'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:07 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 31, 2022 10:32 pm wrote:.

The key here, rather than focus on 1 single contention, is:

How much of current climate change alarmism/laser-focus on CO2 emissions a function of model assessments that may be utilizing preferred sampling/biased selection criteria, rather than long-term observation and other study methods that do not rely primarily on predictive models (particularly given that, increasingly over time, the predictive models turn out to be markedly off-target -- the Maldives example being one of myriad)?


The key here, rather than focus on a single location, is to stop spreading debunked horseshit. The models are accurate. The way people know that is because old predictions have come true, and because they don't just make a model and immediately predict the future. They test them with old data to see if they're able to predict things that already happened. If anything the models underestimated the pace of change. Of course they're not going to nail every little detail, but the larger picture has been pretty spot on.

And: is it plausible that there are other agendas in play by those pushing 'climate change as imminent threat' narratives, and their corresponding 'solutions', that are NOT truly aimed at mitigation as a primary focus but instead focused primarily on serving special/narrow interests?


And: is it plausible that there are other agendas in play by those pushing 'climate change is no big deal' narratives, and their corresponding 'solutions', that are NOT truly aimed at truthfulness as a primary focus but instead focused primarily on serving special/narrow interests and the profits of the fossil fuel industry?

Perhaps there's a middle ground, perhaps not, but as the last 2 years have clearly shown, egregious LiES can and WILL be told to further agendas to the detriment of the majority. Given some of the same entities involved in pushing current 'climate change' dominant narratives, it should not be considered in any way outlandish or outside the bounds of necessary discourse to earnestly revisit what we, collectively, have accepted largely at face value (or accepted in part based on years-long aggressive marketing/propaganda campaigns, all with deep funding).


The world is doomed! The world is fine! Let's find a middle ground. How much doom should we accept? A little bit? Medium doom? Is it okay if only poor people are doomed?

The deep funding you're talking about is the millions and millions, supplied by the insane profits and trillions of dollars we have given them in subsidies, spent by the fossil fuel industry to muddy the waters. One of those little details you somehow never seem to comment on - the fact that there has been a decades-long, well known campaign by the fossil fuel industry (who, by the way, knew that climate change was a problem forty years ago. Just stop and think about that for a minute: the industry most likely to be impacted by the reality of climate change acknowledged it was real forty fucking years ago, and then decided to lie their asses off about it) to fund deniers and skeptics and shitty think tanks to produce FUD, with the single goal of preventing any measures that would impact their profits. You're seeing conspiracies everywhere, while at the same time completely ignoring the one we know for a fact is real.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:20 pm

.

You calling it "debunked horseshit" means nothing; it adds nothing to the conversation and does not in any way rebuke or dispute the counterpoints.

The rest of your commentary approaches defensive posturing/hand-waving.

Believe what you choose to believe. Remaining 'static' is not science, it's a form of dogma. There is enough information here to raise valid scrutiny of the status quo narratives you fervently refuse to assess (beyond surface-level flippant remarks).
Others can delve into it and arrive at their own conclusions.

I've no interest in engaging further in this unproductive to-and-fro.


(The amount of times I've heard/seen the "dubunked" proclamation uttered with such confidence, backed by references to 'fact checkers' and/or sources that -- shocker -- have always without fail backed the prevailing storylines for that particular timeframe, and then, a year or so later, those same individuals are nowhere to be found when the 'debunked' data points are more widely acknowledged to be largely sound scrutiny. Indeed, a number of these previously confident individuals have been known to delete damning content in an effort to suppress their hubris)
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:18 am

.

Meanwhile, so-called 'experts' spewing nonsense such as:

Image

Do War Machines run on electricity now? Perhaps I missed a memo.

(Of course, electricity as an energy source is often no 'cleaner' -- to the contrary, typically -- but that's besides the point of this absurd clown piece.)
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:36 am

Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:46 pm

Belligerent Savant » Mon Aug 01, 2022 12:20 am wrote:.

