5 ms·

Look at how we say climate change as opposed to global warming, or global freezing. What hubris we have as humans that we are wanting to freeze in place the cli

Look at how we say climate change as opposed to global warming, or global freezing. What hubris we have as humans that we are wanting to freeze in place the climate. If you go back in time and look at the climate, it has changed. With that, please provide with a serious set of facts, that we can model impacts that can be implemented to change the system. Please bear in mind that I just watched a model tell us to lock down a system. People said that the model had issues, they were pilloried for questioning it. The model turned out to be politically motivated and has been shown to be adjusted to justify a lockdown. Now, with a serious set of facts tell me that the people who are doing the models are not politically susceptible. Now, with a serious face tell me that the climate change modeling community does not have a positive feedback loop to encourage dire warnings, please include that we just watched the sciences go along with bad ideas to make sure they kept their NIH funding. Finally, please include Michael Mann’s active avoidance of sharing data because his hockey stick model failed in its data. My metric for finding out if people understand reality is to ask the following: Is nuclear power on the table as a base load provider? If the answer is “no” then the person is not versed in what we need and is a signal to smile and get away from them.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
> If you go back in time and look at the climate, it has changed. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ > the people who are doing the models are not politically susceptible That works both ways, and there's a fucking fuckton, like, I can't even find the words that would describe the size difference, like Arcturus to the Sun[0] sized motherfatherfucking fuckton difference in money to be made promoting fossil fuels and the status quo versus renewables and sustainability. An excerpt from a conversation no-one will ever hear: "I want to be a billionaire, I'm going to go into environmental science". [0]: http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/arcturus-etc.jpg http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/arcturus-et...
- hnuser847 5y ago
  There’s a tremendous amount of political power that can be gained by promoting climate change, i.e. the ability to control every aspect of the economy and peoples’ lives. You don’t think that’s a potentially juicy incentive to a budding young technocrat?
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    I don't really see it as political power because it has been, and is still being, strongly resisted by both politics and media. Real politcal power is populism, and action on climate change is still un-populism (from what I see). > i.e. the ability to control every aspect of the economy and peoples’ lives Sounds like you're worried about an agenda that I just don't see even exists, like you're attaching a very personal fear to this particular issue. What you're describing sounds more like the combination of politics and religion to me. I'll update my sarcastic response from above to: "I want to control every aspect of the economy and people's lives, I'm going into environmental science". Edited to add: There's a theory I'm working on, which I'm referring to as "the shock jock test". If controversial radio hosts and "guest columnists" are using the topic (climate change, feminism, immigration for example) to instigate dramatic, angry, emotional, and poorly constructed arguments as the kind of feedback to represent their listenership / readership, then the political winds are against it's very existence as a topic.
  - kar5pt 5y ago
    This is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard. You can dismiss literally any problem that affects society by claiming the proponents of it are "politically motivated". No shit they're political motivated. It's a political problem that needs a political solution.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

> If you go back in time and look at the climate, it has changed. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ > the people who are doing the models are not politically susceptible That works both ways, and there's a fucking fuckton, like, I can't even find the words that would describe the size difference, like Arcturus to the Sun[0] sized motherfatherfucking fuckton difference in money to be made promoting fossil fuels and the status quo versus renewables and sustainability. An excerpt from a conversation no-one will ever hear: "I want to be a billionaire, I'm going to go into environmental science". [0]: http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/arcturus-etc.jpg http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/arcturus-et...

hnuser847 5y ago
There’s a tremendous amount of political power that can be gained by promoting climate change, i.e. the ability to control every aspect of the economy and peoples’ lives. You don’t think that’s a potentially juicy incentive to a budding young technocrat?
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  I don't really see it as political power because it has been, and is still being, strongly resisted by both politics and media. Real politcal power is populism, and action on climate change is still un-populism (from what I see). > i.e. the ability to control every aspect of the economy and peoples’ lives Sounds like you're worried about an agenda that I just don't see even exists, like you're attaching a very personal fear to this particular issue. What you're describing sounds more like the combination of politics and religion to me. I'll update my sarcastic response from above to: "I want to control every aspect of the economy and people's lives, I'm going into environmental science". Edited to add: There's a theory I'm working on, which I'm referring to as "the shock jock test". If controversial radio hosts and "guest columnists" are using the topic (climate change, feminism, immigration for example) to instigate dramatic, angry, emotional, and poorly constructed arguments as the kind of feedback to represent their listenership / readership, then the political winds are against it's very existence as a topic.
- kar5pt 5y ago
  This is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard. You can dismiss literally any problem that affects society by claiming the proponents of it are "politically motivated". No shit they're political motivated. It's a political problem that needs a political solution.