WTF Happened in 1971

[Elvis]

The "white" lie is that markets are self-correcting.

[DrEvil]

If the corporate shit you're spouting was true, we'd have a Green New Deal.

It's weird how they've spent the last half-century sabotaging their own master plan.

Climate change has become another wedge in the culture war, and people are gobbling it up wholesale. It's like arguing with religious fanatics; reasoned arguments only reinforce their beliefs. Data is ignored or cherry-picked to fit their narrative, and mistakes are never acknowledged, and everyone else is a sheep, but not them, because they are special and see through the bullshit with their keen wit.

[Elihu]

Climate change has become another wedge in the culture war, and people are gobbling it up wholesale. It's like arguing with religious fanatics; reasoned arguments only reinforce their beliefs. Data is ignored or cherry-picked to fit their narrative, and mistakes are never acknowledged, and everyone else is a sheep, but not them, because they are special and see through the bullshit with their keen wit.[/quote]

culture war - not real
reasoned arguments - we'll come back to this one
Data - must be flawless
their narrative - safe to ignore
mistakes are never acknowledged - time for truth and reconciliation
and everyone else is a sheep, but not them, because they are special and see through the bullshit with their keen wit - we've all said things we regret

[Belligerent Savant]

...everyone else is a sheep, but not them, because they are special and see through the bullshit with their keen wit.

I see you're currently going through the phase of attempting to cope with the extent you've been misled on a number of topics, but remain unable to admit it to yourself.

Those that "see through the bullshit" are able to do so in part by openly attempting objective, sober assessment of information. The details may be off, in part or otherwise (no one will ever get it correct at all times, or perhaps even most of the time), but in order to have a functioning 'bullshit' detector, one must be willing to re-assess, re-consider, and re-calibrate their world views from time to time. And be willing to acknolwedge the potential of being wrong.

Those of your ilk, instead, continue to double-down on static thinking. Ultimately to your own (physical & mental) detriment, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

Elihu quoted Mencken in another thread, and this bit here is prescient:

...Its first concern must be to penalize the free play of ideas.

The 'free play of ideas' is verboten when adhering to dogma.

Cheers.

[Elvis]

"climate change is culture war" is the dumbest goddam thing I've heard all week.

It's a war for your mind, and the fossil fuel industry is winning, Dupes.

[DrEvil]

But it kinda has. If you look at the discourse online, a scary amount is just conservatives ranting about how the libruls want to take their freedoms and impose a green tyranny. Facts have nothing to do with it any more, it's all feelings, all the way, same as most culture war issues, and tptb are more than happy to fan the flames while they keep looting the coffers. For a lot of people being a skeptic is no longer a (more or less) reasoned position, but an identity, a tribal affiliation.

BS wrote:

Those that "see through the bullshit" are able to do so in part by openly attempting objective, sober assessment of information.

What do you think I'm doing when I'm reading the stuff you're posting? Do you expect everyone to fall in line and agree with everything you post? I am allowed to assess the information and make up my own mind, right?

[Elihu]

a scary amount

don't be scared

[Belligerent Savant]

Do you expect everyone to fall in line and agree with everything you post? I am allowed to assess the information and make up my own mind, right?

I never suggested or implied any such thing (expecting anyone to simply ‘fall in line’ with my observations).
You or anyone is welcome to assess info however preferred, of course — and I often include that sentiment as a disclaimer in a number of my posts.
It just so happens much of your takes fall quite neatly in-line with dominant status quo (and often heavily funded) positions/talking points. This fact does not — apparently — inspire any re-consideration on your part, however.

As I’ve typed many times before: proceed however you deem fit, however flawed or not those proceedings may be.

Applicable to all of us.

[DrEvil]

It just so happens much of your takes fall quite neatly in-line with dominant status quo (and often heavily funded) positions/talking points.

Oh come on! How many times has it been pointed out to you that many of your talking points come straight from the oil industry?