You calling it "debunked horseshit" means nothing; it adds nothing to the conversation and does not in any way rebuke or dispute the counterpoints.


Debunked horseshit, as in this overview of a bunch of the different models used and their past predictions compared to reality (you know you can easily look this stuff up, right? In case you ever decide to get a fucking clue):
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-ho ... l-warming/

And this study looking at the accuracy of climate models.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/

If you're about to dismiss these links, at least explain why each of them is wrong, with links to any sources used.

The rest of your commentary approaches defensive posturing/hand-waving.


So you're still ignoring the massive amounts of money spent by the fossil fuel industry to muddy the waters and prolong their profits? Good little foot soldier *pats head*.

Believe what you choose to believe. Remaining 'static' is not science, it's a form of dogma. There is enough information here to raise valid scrutiny of the status quo narratives you fervently refuse to assess (beyond surface-level flippant remarks).
Others can delve into it and arrive at their own conclusions.


What kind of fucked up stupid shit is this? It's not about believing things, it's about looking at what's right in front of your eyes and either choosing to acknowledge it or ignore it. You're ignoring it, and making up ever dumber excuses for why. Once again: people, including me, can see it happening. Not a model, not some hypothetical future event, but right now, where we live.

And the science isn't static. It used to be that only 97% of science in the field thought climate change was man-made. Now it's 99%. See? It's changing!

I've no interest in engaging further in this unproductive to-and-fro.


Tough shit. I'm going to keep responding to your missives and hand-wavy dismissals of entire fields of research because you don't like what they say. Not for your benefit, that's a lost cause if I ever saw one, but for any poor sap who might be reading this anonymously and aren't sure what to think.

(The amount of times I've heard/seen the "dubunked" proclamation uttered with such confidence, backed by references to 'fact checkers' and/or sources that -- shocker -- have always without fail backed the prevailing storylines for that particular timeframe, and then, a year or so later, those same individuals are nowhere to be found when the 'debunked' data points are more widely acknowledged to be largely sound scrutiny. Indeed, a number of these previously confident individuals have been known to delete damning content in an effort to suppress their hubris)


You really don't see how fucking moronic this kind of "argument" is, do you?
Example: people have been wrong before, ergo, what you're saying is also wrong, because you might be proven wrong in the future.


Also, you second post:

Meanwhile, so-called 'experts' spewing nonsense such as:

<image>

Do War Machines run on electricity now? Perhaps I missed a memo.

(Of course, electricity as an energy source is often no 'cleaner' -- to the contrary, typically -- but that's besides the point of this absurd clown piece.)


Since when did journalists become climate change experts? No wonder you're so off the deep end if you don't even know the difference.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Harvey » Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:58 am

And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Aug 04, 2022 4:01 pm

DrEvil » Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:46 pm wrote:
Belligerent Savant » Mon Aug 01, 2022 12:20 am wrote:.

You calling it "debunked horseshit" means nothing; it adds nothing to the conversation and does not in any way rebuke or dispute the counterpoints.


Debunked horseshit, as in this overview of a bunch of the different models used and their past predictions compared to reality (you know you can easily look this stuff up, right? In case you ever decide to get a fucking clue):
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-ho ... l-warming/

And this study looking at the accuracy of climate models.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/

If you're about to dismiss these links, at least explain why each of them is wrong, with links to any sources used.

The rest of your commentary approaches defensive posturing/hand-waving.


So you're still ignoring the massive amounts of money spent by the fossil fuel industry to muddy the waters and prolong their profits? Good little foot soldier *pats head*.

Believe what you choose to believe. Remaining 'static' is not science, it's a form of dogma. There is enough information here to raise valid scrutiny of the status quo narratives you fervently refuse to assess (beyond surface-level flippant remarks).
Others can delve into it and arrive at their own conclusions.


What kind of fucked up stupid shit is this? It's not about believing things, it's about looking at what's right in front of your eyes and either choosing to acknowledge it or ignore it. You're ignoring it, and making up ever dumber excuses for why. Once again: people, including me, can see it happening. Not a model, not some hypothetical future event, but right now, where we live.

