rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:29 pm**

I can't event tolerate these discussions anymore. Seriously. The fact that ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and the Heritage Foundation have convinced otherwise intelligent, reality-based people that climate change is a "myth" they should be "skeptical" about makes me want to blast off in a homemade rocket and live the last of my days in Gingrich's 51st state Moon colony.

Really, it is just overwhelmingly depressing.

Posted: **Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:48 pm**

Rory wrote:..
But I love how, such credible (4th dimensional shapeshifting lizards) witnesses such as Ike/Jones, dismiss it all out of hand because it must be the NWO crowd. And credulous fools dismiss actual science, not on any kind of logic basis, but because a conspiraloon for profit, like Ike says so.
Who is working towards the aims of TPTB again?

Ah but why do they believe Ike, thats what i find fascinating ('neither weep nor laugh but understand', Pan). What is the personal payoff for adopting the conspiritard p.o.v., despite its hilarious lack of evidence and logic?

I think the answer lies in a combination of our need to feel special or somehow different from fellow humans (this via belief in special/hidden knowledge), and the search for rationalisations for what we want to do anyway (keep megaconsuming & polluting, disregard pressures to reduce appetite).

Nearly every passionate AGW-is-a-hoax believer i have met or encountered has been a pretty mainstream usually older white male, and i think that cohort both has trouble feeling special (because culture has moulded them to be generic) and disappointment that The System hasn't provided them with everything they feel they were promised for their collaboration. The disappointment is channelled into blaming an Other because thats easier than admitting personal responsibility and taking any real action against systemic violence, as that would endanger comfort, wealth & status. Just take Ike twice a week in privacy of own home, and can keep working for The Man and shop as normal.

Posted: **Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:42 pm**

PP wrote...

The fact that ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and the Heritage Foundation have convinced otherwise intelligent, reality-based people that climate change is a "myth"

First of all climate changes. But go ahead with your sloppy use of language and accuse folk of things they would not say. Anything it takes I suppose, in order that your opponent can be painted into the box of irrationality.

2 the hubris involved about fixing it with a tax is beyond absurd.

3 you have no standing to paint skeptics motives as being derived from those of polluters.

4 have you ever heard of government telling the truth?

5 the claimed objectivity of science is a brazen conceit.

6 AGW has already jumped the shark, so who cares what you think.

7 I still don't understand how folk can consider that the scale of effects from AGW could be on par with Fukushima or DU or GMO's or glyphosphates

But that's just me and I only wish that others would think for themselves also.

Which naturally would include people on the AGW side of things, because this world is complicated and the science is not settled.

Posted: **Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:22 pm**

professorpan wrote:I can't event tolerate these discussions anymore. Seriously. The fact that ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and the Heritage Foundation have convinced otherwise intelligent, reality-based people that climate change is a "myth" they should be "skeptical" about makes me want to blast off in a homemade rocket and live the last of my days in Gingrich's 51st state Moon colony.

Really, it is just overwhelmingly depressing.

Human-induced climate change is no myth, but the sincerity of many who parrot Chevron-induced "skepticism" about it might be.

Posted: **Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:05 pm**

Thanks Sounder, but we are up against something other than natural ignorance,...no one is that dumb.

That's the point I made about not yet fully understanding why these people become active participants in the a global scale deception scheme. But certainly anger and hubris are essential innate characteristics of recognizing them,..along with a reasonable dose of misanthropy.

Another thing I note concerning them, is that they mostly seem to be victims of Empire's mind conditioning secular educational system ,...they can't think outside the confines of material reality and therefore are mentally blind to the larger reality that we know exists. Iow, they are materialists,...just about everything that Mysticism isn't. They seem to exhibit no awe of, or wonder about,.. the Whole picture,...the Cosmic order, both seen and unseen, immanent and transcendent.

That is why when they hear something outside the confines of their little mind, they go bananas! For if it were to be accepted as true, their whole hate filled little world would be seen to be the wrong way to live and since they've already invested so much of themselves in it,...there is no where else to go, and therefore to reestablish the semblance of peace of mind, the truth must be destroyed.

Which of course they can't do, but they would kill the messenger if they could as the next best thing.

:wink:

namaste

Posted: **Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:07 pm**

My comments look like this

Sounder wrote:
First of all climate changes. But go ahead with your sloppy use of language and accuse folk of things they would not say. Anything it takes I suppose, in order that your opponent can be painted into the box of irrationality.