If the overwhelming majority of experts in a field tell you this is how it is, shouldn't you at least seriously consider the possibility that they could be right and that they aren't all lying through their teeth (I know. COVIDCOVIDCOVID!!!11!!One)?

Also, the dominant status quo has been, and still is to a degree, drill baby, drill! The green movement has been fighting an uphill battle for decades against the people in charge (which is the sort of thing that happens when you're up against the most powerful and profitable industry in the world), and it's only now they're finally getting some traction because it's becoming more and more obvious that the problem can't be ignored.

As I’ve typed many times before: proceed however you deem fit, however flawed or not those proceedings may be.

Applicable to all of us.

If only you took this to heart.

[Elihu]

It's a war for your mind, and the fossil fuel industry is winning

honest question, wrt to quoted, what's at stake?

[Belligerent Savant]

It just so happens much of your takes fall quite neatly in-line with dominant status quo (and often heavily funded) positions/talking points.

Oh come on! How many times has it been pointed out to you that many of your talking points come straight from the oil industry?

If the overwhelming majority of experts in a field tell you this is how it is, shouldn't you at least seriously consider the possibility that they could be right and that they aren't all lying through their teeth (I know. COVIDCOVIDCOVID!!!11!!One)?

Also, the dominant status quo has been, and still is to a degree, drill baby, drill! The green movement has been fighting an uphill battle for decades against the people in charge (which is the sort of thing that happens when you're up against the most powerful and profitable industry in the world), and it's only now they're finally getting some traction because it's becoming more and more obvious that the problem can't be ignored.

As I’ve typed many times before: proceed however you deem fit, however flawed or not those proceedings may be.

Applicable to all of us.

If only you took this to heart.

I don’t subscribe to the term ‘fossil fuels’, for one, which right there already separates my perspectives from ‘big oil’ propaganda. It’s to their benefit to perpetuate the ‘scarcity’ canard, and the ‘fossil fuel’ misnomer is one way such lies are perpetuated.

As I typed and demonstrated elsewhere, this ‘consensus’ you speak of does not exist to the extent projected by your cherished talking heads. It’s yet another form of manipulation of statistics.

This (frankly low-brained) reflexive impulse to associate anything that counters the ‘climate alarm’ narratives as ‘fossil fuel industry propaganda’ reveals only the extent of conditioning, not critical thinking.

[DrEvil]

It just so happens much of your takes fall quite neatly in-line with dominant status quo (and often heavily funded) positions/talking points.

Oh come on! How many times has it been pointed out to you that many of your talking points come straight from the oil industry?

If the overwhelming majority of experts in a field tell you this is how it is, shouldn't you at least seriously consider the possibility that they could be right and that they aren't all lying through their teeth (I know. COVIDCOVIDCOVID!!!11!!One)?

Also, the dominant status quo has been, and still is to a degree, drill baby, drill! The green movement has been fighting an uphill battle for decades against the people in charge (which is the sort of thing that happens when you're up against the most powerful and profitable industry in the world), and it's only now they're finally getting some traction because it's becoming more and more obvious that the problem can't be ignored.

As I’ve typed many times before: proceed however you deem fit, however flawed or not those proceedings may be.

Applicable to all of us.

If only you took this to heart.

I don’t subscribe to the term ‘fossil fuels’, for one, which right there already separates my perspectives from ‘big oil’ propaganda. It’s to their benefit to perpetuate the ‘scarcity’ canard, and the ‘fossil fuel’ misnomer is one way such lies are perpetuated.

Of course you don't. But does it matter? Wells still run dry, and the stuff still releases CO2 when you burn it. The origin of the oil itself is a distraction. When you burn it, it's gone. The wells aren't going to refill overnight. Even if it only took a century they would be reopening old wells by now.

Also, what scarcity canard? Heard of OPEC? Any scarcity is artificial to boost prices whenever there's too much oil on the market.

As I typed and demonstrated elsewhere, this ‘consensus’ you speak of does not exist to the extent projected by your cherished talking heads. It’s yet another form of manipulation of statistics.

