] Gates reiterated: “The world needs to prepare for pandemics in the same serious way it prepares for war.”

“Governments do like epidemics, just the same way as they like war, really. It’s a chance to impose their will on us and get us all scared so that we huddle together and do what we’re told.” —Dr. Damien Downing, President, British Society of Ecological Medicine (Al Jazeera, 2009)

In a recent interview, RFK Jr. also discussed how the War on Climate Change had been coopted by those same war profiteers. I believe his position on this specific issue, in time, will show itself to be one of the most important reasons for his presidential campaign:

The climate issues and pollution issues are being exploited by the World Economic Forum and Bill Gates and all of these big Mega billionaires the same way that COVID was exploited. To use it as an excuse to clamp down — top down totalitarian controls on society and to then to give us engineering solutions. And if you look closely as it turns out, the guys who are promoting those engineering solutions are the people who own the IPs, the patents for those solutions. It’s being used…

…They’ve given climate chaos a bad name because people now see that it’s just another crisis that’s being used to strip mine the wealth of the poor and to enrich billionaires.

Note: many of the same individuals who were responsible for the disastrous wars on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan during Bush’s presidency, continued business as usual within the Obama administration (e.g., in Libya and Ukraine), and then after a brief hiatus returned to power with Biden. Victoria Neuland is an excellent example of this issue (e.g., see Ron Paul’s article here).

One of the more disturbing things these individuals have been pushing for in the Biden administration is to restart the War on Terror, but instead have it be directed towards American citizens who question the narrative. For example, consider this Homeland Security Bulletin of Terrorist Threats to The US Homeland:

•Law enforcement have expressed concerns that the broader sharing of false narratives and conspiracy theories will gain traction in mainstream environments, resulting in individuals or small groups embracing violent tactics to achieve their desired objectives. With a diverse array of threats, DHS is concerned that increased outbreaks of violence in some locations, as well as targeted attacks against law enforcement, may strain local resources.

•Nation-state adversaries have increased efforts to sow discord. For example, Russian, Chinese and Iranian government-linked media outlets have repeatedly amplified conspiracy theories concerning the origins of COVID-19* and effectiveness of vaccines*; in some cases, amplifying calls for violence targeting persons of Asian descent.

*all of these have since been proven true.

Questioning Climate Change

One of the things I always marvel about with life is how often a sincere commitment to the truth ends up putting you at odds with a peer group you join because you share many of their values. I care about the environment but am stuck in a position where the environmentalists hate me because I do not support the Climate Change narrative. In contrast, those who do not support the Climate Change narrative hate me because I care about the environment and do not believe polluters should be given a free pass to support economic growth.

Because of how much has been invested into the climate change narrative and the vital social functions it serves (protecting industrial polluters from scrutiny and being a war that can be drawn out when needed), the need to hold onto the investment is even stronger than that seen with statins. So, as you might expect, when evidence emerges that challenges the climate change narrative, whatever is necessary to dismiss it occurs, while when evidence appears to support it, regardless of how flimsy it is, everyone parades it as irrefutable proof of the narrative. In other words, it is a situation not too different from what we have seen with COVID-19 vaccines.

From a philosophical standpoint, the root problem with the climate change narrative is that nothing can disprove it (thereby making it fulfill the classic criteria of pseudoscience). Climate change is an intentionally vague term, and fluctuations in weather always occur, so any unwanted fluctuation can be attributed to human-caused climate change (especially given how flexible our “models” are), and there is no way to prove or disprove any argument asserting climate change.

Consider natural disasters, which always occur. Many of them ultimately result from the fact that settlements were built where they should not have been (New Orleans being the classic example, since it is in a hurricane zone and below sea level, flooding is almost inevitable there). However, each time a disaster occurs, rather than acknowledging what really caused it, something else is blamed (e.g., bad luck or climate change) so disaster money can be gotten to patch the issue. Then, years later, the disaster repeats.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, whenever evidence emerges that suggests the climate change hypothesis is wrong, that data is attacked, censored, hidden, or altered. In the same way, those questioning vaccines are never given a platform to present their argument (as doing so asserted as equivalent to enabling murder), those questioning climate change are treated the same.