And the science isn't static. It used to be that only 97% of science in the field thought climate change was man-made. Now it's 99%. See? It's changing!

I've no interest in engaging further in this unproductive to-and-fro.


Tough shit. I'm going to keep responding to your missives and hand-wavy dismissals of entire fields of research because you don't like what they say. Not for your benefit, that's a lost cause if I ever saw one, but for any poor sap who might be reading this anonymously and aren't sure what to think.

(The amount of times I've heard/seen the "dubunked" proclamation uttered with such confidence, backed by references to 'fact checkers' and/or sources that -- shocker -- have always without fail backed the prevailing storylines for that particular timeframe, and then, a year or so later, those same individuals are nowhere to be found when the 'debunked' data points are more widely acknowledged to be largely sound scrutiny. Indeed, a number of these previously confident individuals have been known to delete damning content in an effort to suppress their hubris)


You really don't see how fucking moronic this kind of "argument" is, do you?
Example: people have been wrong before, ergo, what you're saying is also wrong, because you might be proven wrong in the future.


Also, you second post:

Meanwhile, so-called 'experts' spewing nonsense such as:

<image>

Do War Machines run on electricity now? Perhaps I missed a memo.

(Of course, electricity as an energy source is often no 'cleaner' -- to the contrary, typically -- but that's besides the point of this absurd clown piece.)


Since when did journalists become climate change experts? No wonder you're so off the deep end if you don't even know the difference.


"Journalists" (in quotes because many of these people are far removed from the ideals of journalism) are indeed dubbing themselves "experts" in this field. And many are writing this pap, which in turn are published in 'reputable' media sources, precisely due to funding by those with ulterior motives. This should all be clear by now. Except for those that remain in denial.

You're not providing any valid counters here, simply regurgitating talking points from flawed models that you've yet to dig into and revisit. Models are susceptible to [at times quite subjective] criteria by individuals that may be biased towards preferred outcomes (or are otherwise incentivized to provide 'preferred' outcomes). Models tend to be inconsistent [or otherwise sub-par] predictors for future events, and should not be used as a reliable means to drive policy compared to real world observations over time.

I understand your refusal to reconsider your view here. Clearly, much of your core tenets are tied to accepting current dogma. This is aggravating you. You appear to be losing a bit of your composure. Get used to it -- whatever notions many of us held will continue to be tested, and in a number of respects will be flat out overturned.

This applies, of course, to many others over the last ~2yrs as well. Otherwise "smart" people refusing to reconsider entrenched positions. This will only intensify as more 'reality models' unravel, or are exposed as being -- minimally -- flawed. Some will continue to deny all other considerations until their last dying breath, however.

The issue here, again, is not that the scientists/studies cited in the prior page are claiming that warming isn't happening, to a degree.

The key questions are: just how dramatic/imminent is this change, and to what extent is this truly anomalous (compared to historical weather patterns, including periods prior to human industry) and a DIRECT result of CO2/related emissions as primary culprit (and how much of that is due to industry-related emissions as primary factor rather than everyday human/commoner consumption)?

AND:
- Are current alternatives [wind, solar, electricity] actually efficient, sustainable and a NET BENEFIT to the environment (Is a hybrid model more efficient)?
- Are the proposed solutions counter to essential human rights (social credits/limits to access to certain types of foods, potential for later downstream limitations to human autonomy under the guise of "sustainability"/"curbing "IMMINENT" change)?
- Are there potential GRIFTS in play (e.g. ESG in particular) that are exploiting these concerns, and further, are there numerous entities that benefit from ESG initiatives that are also involved in funding some of the more alarmist messaging on this topic?

See what's happening to Germany and other EU countries right now, on the verge of energy disaster because they went all in on "green" initiatives (at least, "green" as dictated by agendas with other motives).

Of course the Gas/Oil industries are capitalizing on these policy failures and exploiting it for their own ends as well.

GRIFT ON BOTH ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM.