Consensus just means the majority agrees on something. Whether you like it or not, the majority of climate scientists think you're wrong (and I don't care what retired Nobel laureates in physics, electrical engineers, lawyers or geologists have to say about it. It's not their field of expertise). And before you start ranting about covid again, don't. They're not even remotely comparable scenarios. Covid is "oh shit this looks bad, we have to act now"; climate change is "130 years of research and measurements/observations tell us this is happening".

This (frankly low-brained) reflexive impulse to associate anything that counters the ‘climate alarm’ narratives as ‘fossil fuel industry propaganda’ reveals only the extent of conditioning, not critical thinking.

I did say "many", not "all". A lot of what you've been posting had its origin with various think tanks and experts for hire that are funded by the oil industry. I don't care what you think about that, because I don't expect you to examine it in any way. You have already decided climate change is bullshit, and you're looking for evidence to back your beliefs (so the opposite of what you're supposed to do). So far your efforts have been lacking.

Anyway, why are you posting papers on CO2 absorption? You have already stated several times that you don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change. It should be irrelevant to you, just another distraction from the real story. Could it possibly be that you don't have a good grasp on what you're preaching and you're just throwing shit at the wall?

[Belligerent Savant]

.
I post what I post, in part, to showcase that the primary narratives are largely bullshit.

CO2 absorptions pieces are shared to showcase that "net zero" et al. is NEVER necessary; even if one subscribed to the -- in my opinion, false -- notion that CO2, or more specifically, human-based CO2, is a PRIMARY driver of "climate change", there are other ways to combat the issues WITHOUT the need for ANY austerity measures/restrictions on humans. And it's becoming clearer with the passage of time that this entire notion [that everyday human activities are the primary reason for "climate change"] is one of many scams of the modern era. I realize how you and those of your ilk reflexively respond to this. You can't allow yourself to consider that you've been deeply misled -- this does not, however, change the reality that you have been deeply misled.

You cite "think tanks" but the reality is you're largely grasping at straws because you perform minimal - if any - due diligence on data points outside your echo chambers, other than assessing what your echo chambers say about such data points. Almost universally, they claim anything that counters "climate alarm" (and related narratives) can ONLY come from "fossil fuel" propaganda/think tanks/fundings -- all without irony, as they are either wholly ignorant or willfully withholding the IMMENSE funding of all manner of "net zero"/"climate alarm"-related narratives, from the likes of BlackRock, Gates Foundation, WEF, et al. NONE of these entities consider the interests of the majority. They consider only the interests and advancement of the very, very few.

But yea: proceed with your storylines/curated reality.

As I've mentioned before, it doesn't matter what your or I type here. But unfortunately, we do now live in a time where WRONG notions about reality CAN indeed negatively impact the lives of the rest of us (See: covid restrictions, and, perhaps soon: "climate alarm" restrictions; monetary access restrictions, etc).

Fucking rubes abound.

#LiberatedLisa
@SRQSmartyPints
·
...They pushed the Green New Deal on you, and now even former Sanders progressives like me understand that it was a crown corporate scam from the start.

https://x.com/SRQSmartyPints/status/1814185135379529840

[DrEvil]

You cite "think tanks" but the reality is you're largely grasping at straws because you perform minimal - if any - due diligence on data points outside your echo chambers, other than assessing what your echo chambers say about such data points.

My due diligence consists of reading all the denier and skeptic arguments you and your ilk post. Most of it is terrible, and five minutes of due diligence would have told you the same thing. Get off Twitter, it's rotting your brain.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
You've only provided subjective commentary here. Nothing compelling or distinct from status quo narratives.

But you are free to continue to subscribe to your belief systems, of course. Keep holding on.

(and you can/will retort that I do the same, naturally. I understand the mindset.)

[Twitter is merely one of the more easily accessible mediums, but on this topic I've included links across many sources, including science papers/studies, etc -- all with appropriate qualifiers, of course. Again: attacking the 'source'/messenger rather than the message itself is one of numerous faulty/lazy tactics employed by those that prefer to wave their hands at information that counters inherent bias.]