4 ms·

Here’s the problem you are going to run into: The vast majority of the climate change/save the planet movement is uninformed cult-think driven by a delusion fe

Here’s the problem you are going to run into: The vast majority of the climate change/save the planet movement is uninformed cult-think driven by a delusion fed by politicians who learned to earn votes with this from the unthinking masses. The opposite side, the deniers, are just as delusional but for a different set of reasons. In the end, you have two sides battling over bullshit and people on both ends of the scale making money and angling for power. If you really want to help, take the time to truly understand and push for the truth to become the only conversation. What is the truth? We can’t do a thing about any of it. Period. The delusion (well, one of them) is to actually believe we can change a planetary-scale problem one thousand times faster than nature has managed over millions of years. This is ridiculous. It’s lunacy. We are far more likely to kill everything on this planet than to save it. The data is out there. Not opinions. Not my words. High quality scientific data. Start by studying the 800K year ice core atmospheric data we have and understand how the planet has dealt with this for millions of years. That’s the start of the journey who should make anyone honest enough to look for the truth become horrified at the nonsense we are pummeled with every day.

camdenlock 4y ago
Yeah, it’s really quite eye-opening to witness so many people on here having been convinced by obvious propaganda. Climate obsession is the height of human arrogance: to think that we are solely responsible for destroying “the planet”, and solely responsible for rescuing it from certain demise. Yet more evidence that there are yawning chasms of meaning in our lives today, and the unscrupulous are more than willing to exploit them.
- solardev 4y ago
  Nobody thinks we're solely responsible. We're just one major input out of many, and the only one we can really control. If you wanna just ask the sun to please operate on medium power for a few years, that'd help too. It didn't listen when I asked.
- 314 4y ago
  Do you believe that the human production of carbon and its release into the atmosphere is not affecting the planetary climate?
walterbell 4y ago
What do you think of Ben Davidson's material on sun-earth interactions, space weather and long-term cycles? Any sources you would recommend?
solardev 4y ago
Man, isn't this the argument from two decades ago? That climate change is happening but isn't human caused? Why do you still believe this? Just because nature is big and we are small? It's such an odd mentality to have. Do you not believe in ozone holes either, or DDT, or pollution, or extinction? We're just powerless apes walking around a wet ball, making no impact at all, leaving no trace? I don't understand how you can look at the data and go "nah it just can't be us, because that's ridiculous". Every species has an impact on their habitat. It comes down to degree. And it's not like we're going to singlehandedly turn the planet into a flaming ball of lava. But a few degrees here and there? Why wouldn't we be able to?
- robomartin 4y ago
  Thank you. You have provided a perfect example of the problem (or part of it). You are so deep into the indoctrination that it is making you imagine things I never said AT ALL. All of the above is made up. All of it. This thing has turned into a horrific cult. People stopped thinking and questioning everything and go “all in”, no matter what. This is like my three dogs being triggered into barking by a random noise in the house. Five minutes later, they are still barking and have absolutely no clue why. Same thing. Climate change and global warming are as real as can be. And, yes, absolutely, humanity bent the curve. No doubt about that at all. And, no, we can’t fix it, save the planet or any of that horseshit. We just can’t. It takes the entire planet about 50K to 100K years to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm. This, using an unimaginably large amount of energy and resources (think 100K years of planetary scale solar energy and you have a starting point). We actually have people and politicians talking about “saving the planet” in 30 to 50 years. The only reason the scientific community isn’t laughing at them is that they have careers to protect. Nobody dares tell the emperors the clothes are not there. And yet these people are talking about “saving the planet” 1000x to 2000x faster than nature could. I am not sure we could even calculate the energy and resources that would require. It’s like believing you can stop a car 1000x faster without destroying the road, the car and turning everything in it into mashed potatoes. And, on top of that, believing this could be achieved while violating the most fundamental laws of Physics. Conservation of Energy: You cannot fix anything with less energy than it took to create the problem. If you really want to understand, start there.
fortysixdegrees 4y ago
Thank you. I feel pretty lonely having this view myself. Hearing it from someone else at least makes me feel more confident that it's everyone else who is slightly nuts and not me.
- bettysdiagnose 4y ago
  No, it's you.
  - udevnull 4y ago
    Not really, climate is very complex. Thinking this can be centrally planned and controlled by some elite group of people flying around in their private jets is the same thinking that's gotten us into this current financial crisis.
    - bettysdiagnose 4y ago
      The climate is very complex, yes, that's right. Its complexity has no bearing on whether or not climate change is real or whether or not we can do anything about it. OP's central thesis, that because the Earth's climate has apparently changed slowly in the past (before an industrialised species existed on the planet), that we cannot possibly change it quickly now, really makes no sense at all. And the OP's comically haughty attitude of "climate change deniers and believers are literally just as stupid as each other" is simply pathetic. Also, points to you for bringing US monetary policy into a conversation on climate change... somehow.
- Aachen 4y ago
  Well, look at it from an odds perspective. What are the odds it's just you two who are right when the whole world is wrong? What are the odds that it does more harm to try to reduce emissions to keep a measurable quantity of gas in the atmosphere stable rather than raising it? Could keeping the atmosphere stable do more harm than if we all just assume it'll be fine and carry on filling it up with combustion products? If I were a betting man, I'd not be gambling that changing the atmosphere with more greenhouse gasses is going to give us the better outcome. Or that, even if we're wrong, changing cars to electric wouldn't still be a positive because you'll reduce lung cancer cases. I really don't get the angle here that everyone is nuts except you two. Edit: I should add that it's okay to change opinion! I also feel that pressure to stay consistent with my opinions and beliefs (in various situations, and I'm sure there's a psychology word for it), but I'm trying to tell myself that's silly. New information leads to new insights, and that might mean voting opposite in booths or changing the requirements when you buy a new car or so.