2 the hubris involved about fixing it with a tax is beyond absurd.
Agreed. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it though.

3 you have no standing to paint skeptics motives as being derived from those of polluters.

4 have you ever heard of government telling the truth?
No, but I'm pretty used to scientists doing so. Scientists are people, just like you and me, some are nice, some are not, and that's the beauty of peer review. The people checking your results are often the same people you're competing for grant money with, or they are just normal bastards who take delight in pointing out other people's errors.

5 the claimed objectivity of science is a brazen conceit.
Yes, that's why we have absolutely no clue about the world around us or how it works, and no computers, no world wide web, no cell phones, no rockets, no average lifespan of 80 years, no vaccines, no way to cure any disease, and it's also why your brain boils every time you use the microwave.
Oh, wait..

6 AGW has already jumped the shark, so who cares what you think.
um... no.

7 I still don't understand how folk can consider that the scale of effects from AGW could be on par with Fukushima or DU or GMO's or glyphosphates
The G in AGW is a good indicator here.

But that's just me and I only wish that others would think for themselves also.

Which naturally would include people on the AGW side of things, because this world is complicated and the science is not settled.
Yes it is, or at least the fact that the planet is getting warmer. The dispute now is basically only about how bad the consequences will be.

Posted: **Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:37 pm**

BenD wrote....

they can't think outside the confines of material reality and therefore are mentally blind to the larger reality that we know exists. Iow, they are materialists

The limits that materialists put onto causality seems like compensation for lack of imagination. But we all have been taught to think within narrow confines for so long it's no surprise that many good folk still let themselves be led around by the nose, ie, by those higher up in the vertical authority distribution system.

The thing is Dr. Evil, I like people that think differently than myself because it helps me address issues that I might not otherwise consider.

Possibly, and somewhat connected to this though, is a sense of reticence when confronted by thinking that has room for no more than slander (not referring to you) toward the person that is willing to challenge the consensus. For me they do not inspire confidence in that coercion seems only distantly related to thinking.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:21 pm**

HEY KIDS! Here's how you can point out the fallacy of climate change "skeptics" in a few simple steps!

Step 1. "Skeptic" friend points to article. "Look at this! It's written by (Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist) and it's posted on (Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog) and it clearly shows that burning tons of coal and oil is NOT causing the planet to warm! So there, Mr. Al Gore-smartypants!"

Step 2. Go to SourceWatch.org. Plug name of Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist and Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog into search field.

Step 3. Discover Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist never published anything related to climate, but has a degree in Sports Medicine, and that Fancy Looking Blog is funded by ExxonMobil, CATO, Heartland Institute, and North American Coal Corporation.

Step 4. Show "Skeptic" friend the information, with clear documentation. Watch as "Skeptic" friend completely ignores the links to industries that burn shit and don't want people to believe it's doing bad things to our home planet and instead rushes off to find further evidence to support his nutty preconceptions.

Step 5. Bash head against wall repeatedly while cursing the American educational system and the power of well-funded propaganda. Go get drunk in attempt to dull the pain.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:28 pm**

professorpan wrote:HEY KIDS! Here's how you can point out the fallacy of climate change "skeptics" in a few simple steps!

Step 1. "Skeptic" friend points to article. "Look at this! It's written by (Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist) and it's posted on (Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog) and it clearly shows that burning tons of coal and oil is NOT causing the planet to warm! So there, Mr. Al Gore-smartypants!"

Step 2. Go to SourceWatch.org. Plug name of Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist and Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog into search field.

Step 3. Discover Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist never published anything related to climate, but has a degree in Sports Medicine, and that Fancy Looking Blog is funded by ExxonMobil, CATO, Heartland Institute, and North American Coal Corporation.

Step 4. Show "Skeptic" friend the information, with clear documentation. Watch as "Skeptic" friend completely ignores the links to industries that burn shit and don't want people to believe it's doing bad things to our home planet and instead rushes off to find further evidence to support his nutty preconceptions.

Step 5. Bash head against wall repeatedly while cursing the American educational system and the power of well-funded propaganda. Go get drunk in attempt to dull the pain.

That's gorgeous. And right on.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:06 pm**

Simulist wrote:
professorpan wrote:HEY KIDS! Here's how you can point out the fallacy of climate change "skeptics" in a few simple steps!