Continuing with this highly short-sighted (if my political opponent believes this, it must be all wrong and OPPOSED BY DEFAULT) approach to current worldwide issues (Re: climate, Re: covid) is plain stupid.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:41 pm

You're not providing any valid counters here, simply regurgitating talking points from flawed models that you've yet to dig into and revisit.


But I just did! The carbonbrief article I linked clearly shows the models being accurate, with the predictions overlaid on actual observations. If you don't think that's a valid counter to your assertion that the models aren't accurate then explain why. If you think the data has been manipulated then show it. How has the data been manipulated? What should it really look like?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Aug 12, 2022 11:32 am

.
Ball's on your court, sir, to call out the specific areas that can be disputed directly with clear-cut counterpoints that identifies the flaws. I understand this sometimes ends up simply devolving into 'my scientists say this'/ 'your scientists say that', which resolves nothing. I'm not claiming here that all content in that report are "correct". But a number of the points raised appear sound to me, and corroborate commentary by other scientists in this field that have raised observations counter to the status quo 'climate change' narratives.

Again: On the prior page there is a link to a very detailed and lengthy pdf report that cites multiple scientists and studies, and includes charts and other related visuals.

It's worthy of earnest review as added consideration on this topic.

Moving along to a couple noteworthy recent news items, tangentially related to the above:

California went big on rooftop solar. Now that’s a problem for landfills

L.A. Times

California has been a pioneer in pushing for rooftop solar power, building up the largest solar market in the U.S. More than 20 years and 1.3 million rooftops later, the bill is coming due.

Beginning in 2006, the state, focused on how to incentivize people to take up solar power, showered subsidies on homeowners who installed photovoltaic panels but had no comprehensive plan to dispose of them. Now, panels purchased under those programs are nearing the end of their typical 25-to-30-year life cycle.

Many are already winding up in landfills, where in some cases, they could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium.

Sam Vanderhoof, a solar industry expert and chief executive of Recycle PV Solar, says that only 1 in 10 panels are actually recycled, according to estimates drawn from International Renewable Energy Agency data on decommissioned panels and from industry leaders.

The looming challenge over how to handle truckloads of waste, some of it contaminated, illustrates how cutting-edge environmental policy can create unforeseen problems down the road.

“The industry is supposed to be green,” Vanderhoof said. “But in reality, it’s all about the money.”

More at link:
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/ ... ing-danger

And this here, as well:
Parts of the Great Barrier Reef have more coral cover than they've had in decades, Australian marine biologists say.


The bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef is one of the most upsetting examples of how climate change is wreaking havoc on the natural wonders of our planet. But research from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) indicates that some parts of the coral reef currently have the highest coral cover since record-keeping began nearly four decades ago.

As ocean waters warm, the Great Barrier Reef has suffered repeated mass bleaching events, leaving scientists and the public fearful for the future of this massive and biodiverse reef system. The reef, which covers about 133,000 square miles (344,000 square kilometers), sits off the northeastern coast of Australia and is home to many endangered marine species. When the seawater heats up above average, corals expel the algae responsible for their vibrant color. Bleached coral can recover, but the reef may be weakened and more susceptible to damage and disease.

In some rare good news, new data shows how resilient the troubled ecosystem can be. Scientists with AIMS, a government research agency, report that the level of coral covering the seafloor in the central and northern parts of the Great Barrier Reef is at the highest it’s been in 36 years, which is when record-keeping began.


More at link:
https://gizmodo.com/great-barrier-reef- ... 1849371645
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:05 pm

.

Also, with respect to this:

Joe Hillshoist » Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:58 pm wrote:
And really, weather modification? Do you have any idea the kind of energy required to change weather patterns on a global scale over decades? Hint: approximately the total energy output of human civilization, which is manipulating the weather. We call it climate change.

You think if these cunts could create 2km high tornadoes made out of fire not air they'd be bothering with conventional weapons?