camdenlock 4y ago

Yeah, it’s really quite eye-opening to witness so many people on here having been convinced by obvious propaganda. Climate obsession is the height of human arrogance: to think that we are solely responsible for destroying “the planet”, and solely responsible for rescuing it from certain demise. Yet more evidence that there are yawning chasms of meaning in our lives today, and the unscrupulous are more than willing to exploit them.

solardev 4y ago
Nobody thinks we're solely responsible. We're just one major input out of many, and the only one we can really control. If you wanna just ask the sun to please operate on medium power for a few years, that'd help too. It didn't listen when I asked.
314 4y ago
Do you believe that the human production of carbon and its release into the atmosphere is not affecting the planetary climate?

walterbell 4y ago

What do you think of Ben Davidson's material on sun-earth interactions, space weather and long-term cycles? Any sources you would recommend?

solardev 4y ago

Man, isn't this the argument from two decades ago? That climate change is happening but isn't human caused? Why do you still believe this? Just because nature is big and we are small? It's such an odd mentality to have. Do you not believe in ozone holes either, or DDT, or pollution, or extinction? We're just powerless apes walking around a wet ball, making no impact at all, leaving no trace? I don't understand how you can look at the data and go "nah it just can't be us, because that's ridiculous". Every species has an impact on their habitat. It comes down to degree. And it's not like we're going to singlehandedly turn the planet into a flaming ball of lava. But a few degrees here and there? Why wouldn't we be able to?

robomartin 4y ago
Thank you. You have provided a perfect example of the problem (or part of it). You are so deep into the indoctrination that it is making you imagine things I never said AT ALL. All of the above is made up. All of it. This thing has turned into a horrific cult. People stopped thinking and questioning everything and go “all in”, no matter what. This is like my three dogs being triggered into barking by a random noise in the house. Five minutes later, they are still barking and have absolutely no clue why. Same thing. Climate change and global warming are as real as can be. And, yes, absolutely, humanity bent the curve. No doubt about that at all. And, no, we can’t fix it, save the planet or any of that horseshit. We just can’t. It takes the entire planet about 50K to 100K years to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm. This, using an unimaginably large amount of energy and resources (think 100K years of planetary scale solar energy and you have a starting point). We actually have people and politicians talking about “saving the planet” in 30 to 50 years. The only reason the scientific community isn’t laughing at them is that they have careers to protect. Nobody dares tell the emperors the clothes are not there. And yet these people are talking about “saving the planet” 1000x to 2000x faster than nature could. I am not sure we could even calculate the energy and resources that would require. It’s like believing you can stop a car 1000x faster without destroying the road, the car and turning everything in it into mashed potatoes. And, on top of that, believing this could be achieved while violating the most fundamental laws of Physics. Conservation of Energy: You cannot fix anything with less energy than it took to create the problem. If you really want to understand, start there.

fortysixdegrees 4y ago

Thank you. I feel pretty lonely having this view myself. Hearing it from someone else at least makes me feel more confident that it's everyone else who is slightly nuts and not me.

bettysdiagnose 4y ago
No, it's you.
- udevnull 4y ago
  Not really, climate is very complex. Thinking this can be centrally planned and controlled by some elite group of people flying around in their private jets is the same thinking that's gotten us into this current financial crisis.
  - bettysdiagnose 4y ago
    The climate is very complex, yes, that's right. Its complexity has no bearing on whether or not climate change is real or whether or not we can do anything about it. OP's central thesis, that because the Earth's climate has apparently changed slowly in the past (before an industrialised species existed on the planet), that we cannot possibly change it quickly now, really makes no sense at all. And the OP's comically haughty attitude of "climate change deniers and believers are literally just as stupid as each other" is simply pathetic. Also, points to you for bringing US monetary policy into a conversation on climate change... somehow.
Aachen 4y ago
Well, look at it from an odds perspective. What are the odds it's just you two who are right when the whole world is wrong? What are the odds that it does more harm to try to reduce emissions to keep a measurable quantity of gas in the atmosphere stable rather than raising it? Could keeping the atmosphere stable do more harm than if we all just assume it'll be fine and carry on filling it up with combustion products? If I were a betting man, I'd not be gambling that changing the atmosphere with more greenhouse gasses is going to give us the better outcome. Or that, even if we're wrong, changing cars to electric wouldn't still be a positive because you'll reduce lung cancer cases. I really don't get the angle here that everyone is nuts except you two. Edit: I should add that it's okay to change opinion! I also feel that pressure to stay consistent with my opinions and beliefs (in various situations, and I'm sure there's a psychology word for it), but I'm trying to tell myself that's silly. New information leads to new insights, and that might mean voting opposite in booths or changing the requirements when you buy a new car or so.