Many noteworthy examples of data have been presented that challenged the global warming hypothesis (either that warming was happening or that carbon dioxide, which only composes 0.04% of our atmosphere, correlates to temperature changes). Almost all of these have been censored.

The best example I ever came across happened during what was known as “Climategate,” where hackers got access to many documents and private emails from leading climate researchers worldwide in 2009. Although the press buried this story, the leaked files showed the following:

•A lot of data manipulation occurred to support the climate narrative; especially once raw data showed a downward trend in global temperatures after 2001. For example, a decision was made to primarily use temperature monitoring stations in hotter areas (while throwing out many more stations in colder areas) and then using the remaining (hotter) stations to extrapolate (hotter) temperatures for every single station (e.g., those in the colder areas). Similarly, numerous “adjustments” were made to the raw data, which increased the final temperatures.

•Most of the raw temperature data (which the theory of global warming was founded upon) was thrown out, thereby making it impossible for anyone to question or verify the scientist’s work. In emails, the scientists also discussed working to illegally circumvent Freedom of Information Act laws so their misconduct could not be uncovered.

•Leading climate scientists actively conspired to subvert the scientific peer review process to ensure that papers skeptical of their climate change narrative had no access to publication.

•This scientific malfeasance occurred globally (e.g., in England and in the USA at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Their erroneous results provided the involved scientists with continued funding and were repeatedly cited by officials (e.g., the Obama administration) worldwide to justify public climate policy.

much, much more at OP ...

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^^^^^^
Is it too premature to state here that a few of us called much of this out long before it began to gain traction, in spite of heavy pushback by many adherents to manufactured dogma?

Bitter pill to swallow, for some.

An opportunity to reflect and consider circumstances anew. Or: ignore what is increasingly apparent and instead double down in denial and insistence (the same fatal M.O. undertaken by a contingent Re: covid once the lies were more demonstrably exposed and more broadly acknowledged).


Side-note: for some time now I’ve been avoiding using the descriptor ‘fossil fuels’, or otherwise placing the phrase in quotes. The linked piece above touches on some of the reasons why.
Among other authors, the late great Dave McGowan was — again — ahead of the curve on this topic.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
The Opposing Arguments/Conclusions section is worth including here as well:

https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/ ... -destroyed

Opposing Arguments

Although I disagree with the climate change narrative, as a committed environmentalist, I’ve put a lot of thought into questioning that skepticism too. At this point, there are three arguments I’ve identified that argue against what I’ve put forward in this series I feel for fairness, I must also disclose.

The first is that the fossil fuel industry funded a significant degree of skepticism against global warming. This means it’s very possible some of what I believe on this subject was originally disinformation I incorrectly evaluated. However, given that “climate change” has allowed the fossil fuel industry to reap record profits due to the war against carbon dioxide reducing the available energy supply and thus raising its costs, I suspect it is less likely they are putting forward disinformation I am falling prey to here.

The second is that because the entire topic of environmental pollution is so complex and nuanced, for many people giving them something simple (carbon dioxide) to focus on is the most practical way to have them work to address the actual sources of air and water pollution such as burning coal. My issue with this is that I don’t think it is ever a good idea to make the population do what you think they need to do by lying to them, but my philosophy differs from that of virtually every leader.

The third is that due to the immense complexity of the climate system, our actions may be affecting it and causing some of the weather patterns we are seeing. I can identify many things humans are doing that I am relatively sure are affecting the weather (including certain pollutants being discharged into the atmosphere); I just can’t say the same for carbon dioxide emissions and am unsure if any of the climate mitigation methods we are using have a chance of positively affecting the climate.

Our current way of life is immensely destructive to the environment, and there is a good chance the pollution we are producing and our overconsumption of natural resources will eventually cause devastating environmental collapses. It’s just that since I do not believe carbon dioxide emissions are causing any of the current environmental damage we are seeing, I can’t, in good faith, endorse the current Climate Change narrative.