My reply:

Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:51 pm wrote:One other point of clarification: when I initially raised weather modification, I never suggested that such implementations would occur wide-scale, across regions. But as demonstrated by existing documentation of programs and news reporting of actual implementation of such technology, it may be applied within targeted regions, during specific timeframes. Nothing outlandish or groundbreaking in this statement. Such targeted implementation -- if indeed carried out -- can of course influence sentiment.


Here's a link to a 700+ page govt document from the late 70s, specifically on the topic of weather modiciation:

https://file.io/wY09gQLVzQb7

Sample screenshots:

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

A few qualifiers:

- This document is from the 70s, and as such, policy or standards may have since been revised; haven't had time to look into recent amendments/revisions, or otherwise the extent these measures have since been -- at least officially -- sunset.
- An argument can be made that this is nothing more than an example of humans attempting to make things better but actually making things worse, via technology. This is certainly possible -- as is the case with many other 'solutions' -- but not the only factor here.

To reiterate, my current position is that current weather/climate issues are not caused by human activities as the primary cause, and that whatever percentage can be attributed to human activity, the vast majority is tied to large-scale industry and/or elite-level emissions, rather than the activities of everyday humans. As such, policies that restrict or curtail activities of the common human are unwarranted. I also highly doubt 'climate change' is as imminent and subject to 'drastic' change as advertised by the hardcore "climate change" proponents.

It appears increasingly apparent over time that much of the "climate change" agenda/ 'green' initiatives are driven by ulterior motives to the detriment of populations at large/average humans. Of course, many involved in green initiatives, and many that clamor for action, have good intentions (as is the case, broadly, whenever underlying nefarious or greed-driven agendas are in play).

ESG is absolutely tied to these agendas, and of course WEF is involved as well, though I don't believe WEF to be a central 'mastermind' here. There's layers/levels involved.

Also, side-note to Dr.Evil, as I notice he's a big proponent of dismissing content outright simply due to the source of the information rather than addressing the merits themselves. Earlier, he indicated that I shared a Bloomberg piece that was actually from zerohedge, and then further remarked on the comments of the zerohedge piece. Needless to say, zerohedge is a honeypot for some of the more loathsome takes on the internet. But zerohedge is also a news aggregator. Rather than addressing the fucking bloomberg piece you instead opted to dedicate time to locate WHERE the Bloomberg piece was sourced from, and further, analyzing the largely unhinged comments from the zerohedge piece, as if any of these steps or observations have any impact whatsover on the merits of the bloomberg piece itself (I don't even recall now the content of the bloomberg article, but that's besides this point of this commentary) -- this tactic is also utilized to imply or indirectly suggest I align with such commentary. In other words, passive ad hominem/defamatory attempts.

This is a weak/dishonest M.O., and a typical misdirection tactic.

Yes, Zerohedge is deeply flawed. But that's separate and apart from legitimate scrutiny of current "green"/"climate change" agendas, which absolutely merit further analysis and investigation.

That's all I'm trying to do here. You may disagree. Fine. But clearly, you've shown no interest in challenging your current belief systems. I was once very much onboard with many of the front-facing storylines Re: "climate change"/"global warming" (though by default I generally avoid blanket acceptance at face value). My current position evolved over time. It's not static.

I expect it will continue to evolve over time, as it has.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Harvey » Sat Aug 13, 2022 5:37 pm

Brand expresses some of the main features very clearly for a more general audience...

And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:44 pm

Belligerent Savant » Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:32 pm wrote:.
Ball's on your court, sir, to call out the specific areas that can be disputed directly with clear-cut counterpoints that identifies the flaws. I understand this sometimes ends up simply devolving into 'my scientists say this'/ 'your scientists say that', which resolves nothing. I'm not claiming here that all content in that report are "correct". But a number of the points raised appear sound to me, and corroborate commentary by other scientists in this field that have raised observations counter to the status quo 'climate change' narratives.


No it's not. I just passed it to you in my previous post, and you're still ignoring my question: what is wrong with the carbonbrief article? Has it been manipulated to mislead us into thinking the models are accurate? If so, how? You claimed the models aren't accurate. Stop with the evasions and distractions and show it.