Step 1. "Skeptic" friend points to article. "Look at this! It's written by (Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist) and it's posted on (Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog) and it clearly shows that burning tons of coal and oil is NOT causing the planet to warm! So there, Mr. Al Gore-smartypants!"

Step 2. Go to SourceWatch.org. Plug name of Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist and Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog into search field.

Step 3. Discover Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist never published anything related to climate, but has a degree in Sports Medicine, and that Fancy Looking Blog is funded by ExxonMobil, CATO, Heartland Institute, and North American Coal Corporation.

Step 4. Show "Skeptic" friend the information, with clear documentation. Watch as "Skeptic" friend completely ignores the links to industries that burn shit and don't want people to believe it's doing bad things to our home planet and instead rushes off to find further evidence to support his nutty preconceptions.

Step 5. Bash head against wall repeatedly while cursing the American educational system and the power of well-funded propaganda. Go get drunk in attempt to dull the pain.

That's gorgeous. And right on.

Or, you could ignore all of the above and think about exotic technology ( Tesla, Pons- Fleishchmann etc), the history of the suppression of the said technology or at least its lack of finance in the face of the current energy monsters, and subsequently reach the logical understanding that this entire debate is the ultimate shell game ?

I wont, of course hold my breath, but I do live in hope for you folks.

In a world where black is more often than not clearly provable white, not least to this board, I frankly find it staggering that so many people are involved in such a ponsi debate.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:16 pm**

slimmouse wrote:
Simulist wrote:
professorpan wrote:HEY KIDS! Here's how you can point out the fallacy of climate change "skeptics" in a few simple steps!

Step 1. "Skeptic" friend points to article. "Look at this! It's written by (Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist) and it's posted on (Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog) and it clearly shows that burning tons of coal and oil is NOT causing the planet to warm! So there, Mr. Al Gore-smartypants!"

Step 2. Go to SourceWatch.org. Plug name of Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist and Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog into search field.

Step 3. Discover Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist never published anything related to climate, but has a degree in Sports Medicine, and that Fancy Looking Blog is funded by ExxonMobil, CATO, Heartland Institute, and North American Coal Corporation.

Step 4. Show "Skeptic" friend the information, with clear documentation. Watch as "Skeptic" friend completely ignores the links to industries that burn shit and don't want people to believe it's doing bad things to our home planet and instead rushes off to find further evidence to support his nutty preconceptions.

Step 5. Bash head against wall repeatedly while cursing the American educational system and the power of well-funded propaganda. Go get drunk in attempt to dull the pain.

That's gorgeous. And right on.

Or, you could ignore all of the above and think about exotic technology ( Tesla, Pons- Fleishchmann etc), the history of the suppression of the said technology or at least its lack of finance in the face of the current energy monsters, and subsequently reach the logical understanding that this entire debate is the ultimate shell game ?

I wont, of course hold my breath, but I do live in hope for you folks.

"Lord save us all from a hope tree that has lost the faculty of putting out blossoms."

— Mark Twain

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:26 pm**

Simulist wrote:"Lord save us all from a hope tree that has lost the faculty of putting out blossoms."

— Mark Twain

...because we cant afford it , cos we need to destroy the tree to free ourselves !

Such is the climate change discussion

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:31 pm**

slimmouse wrote:
Simulist wrote:"Lord save us all from a hope tree that has lost the faculty of putting out blossoms."

— Mark Twain

...because we cant afford it , cos we need to destroy the tree to free ourselves !

Such is the climate change discussion

We can't afford what, exactly?

And what do you think we need to destroy? And why?

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:59 pm**

Simulist wrote:We can't afford what, exactly?

Well apparently we cant afford to destroy the fake big energy tree

Simulist wrote:And what do you think we need to destroy? And why?

The fake big energy tree, because once the invevitable exposure of suppressed exotic technology is proven, then big energy is going to be exposed for the fake that it is, and (for a long time in fact) has been.

This exposure would inflate the 0.00001% to about the 10% ( to begin with)

So you can imagine why they might be scared , though only they truly know why.

Its beyond my comprehension for sure.

But, please dont let our discussion get in the way of Wintler, and BenDs ongoing fight.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:33 pm**

It might be nice if alleged "suppressed exotic technology" were ever proven, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated convincingly even to exist.

Human-induced global warming, however, has been. By the majority of climate scientists around the world. Time and time again.

rigorousintuition.ca

Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Re: Global Warming, eh?