Conclusion

When I reflect upon the profoundly troubling behavior of many individuals detailed in this series (e.g., the arms dealer), I am reminded of what a spiritual teacher once told me:

If people’s internal environments are a mess, they will stop caring about their external environment and allow it to become a mess as well.

This cuts to the heart of many of the issues described in this article. Similarly, Ivan Illich, a polymath I periodically reference in my articles, had a variety of insights about medicine, society, and education that hold just as true now as they did decades ago.

One of his most accurate predictions was the assertion that as technology (and means necessary to run it) became more complex, the socialists would respond by trying harder and harder to micromanage every detail of society so that we could work in harmony with their vision of the future that was enabled by that technology. Illich did not support this solution because he felt it took away much of what made us human. He believed that if you replaced our manipulative institutions that tried to direct society in the ways the socialists thought was best with created decentralized systems that trusted each individual's ingenuity and provided the tools to empower them to address the issues at hand, you would have a much less resource-intensive system that produced better results and happier human beings. As the years go by, I become more and more convinced of the truth of Illich’s words and that they represent the direction we as a species must fight to go in.

Although all the ideas discussed in this article appear separate, I would argue they all represent the same systemic issue that plagues our country and show the natural trend toward monopolization and exploitation of the American people once government gets bought out by corporatocracy.

With respect to this bit here:

there is a good chance the pollution we are producing and our overconsumption of natural resources will eventually cause devastating environmental collapses

Much of the waste/pollution is undertaken by uber-wealthy orgs, compromised actors (within govts and also 'philanthropists', investors, etc), and/or those funding them. It is not the 'commoner' causing most of the harms.
Moreover: I don't share this pessimistic view as suggested in the quoted excerpt, at least not in the long run. I believe the earth/nature is quite resourceful in eventually reaching balance. But if current trajectory (of allowing those influencing sentiment) is left un-altered it may cost many lives and livelihoods in the meantime as millions remain confused and divided on root causes.

[stickdog99]

Environmental activism has been a big part of my political philosophy for my entire life.

In particular, I have always been strongly against nuclear fission power and strongly for conservation and clean, renewable energy solutions.

I have also been strongly in favor of finding some way to make the corporations who profit off of selling us their products take responsibility for the negative environmental effects of the use and disposal of their products. Were this policy to be implemented, even cursorily, we would see an immediate decrease in the cheap plastic that is poisoning so much of our environment.

The current practice of capitalism provides no incentives for making products that last, for making products that can be fixed easily, or for making products that biodegrade or can otherwise be disposed of both safely and easily once used.

To me, there is no reason that we cannot house 15 or even 20 billion humans on the planet. But to do so, we need to forge a new environmental ethic in which we prioritize leaving behind a better overall environment than the environment we arrived in.

My issue with the Net Zero War on Climate Change is that our elites have now figured out how to harness and direct our positive collectivist environmental stewardship ideals (and guilt) in the exact same way that they figured out how to harness and direct our positive collectivist respiratory disease spread ideals (and guilt) with their COVID-19 mandates.

And our elite's current prescriptions for combatting climate change are focused almost exclusively on centralized control, all power in the hands of concentrated wealth, and the totalitarian enforcement of austerity and dependency on everyone except those with all the wealth and power.

Does anyone actually disagree with this analysis? Can't we all at least agree that any authoritarian prescriptions compelling conservation should begin from the top down rather than from the bottom up?

[Belligerent Savant]

Neil Oliver: There’s nothing green about the green agenda...just plain old greed!

[Belligerent Savant]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/d ... et-lithium

[stickdog99]

[Belligerent Savant]

The SNP and Greens are being held responsible for a damning incident that led to fossil fuels being used to run a number of wind turbines in Scotland.

Despite the environmentally friendly credentials of turbines being lauded by ministers, ScottishPower has admitted that 71 have been linked up to generators burning diesel fuel.

The power company said they were forced to step in due to a fault on the national grid during the freezing spell in December but political opposition has slammed the Scottish Government for being untrustworthy with their environmental policies.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/ ... d-29142836