Again: On the prior page there is a link to a very detailed and lengthy pdf report that cites multiple scientists and studies, and includes charts and other related visuals.

It's worthy of earnest review as added consideration on this topic.


No it's not. First of all, it's not a report, it's the class notes/slideshow for a lecture at Mary & William's Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (summer lectures for bored old people), and the actual lecture is missing. Edward McMahon is a volunteer class assistant, who also teaches an introduction to Chinese cooking, which I'm sure is delightful. Second, it's just a hodgepodge of graphs and images with piss-poor quality, paired with lists of bullet points, and copious links to all the dodgiest climate change deniers and skeptics.

I've asked you several times to supply some actual research supporting your position, but you have yet to do so.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:05 pm

BelSav wrote:
Also, side-note to Dr.Evil, as I notice he's a big proponent of dismissing content outright simply due to the source of the information rather than addressing the merits themselves. Earlier, he indicated that I shared a Bloomberg piece that was actually from zerohedge, and then further remarked on the comments of the zerohedge piece. Needless to say, zerohedge is a honeypot for some of the more loathsome takes on the internet. But zerohedge is also a news aggregator. Rather than addressing the fucking bloomberg piece you instead opted to dedicate time to locate WHERE the Bloomberg piece was sourced from, and further, analyzing the largely unhinged comments from the zerohedge piece, as if any of these steps or observations have any impact whatsover on the merits of the bloomberg piece itself (I don't even recall now the content of the bloomberg article, but that's besides this point of this commentary) -- this tactic is also utilized to imply or indirectly suggest I align with such commentary. In other words, passive ad hominem/defamatory attempts.


My issue was with you presenting something as a Bloomberg article and hiding the true source by neglecting to post a link. A source that is known for hyperbole and inaccuracy. Why not just post the damn Bloomberg article instead, rather than go via a site that is perfectly capable of editing for effect? I tried finding the original Bloomberg piece, because I don't trust Zerohedge at all, but couldn't. Best I could do was one sentence that appeared in a different Bloomberg article written by different people.

And passive ad hominem my ass. I did not imply shit, I pointed out how deranged some people get, especially towards young women who dare speak up. I was genuinely taken aback at how far some of the comments went.
You are clearly not that deranged. You're more in the "OHGODHERPARENTSOWNDESIGNERFURNITURE" camp.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:49 am

.

I may respond to DrEvil's replies above at a later time -- have not looked through them yet (as I anticipate it would require availability I don't have right now to address the comments, and my objective here is not to bicker, despite my occasional indulgences along those lines). I imagine that, despite outward appearances on these pages, we may not be so far apart in certain respects, at least specific to this topic.

In the meantime, I return to this thread to add the following; an interesting development. Caveat Lector, as always:

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... 215121.pdf

https://clintel.org/

https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/

There is no climate emergency

A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message.

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more
scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in
their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately
count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the
planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age
ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis
of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the
modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as
policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they
also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable
for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth
in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the
yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes,
floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.
However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and
alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy
proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works
whatever the causes are.

OUR ADVICE TO THE EUROPEAN LEADERS IS THAT SCIENCE SHOULD
STRIVE FOR A SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLIMATE
SYSTEM, WHILE POLITICS SHOULD FOCUS ON MINIMIZING POTENTIAL
CLIMATE DAMAGE BY PRIORITIZING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES BASED ON
PROVEN AND AFFORDABLE TECHNOLOGIES.

World Climate Declaration AMBASSADORS
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
PROFESSOR GUUS BERKHOUT / THE NETHERLANDS
DR. CORNELIS LE PAIR / THE NETHERLANDS
PROFESSOR REYNALD DU BERGER / FRENCH SPEAKING CANADA
BARRY BRILL / NEW ZEALAND
VIV FORBES / AUSTRALIA
PROFESSOR JEFFREY FOSS † / ENGLISH SPEAKING CANADA
JENS MORTON HANSEN / DENMARK
PROFESSOR LÁSZIÓ SZARKA / HUNGARY
PROFESSOR SEOK SOON PARK / SOUTH KOREA
PROFESSOR JAN-ERIK SOLHEIM / NORWAY
SOTIRIS KAMENOPOULOS / GREECE
FERDINAND MEEUS / DUTCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR RICHARD LINDZEN / USA
HENRI A. MASSON / FRENCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR INGEMAR NORDIN / SWEDEN
JIM O’BRIEN / REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER / AUSTRALIA
DOUGLAS POLLOCK / CHILE
DR. BLANCA PARGA LANDA / SPAIN
PROFESSOR ALBERTO PRESTININZI / ITALY
PROFESSOR BENOÎT RITTAUD / FRANCE
DR. THIAGO MAIA / BRAZIL
PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT / GERMANY
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM
DUŠAN BIŽIĆ / CROATIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, SERBIA AND MONTE NEGRO


The World Climate Declaration was initiated in 2019 by emeritus professor Guus
Berkhout, founder of the Dutch Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL).
The list of signatories is a living document that is regularly updated with new
additions. The most up-to-date version can be found on http://www.clintel.org.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Thu Aug 25, 2022 2:15 am

Guus Berkhout has worked for the oil industry most of his career. He might be a little biased.

The "over 1100 scientists and professionals" are just that - a random (actually not random, self-selected) collection of people, possibly with degrees and probably some expertise in whatever the hell they do for a living (like me being a professional cashier when I worked at a store), most of them irrelevant to the field of climate research. This is just more of the same old nonsense. Experts in completely different fields have strong opinions on things their expertise doesn't cover. I mean, would you pay attention if a group of people with degrees in geology, programming and finance suddenly started having strong opinions on the intricacies of brain surgery? Would you for even a second think that their opinions were better informed, or more likely to be correct, than those of actual brain surgeons?

Here's the first twenty names on their list:

1. Ian Plimer, Professor Earth Sciences (he's a geologist), The University of Melbourne; WCD Ambassador
2. Viv Forbes, Geologist with Special Interest in Climate, Founder of http://www.carbon-sense.
com, Queensland, Australia; WCD Ambassador
3. D. Weston Allen, Physician and Medical Director of Kingscliff Health, New South
Wales, Author of a number of Climate-related papers
4. Don Andersen, Retired Teacher, Programmer
5. David Archibald, Research Scientist
6. Michael Asten, Retired Professor in Geophysics and Continuing Senior Research
Fellow at the Monash University
, Melbourne
7. József Balla, retired teacher and manager of a small business
8. Stuart Ballantyne PhD, Senior Ship Designer, Sea Transport Corp.
9. Jeremy Barlow, Energy and Mining professional, Director and CEO
10. Dr. Colin M. Barton, Geologist, Retired Civil Engineer with Experience in Project
Control, Research and Professional Training
, Honorary Fellow RMIT University
Australia
11. Gordon Batt, Director GCB Investments Pty Ltd.
12. Maxwell Charles S. Beck, lifetime of experience in law, retired Magistrate and Coroner
on the bench

13. Robert M. Bell, Retired Geologist, Victoria
14. Richard Blayden, Professional Engineer (not just an engineer mind you, a professional engineer. These people have standards!)
15. Colin Boyce, Engineer, Member of Parliament, Queensland State Parliament, Engineer,
Farmer and Entrepreneur (he's twice the engineer you'll ever be!)

16. Howard Thomas Brady, Member Explorers Club of New York, Member of the
Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences

17. Geoff Brown, Organizer of a Critical Climate Group (I've organized stuff too. Does that mean I can be on the list?)
18. Andrew Browne, Exploration Geoscientist, Fellow AusIMM (CP), 50 Years Global
Experience
19. Frank Brus, holds a B. Comm from UNSW, spent most of his working life with the
Electricity Commission of NSW
20. Ernest Buchan, Chartered Engineer MIET, Kardinya, W. Austral

And so on and so on. There's a hell of a lot of no climate scientists on that list. Lots of geologists though. Might have something to do with the fossil fuel industry employing so many of them.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests