Jimmy Dore video looks like it is being swarmed by trolls.
Submitted by entrepreneur on Thu, 11/14/2019 - 11:32am
Jimmy is doing an interview about Extinction Rebellion, and his comment section is being flooded with comments that look really ignorant and like an organized swarm. What do you think? Am I misreading this situation?
Having read some but not all of the comments, it appears to me that your crop of right-wing trolls is mere garden variety, with any appearance of organization being due to the typical "libertarian" preference for order above freedom for the non-rich.
Plenty of racism to be had, too.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
That’s libertarians for you: anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. — Green Mars
Having read some but not all of the comments, it appears to me that your crop of right-wing trolls is mere garden variety, with any appearance of organization being due to the typical "libertarian" preference for order above freedom for the non-rich.
Plenty of racism to be had, too.
up
0 users have voted.
—
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
That’s libertarians for you: anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. — Green Mars
up
0 users have voted.
—
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I watch a fair bit of Dore. I don't read the comments a lot but check them on occasion. I have never seen a swarm quite like this. Goes to show that the Extinction Rebellion is up against a well funded and active pro extinction community. The pro extinction community is literally throwing every bat spit crazy argument at this.
I also don't buy the "settled science" argument on AGW and CO2.
I am strongly against shitting where we eat (pollution) and the grow or die consumption based economy, but find the current climate models and data to be wildly off the mark and am quite sympathetic to a few of the arguments that are seeming to come from the RW troll crowd.
I am quite interested to see the new models from the IPCC that include solar forcing and solar cycles, but we have to wait a few years (to be included in models by 2023) to see the newly refined models and data, so I'll have to wait to come to a more firm conclusion on the veracity of the current scientific claims. As of now, I'm leaning towards the grand solar minimum argument as the biggest threat to humanity and the climate that sustains us. The bees and birds, I think are glyphosate issues, although I'm starting to entertain geomagnetic effects as a potential cause and contributor to their demise (an idea of mine with zero scientific back up - just a hunch).
That said, I am a complete ally of Johnny Rook and the planet. I just don't think it's going down the way we're being told, and don't trust any of these institutions as far as I can throw them.
up
0 users have voted.
—
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
The perception, I believe, is that anyone who doesn't buy the current arguments and models is some kind of RW troll. I do not think that perception is correct. There are many people, myself included who do not buy the current arguments and models, and we're not all RW trolls and are, believe it or not, not being influenced or blinded by the Right.
The authoritarian move to make AGW skepticism into a product of ignorance or manipulation is a great problem for productive dialogue and some sort of consensus. There are many factors, large factors, deliberately left out of the climate debate and climate sciences - namely the historical record, solar cycles, and the impact of cosmic rays and other stellar phenomena that are tied to a diminished magnetosphere.
Omissions in Current Models
Weather and climate are not just gaseous and pressure based phenomena. There is an electromagnetic component to them that is poorly understood and completely ignored by modern mainstream science. For instance, climate scientists have no idea how lightning functions. Solar forcing, the impact of solar events like CMEs, solar flares, and other solar phenomena, is not included in any of the official models. Cosmic rays are given zero impact as well.
This omission, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many legitimate dissenters is made worse given that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening at 10x the expected rate, allowing for much more energy to hit the surface of the planet. None of which is accounted for, or even acknowledged as having an impact by current models.
There are head in the sand deniers who just want to selfishly continue on down the path we're on, but not all dissenters are in that camp. I surely am not.
Regarding the Extinction Rebellion
The 3 demands of ER are fine concepts, I support them. The problem I see is that people won't hear anything but what they already know and won't believe any significant changes in the science that, I and many others believe, is coming.
Tell the truth
Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
Will they accept a truth that says that CO2 is not the driving force? That solar cycles, cosmic rays, and the coming Grand Solar Minimum are driving climate change? Those are viewed as RW talking points and are already non-starters - denial is not an option.
Act Now
Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
Taking greenhouse gasses down to zero by 2025 is not an option without massive global strife and population reduction - food and transportation require GHGs, and transitioning to that point will take an immense energy input.
Solar dimming is also a huge, counter-intuitive problem.
How can we stop biodiversity loss in a consumer economy?
Beyond Politics
Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
What scientific data guides these Citizen's Assemblies?
As I said, I am all for these 3 demands but I have zero faith that they will be implemented in a sensible manner given today's political and economic hegemony. I mean, are we going to end warfare by 2025? Are we going to stop producing food with tractors by 2025? How about shipping food? Are we going to refit manufacturing by 2025?
This strikes me as a Great Leap Forward situation led by unaccountable institutions that give not one rat's ass about humanity and human suffering.
I also don't buy the "settled science" argument on AGW and CO2.
I am strongly against shitting where we eat (pollution) and the grow or die consumption based economy, but find the current climate models and data to be wildly off the mark and am quite sympathetic to a few of the arguments that are seeming to come from the RW troll crowd.
I am quite interested to see the new models from the IPCC that include solar forcing and solar cycles, but we have to wait a few years (to be included in models by 2023) to see the newly refined models and data, so I'll have to wait to come to a more firm conclusion on the veracity of the current scientific claims. As of now, I'm leaning towards the grand solar minimum argument as the biggest threat to humanity and the climate that sustains us. The bees and birds, I think are glyphosate issues, although I'm starting to entertain geomagnetic effects as a potential cause and contributor to their demise (an idea of mine with zero scientific back up - just a hunch).
That said, I am a complete ally of Johnny Rook and the planet. I just don't think it's going down the way we're being told, and don't trust any of these institutions as far as I can throw them.
up
0 users have voted.
—
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc
The planet is, in the aggregate, getting warmer.
The primary driver of that warming is CO2 released by human activity.
This is about as certain as just about any other conclusion in all the realms of scientific knowledge.
comments on the video.
Perception is Not Reality
The perception, I believe, is that anyone who doesn't buy the current arguments and models is some kind of RW troll. I do not think that perception is correct. There are many people, myself included who do not buy the current arguments and models, and we're not all RW trolls and are, believe it or not, not being influenced or blinded by the Right.
The authoritarian move to make AGW skepticism into a product of ignorance or manipulation is a great problem for productive dialogue and some sort of consensus. There are many factors, large factors, deliberately left out of the climate debate and climate sciences - namely the historical record, solar cycles, and the impact of cosmic rays and other stellar phenomena that are tied to a diminished magnetosphere.
Omissions in Current Models
Weather and climate are not just gaseous and pressure based phenomena. There is an electromagnetic component to them that is poorly understood and completely ignored by modern mainstream science. For instance, climate scientists have no idea how lightning functions. Solar forcing, the impact of solar events like CMEs, solar flares, and other solar phenomena, is not included in any of the official models. Cosmic rays are given zero impact as well.
This omission, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many legitimate dissenters is made worse given that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening at 10x the expected rate, allowing for much more energy to hit the surface of the planet. None of which is accounted for, or even acknowledged as having an impact by current models.
There are head in the sand deniers who just want to selfishly continue on down the path we're on, but not all dissenters are in that camp. I surely am not.
Regarding the Extinction Rebellion
The 3 demands of ER are fine concepts, I support them. The problem I see is that people won't hear anything but what they already know and won't believe any significant changes in the science that, I and many others believe, is coming.
Tell the truth
Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
Will they accept a truth that says that CO2 is not the driving force? That solar cycles, cosmic rays, and the coming Grand Solar Minimum are driving climate change? Those are viewed as RW talking points and are already non-starters - denial is not an option.
Act Now
Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
Taking greenhouse gasses down to zero by 2025 is not an option without massive global strife and population reduction - food and transportation require GHGs, and transitioning to that point will take an immense energy input.
Solar dimming is also a huge, counter-intuitive problem.
How can we stop biodiversity loss in a consumer economy?
Beyond Politics
Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
What scientific data guides these Citizen's Assemblies?
As I said, I am all for these 3 demands but I have zero faith that they will be implemented in a sensible manner given today's political and economic hegemony. I mean, are we going to end warfare by 2025? Are we going to stop producing food with tractors by 2025? How about shipping food? Are we going to refit manufacturing by 2025?
This strikes me as a Great Leap Forward situation led by unaccountable institutions that give not one rat's ass about humanity and human suffering.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I appreciate your thoughts, and am willing to admit to, perhaps, being wrong. I do not believe that to be the case.
How about you? Is there any possibility you and establishment science might be wrong? I mean, glyphosate was completely safe a few years ago. I remember being a dupe and subject to FUD on that front - the only scientists who thought it was dangerous were kooks.
Do you know anything about solar cycles? Where do we sit at this time? Are we up for a grand solar minimum in the near future? Are we in one now? What happens during a GSM? What happens historically in GSM?
How about the weakening magnetic field? Could increased energy from the sun and a weakening magnetic field have anything to do with climate? I am willing to admit that they might have no bearing on climate whatsoever, but I'd like to see it included in the modeling.
No need to answer, it's more food for thought - these issues are not on the climate radar, and I think they should be. I don't know what to believe, you could be right - I think we should reduce pollution, stop burning shit, and create a steady state economy and ecology.
Your assertion of me being duped is not very persuasive.
I appreciate your thoughts, and am willing to admit to, perhaps, being wrong. I do not believe that to be the case.
How about you? Is there any possibility you and establishment science might be wrong? I mean, glyphosate was completely safe a few years ago. I remember being a dupe and subject to FUD on that front - the only scientists who thought it was dangerous were kooks.
Do you know anything about solar cycles? Where do we sit at this time? Are we up for a grand solar minimum in the near future? Are we in one now? What happens during a GSM? What happens historically in GSM?
How about the weakening magnetic field? Could increased energy from the sun and a weakening magnetic field have anything to do with climate? I am willing to admit that they might have no bearing on climate whatsoever, but I'd like to see it included in the modeling.
No need to answer, it's more food for thought - these issues are not on the climate radar, and I think they should be. I don't know what to believe, you could be right - I think we should reduce pollution, stop burning shit, and create a steady state economy and ecology.
Your assertion of me being duped is not very persuasive.
it was lobbed at me at dKos. For domestic spying, frankenfoods, glyphosate, and neoliberal Democrats. IIRC, it was a favorite of deoliver. @on the cusp
it was lobbed at me at dKos. For domestic spying, frankenfoods, glyphosate, and neoliberal Democrats. IIRC, it was a favorite of deoliver. #3.1.1.1.1.1
up
0 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@k9disc
Being railroaded into groupthink is always a danger, no matter what the topic. Railroading “the masses” into groupthink is certainly a skill the elite that has ruled the U.S. and the Western world post World War II has thoroughly mastered.
We all have witnessed the way the Powers That Be have promoted Russiagate, in the process converting many people whose intelligence and judgment we used to respect into political pod people from Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. How could this not end up challenging one’s confidence that one knows what one thinks one knows?
Advertising, marketing, culture, the arts, education, history, news — the noosphere in general — propaganda, as advocated by Bernays, has taken over. Convincing people of falsehoods and, moreover, inducing intense and unshakable emotional commitment to those falsehoods — presented as an exceptional measure necessitated only in times of war and national emergency — except it’s not exceptional at all; it’s what the system is doing every minute of every day.
That breakthrough when one first allowed oneself to doubt, that first flash that led to clarity — perhaps it was about Russiagate — or 9/11 — or JFK-RFK-MLK — or some other official narrative — and then the next thought, musing, mulling over the logical question …
That’s … interesting. (Pause.) I wonder whatelseI have been duped into believing that was actually never true?
#3.1.1.1.1
Being railroaded into groupthink is always a danger, no matter what the topic. Railroading “the masses” into groupthink is certainly a skill the elite that has ruled the U.S. and the Western world post World War II has thoroughly mastered.
We all have witnessed the way the Powers That Be have promoted Russiagate, in the process converting many people whose intelligence and judgment we used to respect into political pod people from Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. How could this not end up challenging one’s confidence that one knows what one thinks one knows?
Advertising, marketing, culture, the arts, education, history, news — the noosphere in general — propaganda, as advocated by Bernays, has taken over. Convincing people of falsehoods and, moreover, inducing intense and unshakable emotional commitment to those falsehoods — presented as an exceptional measure necessitated only in times of war and national emergency — except it’s not exceptional at all; it’s what the system is doing every minute of every day.
That breakthrough when one first allowed oneself to doubt, that first flash that led to clarity — perhaps it was about Russiagate — or 9/11 — or JFK-RFK-MLK — or some other official narrative — and then the next thought, musing, mulling over the logical question …
That’s … interesting. (Pause.) I wonder whatelseI have been duped into believing that was actually never true?
up
0 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp
The new and improved FUD was that "studies had found no causal link between smoking and cancer/heart disease/emphysema." That FUD is the direct analog of the AGCC denialism FUD being promulgated by the fossil fuel industry (in particular) and the unlimited-growthers of international capitalism (in general). In fact, the fossil fuel industry has employed some of the very same utterly corrupt, ideologically driven "scientists" that the tobacco industry employed.
CO2-driven AGCC is happening, and there is nothing remotely admirable in adopting the pose of a wise skeptic who is too clever and intellectually sophisticated to get sucked into the groupthink. It isn't groupthink, it's an overwhelming body of scientific work, undertaken by hundreds and hundreds of researchers from all over the world, bringing to bear a variety of approaches and perspectives, based on both theory and empirical measurement, and it leaves not one nanometer of wiggle room for doubt.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@UntimelyRippd@UntimelyRippd
While I might be a climate change believer, and actually am experiencing it daily, and believe it is man made, I have no faith at all in scientific projections.
None.
I stand with k9disc on his skepticism.
#3.1.1.1.1.2.1
The new and improved FUD was that "studies had found no causal link between smoking and cancer/heart disease/emphysema." That FUD is the direct analog of the AGCC denialism FUD being promulgated by the fossil fuel industry (in particular) and the unlimited-growthers of international capitalism (in general). In fact, the fossil fuel industry has employed some of the very same utterly corrupt, ideologically driven "scientists" that the tobacco industry employed.
CO2-driven AGCC is happening, and there is nothing remotely admirable in adopting the pose of a wise skeptic who is too clever and intellectually sophisticated to get sucked into the groupthink. It isn't groupthink, it's an overwhelming body of scientific work, undertaken by hundreds and hundreds of researchers from all over the world, bringing to bear a variety of approaches and perspectives, based on both theory and empirical measurement, and it leaves not one nanometer of wiggle room for doubt.
Not. One. Nanometer.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp
No faith at all? You mean, you actually consider it possible that there might not be a solar eclipse when the scientists predict it? Do you doubt the predicted times of sunrise and sunset? Do you doubt that when your air conditioner turns on, the coils will get cold, warm air will blow across them, water will condense onto the coils and drip, and so on? Do you doubt that when the airplane gets going really really fast on the runway, it will lift up off the ground?
Obviously not, which leads me to wonder: How exactly do you decide which scientific predictions deserve your faith, and which your dismissal?
Because, you see, CO2-driven Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is happening, just as surely as a whole lot of other phenomena we observe all around us all the time. You might as well doubt that the wind is blowing, while watching your hat sail off into the lake.
#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 While I might be a climate change believer, and actually am experiencing it daily, and believe it is man made, I have no faith at all in scientific projections.
None.
I stand with k9disc on his skepticism.
up
0 users have voted.
—
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@UntimelyRippd
pick your (poison) science?
Do you not allow dissention from narratives that for decades have been bs ?
#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1
No faith at all? You mean, you actually consider it possible that there might not be a solar eclipse when the scientists predict it? Do you doubt the predicted times of sunrise and sunset? Do you doubt that when your air conditioner turns on, the coils will get cold, warm air will blow across them, water will condense onto the coils and drip, and so on? Do you doubt that when the airplane gets going really really fast on the runway, it will lift up off the ground?
Obviously not, which leads me to wonder: How exactly do you decide which scientific predictions deserve your faith, and which your dismissal?
Because, you see, CO2-driven Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is happening, just as surely as a whole lot of other phenomena we observe all around us all the time. You might as well doubt that the wind is blowing, while watching your hat sail off into the lake.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp
There are realms of science that have always been extremely problematic -- in some cases, barely even science, or even -- in the case, for example, of most pre-1960s psychology -- not science at all. I don't object to well-informed skepticism when it's warranted. I'm by nature extremely skeptical. Annoyingly so, if you ask some of my colleagues. I'm the person who has encouraged folks on this board to go read about the work of John Ioannidis.
However, in the case of AGCC denial, there is no such thing as a well-informed skeptic. There are charlatans and/or ideologues (such as John Christy, a prominent idiot of my personal acquaintance) promulgating FUD, and there are the dis-informed skeptics who have absorbed that FUD.
#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 pick your (poison) science?
Do you not allow dissention from narratives that for decades have been bs ?
up
0 users have voted.
—
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@UntimelyRippd
hitting the Pentagon.
Someone, perhaps k9disc, said to skip their comments.
You may skip mine.
I would appreciate it very much. You do not give credence to my opinions, and I am absolutely ok with that.
#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1
There are realms of science that have always been extremely problematic -- in some cases, barely even science, or even -- in the case, for example, of most pre-1960s psychology -- not science at all. I don't object to well-informed skepticism when it's warranted. I'm by nature extremely skeptical. Annoyingly so, if you ask some of my colleagues. I'm the person who has encouraged folks on this board to go read about the work of John Ioannidis.
However, in the case of AGCC denial, there is no such thing as a well-informed skeptic. There are charlatans and/or ideologues (such as John Christy, a prominent idiot of my personal acquaintance) promulgating FUD, and there are the dis-informed skeptics who have absorbed that FUD.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp
To think otherwise is to dismiss reality.
But yeah, sure, goodbye, whatever.
#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 hitting the Pentagon.
Someone, perhaps k9disc, said to skip their comments.
You may skip mine.
I would appreciate it very much. You do not give credence to my opinions, and I am absolutely ok with that.
up
0 users have voted.
—
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
That’s the era I grew up in, as a child / young person on a Pacific island.
Elsewhere in the Pacific, the government-funded side of the scientific community was testing A- and H-bombs in the atmosphere and — if they said anything at all, everything being classified — assuring us and everyone there was nothing to worry about.
The corporate-funded scientists support the lies the corporations want told — but does anyone believe that government-funded scientists are any less pressured or maneuvered into supporting the lies the Deep State wants told?
What if some or even most aspects of the climate crisis as reported are true, but there are also elements and factions of the Deep State that are extremely interested in shaping popular notions of how to talk about the climate and what to do about it? That see in the climate crisis the perfect excuse for phasing out individual liberty and imposing a Full Spectrum Dominance, Orwellian, planet-wide power monopoly, as certain thinkers have held to be desirable all along?
#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 pick your (poison) science?
Do you not allow dissention from narratives that for decades have been bs ?
That’s the era I grew up in, as a child / young person on a Pacific island.
Elsewhere in the Pacific, the government-funded side of the scientific community was testing A- and H-bombs in the atmosphere and — if they said anything at all, everything being classified — assuring us and everyone there was nothing to worry about.
The corporate-funded scientists support the lies the corporations want told — but does anyone believe that government-funded scientists are any less pressured or maneuvered into supporting the lies the Deep State wants told?
What if some or even most aspects of the climate crisis as reported are true, but there are also elements and factions of the Deep State that are extremely interested in shaping popular notions of how to talk about the climate and what to do about it? That see in the climate crisis the perfect excuse for phasing out individual liberty and imposing a Full Spectrum Dominance, Orwellian, planet-wide power monopoly, as certain thinkers have held to be desirable all along?
up
0 users have voted.
—
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc
It's not fun, and it shouldn't be necessary -- after all, there are huge websites filled with excruciatingly detailed and precise debunkings of all the pseudoscientific counterarguments to the reality of AGCC, but the FUD rolls on, so what can one do?
The short response is that no, none of these alternative explanations have merit. I offer no citations. It's not my job. The debunking work has been done by others, it's easily available, and anybody who wants to promote a challenge to AGCC has an obligation to his audience to study all of that work in depth. You say that you are "interested" to see what the "new models" will show, but how interested are you in abandoning the hypothesis that the dominant driver of rising temperatures is anything other than CO2 released by human activity? Because for the most part, the results are already known -- as is explained on the debunking sites. The IPCC reports lag well behind the science -- they must, because any tiny error in the compiling of the report will be leapt upon by the forces of destruction and used as a club against the truth, and by extension, against humanity.
I am unimpressed, incidentally, by your resort below to guilt-by-association with dailyKos over the term "FUD". The term predates dailyKos by years, and has been in common use amongst the tech crowd for decades, due to its origin: It was coined in the 70s by Gene Amdahl, a brilliant computer engineer, to describe IBM's technique of undermining customer confidence in its competitors' machines by spreading malicious rumors about the machines, the company, or both. Around these parts, folks are more likely to talk about "psyops". The distinction between the two is subtle, and the use of either has mostly to do with the social/professional culture within which the individual writer's style developed; semantically, the main distinction would probably be that psyops is the process and FUD is the product. Dismissing it by associating it with DeOliver is ludicrous -- you might as well dismiss the word "it" because DeOliver used that as well. I mean, you wouldn't get very far without saying, "it".
You suggest that I should not read your comments. You are correct, I should not, and henceforth I will not. That won't magically make the FUD any less FUD. FUD it is, and FUD it will remain, regardless of my attention or the integrity of your intentions -- which I do not, I emphasize, question. You are misinformed and disinformed, and you are spreading that mis/disinformation in the world. I urge you to reevaluate.
I appreciate your thoughts, and am willing to admit to, perhaps, being wrong. I do not believe that to be the case.
How about you? Is there any possibility you and establishment science might be wrong? I mean, glyphosate was completely safe a few years ago. I remember being a dupe and subject to FUD on that front - the only scientists who thought it was dangerous were kooks.
Do you know anything about solar cycles? Where do we sit at this time? Are we up for a grand solar minimum in the near future? Are we in one now? What happens during a GSM? What happens historically in GSM?
How about the weakening magnetic field? Could increased energy from the sun and a weakening magnetic field have anything to do with climate? I am willing to admit that they might have no bearing on climate whatsoever, but I'd like to see it included in the modeling.
No need to answer, it's more food for thought - these issues are not on the climate radar, and I think they should be. I don't know what to believe, you could be right - I think we should reduce pollution, stop burning shit, and create a steady state economy and ecology.
Your assertion of me being duped is not very persuasive.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
but non-scientific sources take global warming very seriously, so maybe we should listen. The first is the US Department of Defense (or it may have been the Pentagon), which said that global warming is the #1 threat to national security. The other is Swiss Re, the insurance company that insures insurance companies.
#3.1.1.1
It's not fun, and it shouldn't be necessary -- after all, there are huge websites filled with excruciatingly detailed and precise debunkings of all the pseudoscientific counterarguments to the reality of AGCC, but the FUD rolls on, so what can one do?
The short response is that no, none of these alternative explanations have merit. I offer no citations. It's not my job. The debunking work has been done by others, it's easily available, and anybody who wants to promote a challenge to AGCC has an obligation to his audience to study all of that work in depth. You say that you are "interested" to see what the "new models" will show, but how interested are you in abandoning the hypothesis that the dominant driver of rising temperatures is anything other than CO2 released by human activity? Because for the most part, the results are already known -- as is explained on the debunking sites. The IPCC reports lag well behind the science -- they must, because any tiny error in the compiling of the report will be leapt upon by the forces of destruction and used as a club against the truth, and by extension, against humanity.
I am unimpressed, incidentally, by your resort below to guilt-by-association with dailyKos over the term "FUD". The term predates dailyKos by years, and has been in common use amongst the tech crowd for decades, due to its origin: It was coined in the 70s by Gene Amdahl, a brilliant computer engineer, to describe IBM's technique of undermining customer confidence in its competitors' machines by spreading malicious rumors about the machines, the company, or both. Around these parts, folks are more likely to talk about "psyops". The distinction between the two is subtle, and the use of either has mostly to do with the social/professional culture within which the individual writer's style developed; semantically, the main distinction would probably be that psyops is the process and FUD is the product. Dismissing it by associating it with DeOliver is ludicrous -- you might as well dismiss the word "it" because DeOliver used that as well. I mean, you wouldn't get very far without saying, "it".
You suggest that I should not read your comments. You are correct, I should not, and henceforth I will not. That won't magically make the FUD any less FUD. FUD it is, and FUD it will remain, regardless of my attention or the integrity of your intentions -- which I do not, I emphasize, question. You are misinformed and disinformed, and you are spreading that mis/disinformation in the world. I urge you to reevaluate.
up
0 users have voted.
—
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
The first is the US Department of Defense (or it may have been the Pentagon), which said that global warming is the #1 threat to national security. The other is Swiss Re, the insurance company that insures insurance companies.
One entity that can be absolutely relied upon to take a fact-based worldview is a reinsurance company. We're now not just talking mere human beings here, but now we're talking money.
p.s. There's more than one reinsurance company in the world.
but non-scientific sources take global warming very seriously, so maybe we should listen. The first is the US Department of Defense (or it may have been the Pentagon), which said that global warming is the #1 threat to national security. The other is Swiss Re, the insurance company that insures insurance companies.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
My comment was not guilt by association, and it was not just the words. You made the same argument, citing CW of syndicated science, claims of scientific consensus, and "big websites". The only difference is you upped the ante from ruining an election to ruining the planet.
I happened to have been right back then on glyphosate, and the incredulity of "FUD" at that time might have doomed the planet as we know it as illustrated by colony collapse. An open mind and keeping models open for all inputs is THE key to science and the key to better understanding.
Those two things used to be synonymous, but your comments here offer proof that is no longer the case. I think your mindset will be well suited to sitting on a Citizen's Assembly if I am correctly judging the impetus and institutions pushing the Extinction Rebellion.
I am open to being wrong. I have sided with reducing GHGs and not shitting where we eat and have even one upped the Extinction Rebellion by suggesting a steady state global economy. Problem is, I just don't know everything and don't trust those who claim to.
#3.1.1.1
It's not fun, and it shouldn't be necessary -- after all, there are huge websites filled with excruciatingly detailed and precise debunkings of all the pseudoscientific counterarguments to the reality of AGCC, but the FUD rolls on, so what can one do?
The short response is that no, none of these alternative explanations have merit. I offer no citations. It's not my job. The debunking work has been done by others, it's easily available, and anybody who wants to promote a challenge to AGCC has an obligation to his audience to study all of that work in depth. You say that you are "interested" to see what the "new models" will show, but how interested are you in abandoning the hypothesis that the dominant driver of rising temperatures is anything other than CO2 released by human activity? Because for the most part, the results are already known -- as is explained on the debunking sites. The IPCC reports lag well behind the science -- they must, because any tiny error in the compiling of the report will be leapt upon by the forces of destruction and used as a club against the truth, and by extension, against humanity.
I am unimpressed, incidentally, by your resort below to guilt-by-association with dailyKos over the term "FUD". The term predates dailyKos by years, and has been in common use amongst the tech crowd for decades, due to its origin: It was coined in the 70s by Gene Amdahl, a brilliant computer engineer, to describe IBM's technique of undermining customer confidence in its competitors' machines by spreading malicious rumors about the machines, the company, or both. Around these parts, folks are more likely to talk about "psyops". The distinction between the two is subtle, and the use of either has mostly to do with the social/professional culture within which the individual writer's style developed; semantically, the main distinction would probably be that psyops is the process and FUD is the product. Dismissing it by associating it with DeOliver is ludicrous -- you might as well dismiss the word "it" because DeOliver used that as well. I mean, you wouldn't get very far without saying, "it".
You suggest that I should not read your comments. You are correct, I should not, and henceforth I will not. That won't magically make the FUD any less FUD. FUD it is, and FUD it will remain, regardless of my attention or the integrity of your intentions -- which I do not, I emphasize, question. You are misinformed and disinformed, and you are spreading that mis/disinformation in the world. I urge you to reevaluate.
up
0 users have voted.
—
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc
There are FUDders, and there are those they have taken in.
comments on the video.
Perception is Not Reality
The perception, I believe, is that anyone who doesn't buy the current arguments and models is some kind of RW troll. I do not think that perception is correct. There are many people, myself included who do not buy the current arguments and models, and we're not all RW trolls and are, believe it or not, not being influenced or blinded by the Right.
The authoritarian move to make AGW skepticism into a product of ignorance or manipulation is a great problem for productive dialogue and some sort of consensus. There are many factors, large factors, deliberately left out of the climate debate and climate sciences - namely the historical record, solar cycles, and the impact of cosmic rays and other stellar phenomena that are tied to a diminished magnetosphere.
Omissions in Current Models
Weather and climate are not just gaseous and pressure based phenomena. There is an electromagnetic component to them that is poorly understood and completely ignored by modern mainstream science. For instance, climate scientists have no idea how lightning functions. Solar forcing, the impact of solar events like CMEs, solar flares, and other solar phenomena, is not included in any of the official models. Cosmic rays are given zero impact as well.
This omission, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many legitimate dissenters is made worse given that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening at 10x the expected rate, allowing for much more energy to hit the surface of the planet. None of which is accounted for, or even acknowledged as having an impact by current models.
There are head in the sand deniers who just want to selfishly continue on down the path we're on, but not all dissenters are in that camp. I surely am not.
Regarding the Extinction Rebellion
The 3 demands of ER are fine concepts, I support them. The problem I see is that people won't hear anything but what they already know and won't believe any significant changes in the science that, I and many others believe, is coming.
Tell the truth
Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
Will they accept a truth that says that CO2 is not the driving force? That solar cycles, cosmic rays, and the coming Grand Solar Minimum are driving climate change? Those are viewed as RW talking points and are already non-starters - denial is not an option.
Act Now
Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
Taking greenhouse gasses down to zero by 2025 is not an option without massive global strife and population reduction - food and transportation require GHGs, and transitioning to that point will take an immense energy input.
Solar dimming is also a huge, counter-intuitive problem.
How can we stop biodiversity loss in a consumer economy?
Beyond Politics
Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
What scientific data guides these Citizen's Assemblies?
As I said, I am all for these 3 demands but I have zero faith that they will be implemented in a sensible manner given today's political and economic hegemony. I mean, are we going to end warfare by 2025? Are we going to stop producing food with tractors by 2025? How about shipping food? Are we going to refit manufacturing by 2025?
This strikes me as a Great Leap Forward situation led by unaccountable institutions that give not one rat's ass about humanity and human suffering.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
(something I almost never do), I'm still very interested in whether or not Dore is being swarmed, because I am interested, in general, in the systematic suppression of certain viewpoints (whether you or I agree with them or not). Regardless of whether you believe in the conclusions of climate scientists, it's pretty inarguable that any statement which could cast doubt on the value of petroleum and methane extraction is verboten under the current (international) regime.
Oil and methane barons are very close to the heart of actual power in the English-speaking world and English-speaking-dominated world (I'd include most of Europe and, due to recent events, all of South America under that rubric). Only financiers, weaponsmakers, and spooks compare, although I could make an argument for Monsanto. It's a good idea to keep as good a track of their cultural exploits as possible.
comments on the video.
Perception is Not Reality
The perception, I believe, is that anyone who doesn't buy the current arguments and models is some kind of RW troll. I do not think that perception is correct. There are many people, myself included who do not buy the current arguments and models, and we're not all RW trolls and are, believe it or not, not being influenced or blinded by the Right.
The authoritarian move to make AGW skepticism into a product of ignorance or manipulation is a great problem for productive dialogue and some sort of consensus. There are many factors, large factors, deliberately left out of the climate debate and climate sciences - namely the historical record, solar cycles, and the impact of cosmic rays and other stellar phenomena that are tied to a diminished magnetosphere.
Omissions in Current Models
Weather and climate are not just gaseous and pressure based phenomena. There is an electromagnetic component to them that is poorly understood and completely ignored by modern mainstream science. For instance, climate scientists have no idea how lightning functions. Solar forcing, the impact of solar events like CMEs, solar flares, and other solar phenomena, is not included in any of the official models. Cosmic rays are given zero impact as well.
This omission, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many legitimate dissenters is made worse given that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening at 10x the expected rate, allowing for much more energy to hit the surface of the planet. None of which is accounted for, or even acknowledged as having an impact by current models.
There are head in the sand deniers who just want to selfishly continue on down the path we're on, but not all dissenters are in that camp. I surely am not.
Regarding the Extinction Rebellion
The 3 demands of ER are fine concepts, I support them. The problem I see is that people won't hear anything but what they already know and won't believe any significant changes in the science that, I and many others believe, is coming.
Tell the truth
Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
Will they accept a truth that says that CO2 is not the driving force? That solar cycles, cosmic rays, and the coming Grand Solar Minimum are driving climate change? Those are viewed as RW talking points and are already non-starters - denial is not an option.
Act Now
Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
Taking greenhouse gasses down to zero by 2025 is not an option without massive global strife and population reduction - food and transportation require GHGs, and transitioning to that point will take an immense energy input.
Solar dimming is also a huge, counter-intuitive problem.
How can we stop biodiversity loss in a consumer economy?
Beyond Politics
Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
What scientific data guides these Citizen's Assemblies?
As I said, I am all for these 3 demands but I have zero faith that they will be implemented in a sensible manner given today's political and economic hegemony. I mean, are we going to end warfare by 2025? Are we going to stop producing food with tractors by 2025? How about shipping food? Are we going to refit manufacturing by 2025?
This strikes me as a Great Leap Forward situation led by unaccountable institutions that give not one rat's ass about humanity and human suffering.
Maybe a weird bunch of conservative anti-war, anti-globalists supportive of her caught her interview with Dore, subscribed, and are pissed off he also supports activists mobilizing against climate change?
Maybe another weird bunch of similar folks who watch Hannity were impressed by Tulsi's appearance there where she voiced oppostion to impeachment (I'm not sure of her position on it anymore), got tuned into her campaign, found out Jimmy Dore sees impeachment as a joke, tuned in to his interview with Tulsi and whoa, now he's supporting climate change activists.
Hey, maybe he'll do a show with Max Blumenthal or Abby Martin on Bolivia? What might happen then?
Has anybody considered Tulsi's democraphic base? I question the accuracy of corporate polling but let's look and see if there's any thing that might be gleaned from it. The graph below appears to indicate that a considerable amount of her support skews conservative and independent. Make of it what you will:
Lest you make the mistake that Tulsi Gabbard's support is coming from the left, almost all of her support in the Q-Pac poll of NH is from voters who describe themselves as conservative or moderate. And almost all from independents and not Democrats. https://t.co/gjT1sex4Ggpic.twitter.com/gCULsOB2J1
@Wally
is duly noted, over and over again, like every comment that you make. It's becoming a pattern.
Maybe a weird bunch of conservative anti-war, anti-globalists supportive of her caught her interview with Dore, subscribed, and are pissed off he also supports activists mobilizing against climate change?
Maybe another weird bunch of similar folks who watch Hannity were impressed by Tulsi's appearance there where she voiced oppostion to impeachment (I'm not sure of her position on it anymore), got tuned into her campaign, found out Jimmy Dore sees impeachment as a joke, tuned in to his interview with Tulsi and whoa, now he's supporting climate change activists.
Hey, maybe he'll do a show with Max Blumenthal or Abby Martin on Bolivia? What might happen then?
Has anybody considered Tulsi's democraphic base? I question the accuracy of corporate polling but let's look and see if there's any thing that might be gleaned from it. The graph below appears to indicate that a considerable amount of her support skews conservative and independent. Make of it what you will:
Lest you make the mistake that Tulsi Gabbard's support is coming from the left, almost all of her support in the Q-Pac poll of NH is from voters who describe themselves as conservative or moderate. And almost all from independents and not Democrats. https://t.co/gjT1sex4Ggpic.twitter.com/gCULsOB2J1
I like the pattern on the flag of the indigenous people of Bolivia.
And actually, my perspective on Tulsi is changing. While my position regarding Bernie has been pretty much consistent.
If it somehow rubs some folks the wrong way, so it goes. I don't think I'm being dismissive of anyone here. It shouldn't be hard to ignore my comments given my new bright multicolor graphic.
But I'm not going to stop unless I'm thrown off the forum or until what I anticipate to be the probable date of my tipping point which I've noted.
#4
is duly noted, over and over again, like every comment that you make. It's becoming a pattern.
I like the pattern on the flag of the indigenous people of Bolivia.
And actually, my perspective on Tulsi is changing. While my position regarding Bernie has been pretty much consistent.
If it somehow rubs some folks the wrong way, so it goes. I don't think I'm being dismissive of anyone here. It shouldn't be hard to ignore my comments given my new bright multicolor graphic.
But I'm not going to stop unless I'm thrown off the forum or until what I anticipate to be the probable date of my tipping point which I've noted.
@Wally@Wally
are probably subscribers who responded to a notification, which explains the rapid timing. It does seem though that they lean a bit more RW and are more vitriolic than random chance.
Maybe a weird bunch of conservative anti-war, anti-globalists supportive of her caught her interview with Dore, subscribed, and are pissed off he also supports activists mobilizing against climate change?
Maybe another weird bunch of similar folks who watch Hannity were impressed by Tulsi's appearance there where she voiced oppostion to impeachment (I'm not sure of her position on it anymore), got tuned into her campaign, found out Jimmy Dore sees impeachment as a joke, tuned in to his interview with Tulsi and whoa, now he's supporting climate change activists.
Hey, maybe he'll do a show with Max Blumenthal or Abby Martin on Bolivia? What might happen then?
Has anybody considered Tulsi's democraphic base? I question the accuracy of corporate polling but let's look and see if there's any thing that might be gleaned from it. The graph below appears to indicate that a considerable amount of her support skews conservative and independent. Make of it what you will:
Lest you make the mistake that Tulsi Gabbard's support is coming from the left, almost all of her support in the Q-Pac poll of NH is from voters who describe themselves as conservative or moderate. And almost all from independents and not Democrats. https://t.co/gjT1sex4Ggpic.twitter.com/gCULsOB2J1
There was certainly a pattern in those comments. It certainly seems that the rapid response was indicative that it was initiated by right wing subscribers to Dore's YouTube channel and followed by other right wingers who may not have been subscribers but who piled on once the word rapidly spread in their networks. Where they came from is a matter of speculation. I have my theory which I expressed and will kindly consider any alternative theories.
#4#4
are probably subscribers who responded to a notification, which explains the rapid timing. It does seem though that they lean a bit more RW and are more vitriolic than random chance.
...that the Authentic Left is not located to the linear left of Democratic Party?
It might be located on a z axis, which is more befitting the conditions in three dimensional space. The Left does not need go through the Democrats to speak to the Republican right. I would argue that the Authentic Left actually shares a common border with the Right and shares common interests from which the Democrats are excluded..
This is a normal arrangement of three exclusive entities grouped in 3-D space. .
There was certainly a pattern in those comments. It certainly seems that the rapid response was indicative that it was initiated by right wing subscribers to Dore's YouTube channel and followed by other right wingers who may not have been subscribers but who piled on once the word rapidly spread in their networks. Where they came from is a matter of speculation. I have my theory which I expressed and will kindly consider any alternative theories.
...that the Authentic Left is not located to the linear left of Democratic Party?
It might be located on a z axis, which is more befitting the conditions in three dimensional space. The Left does not need go through the Democrats to speak to the Republican right. I would argue that the Authentic Left actually shares a common border with the Right and shares common interests from which the Democrats are excluded..
This is a normal arrangement of three exclusive entities grouped in 3-D space. .
up
0 users have voted.
—
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
It is exactly the type of data I am keenly interested in with respect to my visual sense of the dynamics that are producing the political outcomes that Americans are experiencing. In map-space, I can see that a few doors (opportunities for correction) remain open up ahead, which is much more hopeful than the prognosis in narrative-space. The narrative of the current political system reveals the people's collective inability to recognize the patterns of actions that produce negative outcomes. The constant repetition of old mistakes is an evolutionary plateau that collapses the probability of escaping extinction.
Piketty concludes by describing the same dilemma that I have bumped up against lately: You cannot stuff the Authentic Left inside the overly-diverse, wealth-corrupt Democratic Party and expect a positive outcome. That idea needs to be rejected immediately, and the Authentic Left needs to migrate en mass with its politicians and stake its own claim in the political frontier. It's the 'last chance' exit. Otherwise we are surrendering our potential to the Great Depopulation. Tic Toc.
Unequal access to political finance, medias and influence can contribute to keep electoral politics under the control of elites. The class-based party system that emerged in the mid-20th century [FDR] was due to specific historical circumstances, and proved to be fragile as social and economic structures evolved. Without a strong and convincing egalitarian-internationalist platform, it is inherently difficult to unite low-education, low-income voters from all origins within the same party.
Hell is where you stand in line to vote for all eternity, and the outcome is always unwelcome.
I really appreciated the math. Helped me to remember thT I actually am good at math, but the arithmetic gives me fits.
Glad to turn you on to something important - Piketty has smashed it of late.
And thanks for acknowledging the Great Depopulation. Scary stuff, and so many refuse to see it. Many will only buy it when they start burning food to keep the market “healthy”.
It is exactly the type of data I am keenly interested in with respect to my visual sense of the dynamics that are producing the political outcomes that Americans are experiencing. In map-space, I can see that a few doors (opportunities for correction) remain open up ahead, which is much more hopeful than the prognosis in narrative-space. The narrative of the current political system reveals the people's collective inability to recognize the patterns of actions that produce negative outcomes. The constant repetition of old mistakes is an evolutionary plateau that collapses the probability of escaping extinction.
Piketty concludes by describing the same dilemma that I have bumped up against lately: You cannot stuff the Authentic Left inside the overly-diverse, wealth-corrupt Democratic Party and expect a positive outcome. That idea needs to be rejected immediately, and the Authentic Left needs to migrate en mass with its politicians and stake its own claim in the political frontier. It's the 'last chance' exit. Otherwise we are surrendering our potential to the Great Depopulation. Tic Toc.
Unequal access to political finance, medias and influence can contribute to keep electoral politics under the control of elites. The class-based party system that emerged in the mid-20th century [FDR] was due to specific historical circumstances, and proved to be fragile as social and economic structures evolved. Without a strong and convincing egalitarian-internationalist platform, it is inherently difficult to unite low-education, low-income voters from all origins within the same party.
Hell is where you stand in line to vote for all eternity, and the outcome is always unwelcome.
up
0 users have voted.
—
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
The difference between right wing comments from the UK and US is that the UK people come off as halfway intelligent. Still just as full of shit, just without the spelling and grammatical mistakes.
up
0 users have voted.
—
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
The infallibility of science, the concept of "settled science" is a faith based operation.
Nobody needs to look at the data because it's already been settled and is beyond question. Models need not be changed and no experimentation is necessary because experiments with that angle amount to nothing more than FUD. Heliocentric earth and round earth are FUD, and I don't care what Eratosthenes says. Add an existential threat and those sowing FUD can (and should) be subjected to an Inquisition because unbelief or FUD, literally is killing people and will lead to extinction.
Uncertainty and doubt should be welcomed in science - it is the very purpose and calling of science. If there is no uncertainty and no doubt it's faith not science. If there is fear of dissent or challenge it's not science, it's dogma.
However, in the case of the climate collapse, I think the evidence is compelling that human activity (primarily CO2 and CH4 emissions) is trapping heat and throwing the climatic system into chaos.. For what it is worth, I taught and still study earth science and have investigated planetary heating for decades now.
I would recommend reading the Thursday OT "Hot Air" to see the volume of the evidence on weekly basis. It is pretty overwhelming.
You, of course, are entitled to your own conclusion. I like that in our C99 community we can agree to see things differently. However, I would caution that the fossil fuel machine is doing its best to misinform folks...including trying to link the heating to solar variation rather than human activity.
Better hang on, it is going to get wilder and more chaotic.
The infallibility of science, the concept of "settled science" is a faith based operation.
Nobody needs to look at the data because it's already been settled and is beyond question. Models need not be changed and no experimentation is necessary because experiments with that angle amount to nothing more than FUD. Heliocentric earth and round earth are FUD, and I don't care what Eratosthenes says. Add an existential threat and those sowing FUD can (and should) be subjected to an Inquisition because unbelief or FUD, literally is killing people and will lead to extinction.
Uncertainty and doubt should be welcomed in science - it is the very purpose and calling of science. If there is no uncertainty and no doubt it's faith not science. If there is fear of dissent or challenge it's not science, it's dogma.
However, in the case of the climate collapse, I think the evidence is compelling that human activity (primarily CO2 and CH4 emissions) is trapping heat and throwing the climatic system into chaos.. For what it is worth, I taught and still study earth science and have investigated planetary heating for decades now.
I would recommend reading the Thursday OT "Hot Air" to see the volume of the evidence on weekly basis. It is pretty overwhelming.
You, of course, are entitled to your own conclusion. I like that in our C99 community we can agree to see things differently. However, I would caution that the fossil fuel machine is doing its best to misinform folks...including trying to link the heating to solar variation rather than human activity.
Better hang on, it is going to get wilder and more chaotic.
up
0 users have voted.
—
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@Lookout
and who welcome any issue on which they can be right and which is of enough urgency and moral significance that they can convince others they are justified in asserting dominance over what others say or think. Those who resist the displayed dominance are performatively forced into the role of “inferiors” whose views need not be shown any respect.
“History” — or more precisely, the narratives that have been told and sold to us as such — is rife with causes that started out as just in theory, but that took humanity from bad to worse because of the personalities who used them to assert dominance and rise to the top.
Why would climate crisis be any different?
Books have been written showing how money-oriented people, capitalists, opportunistically use crisis and disaster to amass more money.
Likewise, an atmosphere of crisis can provide the backdrop for power-oriented personalities to display dominance and amass more “psychological capital.” To disagree or question is to be immediately labelled ignorant, morally inferior, both lesser and oppressor, both villain and fool; moreover, sharing guilt for all the suffering in the world and in history.
You — are — guilty! Or stupid! Why won’t you let me prescribe to you what you must believe and how you are to think?
Continue trying to recognize and avoid guilt manipulation, gaslighting, insult, groupthink, and bullying — no matter how politely or crudely worded.
However, in the case of the climate collapse, I think the evidence is compelling that human activity (primarily CO2 and CH4 emissions) is trapping heat and throwing the climatic system into chaos.. For what it is worth, I taught and still study earth science and have investigated planetary heating for decades now.
I would recommend reading the Thursday OT "Hot Air" to see the volume of the evidence on weekly basis. It is pretty overwhelming.
You, of course, are entitled to your own conclusion. I like that in our C99 community we can agree to see things differently. However, I would caution that the fossil fuel machine is doing its best to misinform folks...including trying to link the heating to solar variation rather than human activity.
Better hang on, it is going to get wilder and more chaotic.
@lotlizard
out of hand -- to reject it immediately and completely? Or is to do so merely "buying in" to the "authoritarian scientists" whose "Conventional Wisdom" has been wrong before?
What about the Flat Earth "hypothesis"? Should I tolerate that -- where, by tolerate, I mean "grant polite credence to, in the course of debating things that matter"?
There are plenty of facts about the universe about which non-credulous people are -- and should be -- adamantly dogmatic.
I have to admit, that kind of talk rubs me the wrong way. It’s dogmatic. Dangerously so?
Oh, progressives. No tolerance, no equality, no diversity, no inclusiveness, no freedom when it comes to one of the privileged topics!
Democratic centralism, like Lenin, or the Council of Nicaea.
Papal infallibility — when was “Science” appointed pope?
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@UntimelyRippd
It’s a breakdown in interpersonal relations when a person insists others should accept his or her judgment over their own, and becomes overbearing when they do not.
Most of us know the feeling that on some given topic we have done our homework and others haven’t. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to appoint oneself as an authority and judge over others. One still has to earn, rather than simply demand under punishment of ridicule, others’ respect.
#7
out of hand -- to reject it immediately and completely? Or is to do so merely "buying in" to the "authoritarian scientists" whose "Conventional Wisdom" has been wrong before?
What about the Flat Earth "hypothesis"? Should I tolerate that -- where, by tolerate, I mean "grant polite credence to, in the course of debating things that matter"?
There are plenty of facts about the universe about which non-credulous people are -- and should be -- adamantly dogmatic.
@lotlizard
delusions are delusions.
i'm done here.
it's more work than it's worth.
i've put in over three hours working on an essay whose purpose was to somehow penetrate a cognitive fog that should be dissipated by the first 6 sentences, which i wrote in the first 3 minutes, but that in the end would withstand any and all reason and evidence brought to bear against it; so why bother finishing it? yeah, no. anyone who thinks a boeing 757 did not hit the pentagon is going to believe exactly whatever they want to believe, about everything and anything, regardless of their senses or their general capacity for reasoned analysis.
fuck that. i'm just gonna watch netflix and contemplate my own hopeless broken heart.
good luck, folks.
#7.2
It’s a breakdown in interpersonal relations when a person insists others should accept his or her judgment over their own, and becomes overbearing when they do not.
Most of us know the feeling that on some given topic we have done our homework and others haven’t. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to appoint oneself as an authority and judge over others. One still has to earn, rather than simply demand under punishment of ridicule, others’ respect.
up
0 users have voted.
—
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@UntimelyRippd
(1) men and boys have XY chromosomes and male anatomy, while women and girls have XX chromosomes and female anatomy. And while there were cases of transsexuality, diagnosis and transition was a long, involved process. One couldn’t simply (2) declare oneself to be the opposite sex (let alone some fantasy “gender”) from one moment to the next — people would have regarded that as a delusion.
Today, the progressive “party line” seems to favor the view that (1) is no longer scientific fact but bigotry and, in the case of (2), “fact” is whatever the person in question subjectively feels it is and claims it is.
As for Young Earth Creationism, that is just one facet of a complex of religious belief systems, another arm of which manifests itself as Zionism — “this land is mine; [thousands of years ago] G_d gave this land to me.” The elite view: the former is delusion; the latter is not just fact but sacrosanct fact and the very foundation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
#7
out of hand -- to reject it immediately and completely? Or is to do so merely "buying in" to the "authoritarian scientists" whose "Conventional Wisdom" has been wrong before?
What about the Flat Earth "hypothesis"? Should I tolerate that -- where, by tolerate, I mean "grant polite credence to, in the course of debating things that matter"?
There are plenty of facts about the universe about which non-credulous people are -- and should be -- adamantly dogmatic.
Comments
garden variety
Having read some but not all of the comments, it appears to me that your crop of right-wing trolls is mere garden variety, with any appearance of organization being due to the typical "libertarian" preference for order above freedom for the non-rich.
Plenty of racism to be had, too.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Kim Stanley Robinson
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Thanks so much, I've been hunting for the exact
quote and its source for almost 20 years.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
It’s Coyote
During the Dorsa Brevia conference. (Yes, I’ve read those books too many times!)
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
I may have to borrow that for my sig someday.
As of now, though, I'm still too attached to the one about exit polls.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It does look that way.
I watch a fair bit of Dore. I don't read the comments a lot but check them on occasion. I have never seen a swarm quite like this. Goes to show that the Extinction Rebellion is up against a well funded and active pro extinction community. The pro extinction community is literally throwing every bat spit crazy argument at this.
I Am No Fan of the Extinction Rebellion.
I also don't buy the "settled science" argument on AGW and CO2.
I am strongly against shitting where we eat (pollution) and the grow or die consumption based economy, but find the current climate models and data to be wildly off the mark and am quite sympathetic to a few of the arguments that are seeming to come from the RW troll crowd.
I am quite interested to see the new models from the IPCC that include solar forcing and solar cycles, but we have to wait a few years (to be included in models by 2023) to see the newly refined models and data, so I'll have to wait to come to a more firm conclusion on the veracity of the current scientific claims. As of now, I'm leaning towards the grand solar minimum argument as the biggest threat to humanity and the climate that sustains us. The bees and birds, I think are glyphosate issues, although I'm starting to entertain geomagnetic effects as a potential cause and contributor to their demise (an idea of mine with zero scientific back up - just a hunch).
That said, I am a complete ally of Johnny Rook and the planet. I just don't think it's going down the way we're being told, and don't trust any of these institutions as far as I can throw them.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
I Guess I Should Try to Tie This Into the Perception of the
comments on the video.
Perception is Not Reality
The perception, I believe, is that anyone who doesn't buy the current arguments and models is some kind of RW troll. I do not think that perception is correct. There are many people, myself included who do not buy the current arguments and models, and we're not all RW trolls and are, believe it or not, not being influenced or blinded by the Right.
The authoritarian move to make AGW skepticism into a product of ignorance or manipulation is a great problem for productive dialogue and some sort of consensus. There are many factors, large factors, deliberately left out of the climate debate and climate sciences - namely the historical record, solar cycles, and the impact of cosmic rays and other stellar phenomena that are tied to a diminished magnetosphere.
Omissions in Current Models
Weather and climate are not just gaseous and pressure based phenomena. There is an electromagnetic component to them that is poorly understood and completely ignored by modern mainstream science. For instance, climate scientists have no idea how lightning functions. Solar forcing, the impact of solar events like CMEs, solar flares, and other solar phenomena, is not included in any of the official models. Cosmic rays are given zero impact as well.
This omission, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many legitimate dissenters is made worse given that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening at 10x the expected rate, allowing for much more energy to hit the surface of the planet. None of which is accounted for, or even acknowledged as having an impact by current models.
There are head in the sand deniers who just want to selfishly continue on down the path we're on, but not all dissenters are in that camp. I surely am not.
Regarding the Extinction Rebellion
The 3 demands of ER are fine concepts, I support them. The problem I see is that people won't hear anything but what they already know and won't believe any significant changes in the science that, I and many others believe, is coming.
Tell the truth
Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
Will they accept a truth that says that CO2 is not the driving force? That solar cycles, cosmic rays, and the coming Grand Solar Minimum are driving climate change? Those are viewed as RW talking points and are already non-starters - denial is not an option.
Act Now
Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
Taking greenhouse gasses down to zero by 2025 is not an option without massive global strife and population reduction - food and transportation require GHGs, and transitioning to that point will take an immense energy input.
Solar dimming is also a huge, counter-intuitive problem.
How can we stop biodiversity loss in a consumer economy?
Beyond Politics
Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
What scientific data guides these Citizen's Assemblies?
As I said, I am all for these 3 demands but I have zero faith that they will be implemented in a sensible manner given today's political and economic hegemony. I mean, are we going to end warfare by 2025? Are we going to stop producing food with tractors by 2025? How about shipping food? Are we going to refit manufacturing by 2025?
This strikes me as a Great Leap Forward situation led by unaccountable institutions that give not one rat's ass about humanity and human suffering.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
You have fallen for FUD.
The planet is, in the aggregate, getting warmer.
The primary driver of that warming is CO2 released by human activity.
This is about as certain as just about any other conclusion in all the realms of scientific knowledge.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I Do Not Think I Have Fallen For FUD.
I appreciate your thoughts, and am willing to admit to, perhaps, being wrong. I do not believe that to be the case.
How about you? Is there any possibility you and establishment science might be wrong? I mean, glyphosate was completely safe a few years ago. I remember being a dupe and subject to FUD on that front - the only scientists who thought it was dangerous were kooks.
Do you know anything about solar cycles? Where do we sit at this time? Are we up for a grand solar minimum in the near future? Are we in one now? What happens during a GSM? What happens historically in GSM?
How about the weakening magnetic field? Could increased energy from the sun and a weakening magnetic field have anything to do with climate? I am willing to admit that they might have no bearing on climate whatsoever, but I'd like to see it included in the modeling.
No need to answer, it's more food for thought - these issues are not on the climate radar, and I think they should be. I don't know what to believe, you could be right - I think we should reduce pollution, stop burning shit, and create a steady state economy and ecology.
Your assertion of me being duped is not very persuasive.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Never Mind. I Just Saw Your Signature. You Should Probably Not
even read my comments.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
What is FUD?
Never saw that before.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp Fear,
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Have Not Seen It Used Since
it was lobbed at me at dKos. For domestic spying, frankenfoods, glyphosate, and neoliberal Democrats. IIRC, it was a favorite of deoliver.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Thanks.
n/t
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Thanks for standing up for your viewpoint against “groupthink”
Being railroaded into groupthink is always a danger, no matter what the topic. Railroading “the masses” into groupthink is certainly a skill the elite that has ruled the U.S. and the Western world post World War II has thoroughly mastered.
We all have witnessed the way the Powers That Be have promoted Russiagate, in the process converting many people whose intelligence and judgment we used to respect into political pod people from Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. How could this not end up challenging one’s confidence that one knows what one thinks one knows?
Advertising, marketing, culture, the arts, education, history, news — the noosphere in general — propaganda, as advocated by Bernays, has taken over. Convincing people of falsehoods and, moreover, inducing intense and unshakable emotional commitment to those falsehoods — presented as an exceptional measure necessitated only in times of war and national emergency — except it’s not exceptional at all; it’s what the system is doing every minute of every day.
That breakthrough when one first allowed oneself to doubt, that first flash that led to clarity — perhaps it was about Russiagate — or 9/11 — or JFK-RFK-MLK — or some other official narrative — and then the next thought, musing, mulling over the logical question …
That’s … interesting. (Pause.) I wonder what else I have been duped into believing that was actually never true?
Smoking is healthy comes to mind.
n/t
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
"Smoking is healthy" was the old FUD.
The new and improved FUD was that "studies had found no causal link between smoking and cancer/heart disease/emphysema." That FUD is the direct analog of the AGCC denialism FUD being promulgated by the fossil fuel industry (in particular) and the unlimited-growthers of international capitalism (in general). In fact, the fossil fuel industry has employed some of the very same utterly corrupt, ideologically driven "scientists" that the tobacco industry employed.
CO2-driven AGCC is happening, and there is nothing remotely admirable in adopting the pose of a wise skeptic who is too clever and intellectually sophisticated to get sucked into the groupthink. It isn't groupthink, it's an overwhelming body of scientific work, undertaken by hundreds and hundreds of researchers from all over the world, bringing to bear a variety of approaches and perspectives, based on both theory and empirical measurement, and it leaves not one nanometer of wiggle room for doubt.
Not. One. Nanometer.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I call bull shit.
While I might be a climate change believer, and actually am experiencing it daily, and believe it is man made, I have no faith at all in scientific projections.
None.
I stand with k9disc on his skepticism.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Really?
No faith at all? You mean, you actually consider it possible that there might not be a solar eclipse when the scientists predict it? Do you doubt the predicted times of sunrise and sunset? Do you doubt that when your air conditioner turns on, the coils will get cold, warm air will blow across them, water will condense onto the coils and drip, and so on? Do you doubt that when the airplane gets going really really fast on the runway, it will lift up off the ground?
Obviously not, which leads me to wonder: How exactly do you decide which scientific predictions deserve your faith, and which your dismissal?
Because, you see, CO2-driven Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is happening, just as surely as a whole lot of other phenomena we observe all around us all the time. You might as well doubt that the wind is blowing, while watching your hat sail off into the lake.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
How, exacly,do you
pick your (poison) science?
Do you not allow dissention from narratives that for decades have been bs ?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
To which narratives are you referring?
There are realms of science that have always been extremely problematic -- in some cases, barely even science, or even -- in the case, for example, of most pre-1960s psychology -- not science at all. I don't object to well-informed skepticism when it's warranted. I'm by nature extremely skeptical. Annoyingly so, if you ask some of my colleagues. I'm the person who has encouraged folks on this board to go read about the work of John Ioannidis.
However, in the case of AGCC denial, there is no such thing as a well-informed skeptic. There are charlatans and/or ideologues (such as John Christy, a prominent idiot of my personal acquaintance) promulgating FUD, and there are the dis-informed skeptics who have absorbed that FUD.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
like the Boeing
hitting the Pentagon.
Someone, perhaps k9disc, said to skip their comments.
You may skip mine.
I would appreciate it very much. You do not give credence to my opinions, and I am absolutely ok with that.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
A Boeing hit the pentagon.
To think otherwise is to dismiss reality.
But yeah, sure, goodbye, whatever.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
When the voice of Science was Wernher von Braun and Herman Kahn
and Edward Teller . . .
That’s the era I grew up in, as a child / young person on a Pacific island.
Elsewhere in the Pacific, the government-funded side of the scientific community was testing A- and H-bombs in the atmosphere and — if they said anything at all, everything being classified — assuring us and everyone there was nothing to worry about.
The corporate-funded scientists support the lies the corporations want told — but does anyone believe that government-funded scientists are any less pressured or maneuvered into supporting the lies the Deep State wants told?
What if some or even most aspects of the climate crisis as reported are true, but there are also elements and factions of the Deep State that are extremely interested in shaping popular notions of how to talk about the climate and what to do about it? That see in the climate crisis the perfect excuse for phasing out individual liberty and imposing a Full Spectrum Dominance, Orwellian, planet-wide power monopoly, as certain thinkers have held to be desirable all along?
Ding Ding and Fucking Ding. NT
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
I am working on an essay regarding these matters.
It's not fun, and it shouldn't be necessary -- after all, there are huge websites filled with excruciatingly detailed and precise debunkings of all the pseudoscientific counterarguments to the reality of AGCC, but the FUD rolls on, so what can one do?
The short response is that no, none of these alternative explanations have merit. I offer no citations. It's not my job. The debunking work has been done by others, it's easily available, and anybody who wants to promote a challenge to AGCC has an obligation to his audience to study all of that work in depth. You say that you are "interested" to see what the "new models" will show, but how interested are you in abandoning the hypothesis that the dominant driver of rising temperatures is anything other than CO2 released by human activity? Because for the most part, the results are already known -- as is explained on the debunking sites. The IPCC reports lag well behind the science -- they must, because any tiny error in the compiling of the report will be leapt upon by the forces of destruction and used as a club against the truth, and by extension, against humanity.
I am unimpressed, incidentally, by your resort below to guilt-by-association with dailyKos over the term "FUD". The term predates dailyKos by years, and has been in common use amongst the tech crowd for decades, due to its origin: It was coined in the 70s by Gene Amdahl, a brilliant computer engineer, to describe IBM's technique of undermining customer confidence in its competitors' machines by spreading malicious rumors about the machines, the company, or both. Around these parts, folks are more likely to talk about "psyops". The distinction between the two is subtle, and the use of either has mostly to do with the social/professional culture within which the individual writer's style developed; semantically, the main distinction would probably be that psyops is the process and FUD is the product. Dismissing it by associating it with DeOliver is ludicrous -- you might as well dismiss the word "it" because DeOliver used that as well. I mean, you wouldn't get very far without saying, "it".
You suggest that I should not read your comments. You are correct, I should not, and henceforth I will not. That won't magically make the FUD any less FUD. FUD it is, and FUD it will remain, regardless of my attention or the integrity of your intentions -- which I do not, I emphasize, question. You are misinformed and disinformed, and you are spreading that mis/disinformation in the world. I urge you to reevaluate.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Two authoritative
but non-scientific sources take global warming very seriously, so maybe we should listen. The first is the US Department of Defense (or it may have been the Pentagon), which said that global warming is the #1 threat to national security. The other is Swiss Re, the insurance company that insures insurance companies.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
we should listen
One entity that can be absolutely relied upon to take a fact-based worldview is a reinsurance company. We're now not just talking mere human beings here, but now we're talking money.
p.s. There's more than one reinsurance company in the world.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Good Thing I'm Not Here to Impress You.
My comment was not guilt by association, and it was not just the words. You made the same argument, citing CW of syndicated science, claims of scientific consensus, and "big websites". The only difference is you upped the ante from ruining an election to ruining the planet.
I happened to have been right back then on glyphosate, and the incredulity of "FUD" at that time might have doomed the planet as we know it as illustrated by colony collapse. An open mind and keeping models open for all inputs is THE key to science and the key to better understanding.
Those two things used to be synonymous, but your comments here offer proof that is no longer the case. I think your mindset will be well suited to sitting on a Citizen's Assembly if I am correctly judging the impetus and institutions pushing the Extinction Rebellion.
I am open to being wrong. I have sided with reducing GHGs and not shitting where we eat and have even one upped the Extinction Rebellion by suggesting a steady state global economy. Problem is, I just don't know everything and don't trust those who claim to.
Good day,
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
And by the way, there are no legitimate dissenters.
There are FUDders, and there are those they have taken in.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Leaving aside the climate,
(something I almost never do), I'm still very interested in whether or not Dore is being swarmed, because I am interested, in general, in the systematic suppression of certain viewpoints (whether you or I agree with them or not). Regardless of whether you believe in the conclusions of climate scientists, it's pretty inarguable that any statement which could cast doubt on the value of petroleum and methane extraction is verboten under the current (international) regime.
Oil and methane barons are very close to the heart of actual power in the English-speaking world and English-speaking-dominated world (I'd include most of Europe and, due to recent events, all of South America under that rubric). Only financiers, weaponsmakers, and spooks compare, although I could make an argument for Monsanto. It's a good idea to keep as good a track of their cultural exploits as possible.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Maybe it has something to do with Tulsi's interview with him?
Maybe a weird bunch of conservative anti-war, anti-globalists supportive of her caught her interview with Dore, subscribed, and are pissed off he also supports activists mobilizing against climate change?
Maybe another weird bunch of similar folks who watch Hannity were impressed by Tulsi's appearance there where she voiced oppostion to impeachment (I'm not sure of her position on it anymore), got tuned into her campaign, found out Jimmy Dore sees impeachment as a joke, tuned in to his interview with Tulsi and whoa, now he's supporting climate change activists.
Hey, maybe he'll do a show with Max Blumenthal or Abby Martin on Bolivia? What might happen then?
Has anybody considered Tulsi's democraphic base? I question the accuracy of corporate polling but let's look and see if there's any thing that might be gleaned from it. The graph below appears to indicate that a considerable amount of her support skews conservative and independent. Make of it what you will:
Your concern...
is duly noted, over and over again, like every comment that you make. It's becoming a pattern.
What's wrong with patterns?
I like the pattern on the flag of the indigenous people of Bolivia.
And actually, my perspective on Tulsi is changing. While my position regarding Bernie has been pretty much consistent.
If it somehow rubs some folks the wrong way, so it goes. I don't think I'm being dismissive of anyone here. It shouldn't be hard to ignore my comments given my new bright multicolor graphic.
But I'm not going to stop unless I'm thrown off the forum or until what I anticipate to be the probable date of my tipping point which I've noted.
Wally...
I've sent you a private message.
And I've responded privately
Cheers.
You raise a point that I was oblivious to, which is that they
are probably subscribers who responded to a notification, which explains the rapid timing. It does seem though that they lean a bit more RW and are more vitriolic than random chance.
Thanks for recognizing I made a legit argument
There was certainly a pattern in those comments. It certainly seems that the rapid response was indicative that it was initiated by right wing subscribers to Dore's YouTube channel and followed by other right wingers who may not have been subscribers but who piled on once the word rapidly spread in their networks. Where they came from is a matter of speculation. I have my theory which I expressed and will kindly consider any alternative theories.
Have you considered
...that the Authentic Left is not located to the linear left of Democratic Party?
It might be located on a z axis, which is more befitting the conditions in three dimensional space. The Left does not need go through the Democrats to speak to the Republican right. I would argue that the Authentic Left actually shares a common border with the Right and shares common interests from which the Democrats are excluded..
This is a normal arrangement of three exclusive entities grouped in 3-D space. .
Piketty’s Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right
Is a great illustration of this z axis - in mathematical as well as sociological terms.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf (Pdf)
Good perspective,
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Really appreciate your link to the Piketty study
It is exactly the type of data I am keenly interested in with respect to my visual sense of the dynamics that are producing the political outcomes that Americans are experiencing. In map-space, I can see that a few doors (opportunities for correction) remain open up ahead, which is much more hopeful than the prognosis in narrative-space. The narrative of the current political system reveals the people's collective inability to recognize the patterns of actions that produce negative outcomes. The constant repetition of old mistakes is an evolutionary plateau that collapses the probability of escaping extinction.
Piketty concludes by describing the same dilemma that I have bumped up against lately: You cannot stuff the Authentic Left inside the overly-diverse, wealth-corrupt Democratic Party and expect a positive outcome. That idea needs to be rejected immediately, and the Authentic Left needs to migrate en mass with its politicians and stake its own claim in the political frontier. It's the 'last chance' exit. Otherwise we are surrendering our potential to the Great Depopulation. Tic Toc.
Hell is where you stand in line to vote for all eternity, and the outcome is always unwelcome.
Epic Comment. I Felt the Same Although
not so eloquent and holistic.
I really appreciated the math. Helped me to remember thT I actually am good at math, but the arithmetic gives me fits.
Glad to turn you on to something important - Piketty has smashed it of late.
And thanks for acknowledging the Great Depopulation. Scary stuff, and so many refuse to see it. Many will only buy it when they start burning food to keep the market “healthy”.
Peace
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Thank you everybody for your input.
They seem to be coming from "across the pond"
The difference between right wing comments from the UK and US is that the UK people come off as halfway intelligent. Still just as full of shit, just without the spelling and grammatical mistakes.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
“There are no legitimate dissenters” —
I have to admit, that kind of talk rubs me the wrong way. It’s dogmatic. Dangerously so?
Oh, progressives. No tolerance, no equality, no diversity, no inclusiveness, no freedom when it comes to one of the privileged topics!
Democratic centralism, like Lenin, or the Council of Nicaea.
Papal infallibility — when was “Science” appointed pope?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=science+reproducibility+crisis
Thanks For Your Comments Here. They Are, IMO, Spot On.
The infallibility of science, the concept of "settled science" is a faith based operation.
Nobody needs to look at the data because it's already been settled and is beyond question. Models need not be changed and no experimentation is necessary because experiments with that angle amount to nothing more than FUD. Heliocentric earth and round earth are FUD, and I don't care what Eratosthenes says. Add an existential threat and those sowing FUD can (and should) be subjected to an Inquisition because unbelief or FUD, literally is killing people and will lead to extinction.
Uncertainty and doubt should be welcomed in science - it is the very purpose and calling of science. If there is no uncertainty and no doubt it's faith not science. If there is fear of dissent or challenge it's not science, it's dogma.
peace~
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Science is always a work in progress
...and is often totally incorrect. Think Galileo.
However, in the case of the climate collapse, I think the evidence is compelling that human activity (primarily CO2 and CH4 emissions) is trapping heat and throwing the climatic system into chaos.. For what it is worth, I taught and still study earth science and have investigated planetary heating for decades now.
I would recommend reading the Thursday OT "Hot Air" to see the volume of the evidence on weekly basis. It is pretty overwhelming.
You, of course, are entitled to your own conclusion. I like that in our C99 community we can agree to see things differently. However, I would caution that the fossil fuel machine is doing its best to misinform folks...including trying to link the heating to solar variation rather than human activity.
Better hang on, it is going to get wilder and more chaotic.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
I Agree With Everything You Wrote nt
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
There are personality types who relish wielding power
and who welcome any issue on which they can be right and which is of enough urgency and moral significance that they can convince others they are justified in asserting dominance over what others say or think. Those who resist the displayed dominance are performatively forced into the role of “inferiors” whose views need not be shown any respect.
“History” — or more precisely, the narratives that have been told and sold to us as such — is rife with causes that started out as just in theory, but that took humanity from bad to worse because of the personalities who used them to assert dominance and rise to the top.
Why would climate crisis be any different?
Books have been written showing how money-oriented people, capitalists, opportunistically use crisis and disaster to amass more money.
Likewise, an atmosphere of crisis can provide the backdrop for power-oriented personalities to display dominance and amass more “psychological capital.” To disagree or question is to be immediately labelled ignorant, morally inferior, both lesser and oppressor, both villain and fool; moreover, sharing guilt for all the suffering in the world and in history.
You — are — guilty! Or stupid! Why won’t you let me prescribe to you what you must believe and how you are to think?
Continue trying to recognize and avoid guilt manipulation, gaslighting, insult, groupthink, and bullying — no matter how politely or crudely worded.
Is it "dangerous" to dismiss Young Earth Creationism
out of hand -- to reject it immediately and completely? Or is to do so merely "buying in" to the "authoritarian scientists" whose "Conventional Wisdom" has been wrong before?
What about the Flat Earth "hypothesis"? Should I tolerate that -- where, by tolerate, I mean "grant polite credence to, in the course of debating things that matter"?
There are plenty of facts about the universe about which non-credulous people are -- and should be -- adamantly dogmatic.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Everyone here is capable of judging what is fact for themselves
It’s a breakdown in interpersonal relations when a person insists others should accept his or her judgment over their own, and becomes overbearing when they do not.
Most of us know the feeling that on some given topic we have done our homework and others haven’t. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to appoint oneself as an authority and judge over others. One still has to earn, rather than simply demand under punishment of ridicule, others’ respect.
facts are facts.
delusions are delusions.
i'm done here.
it's more work than it's worth.
i've put in over three hours working on an essay whose purpose was to somehow penetrate a cognitive fog that should be dissipated by the first 6 sentences, which i wrote in the first 3 minutes, but that in the end would withstand any and all reason and evidence brought to bear against it; so why bother finishing it? yeah, no. anyone who thinks a boeing 757 did not hit the pentagon is going to believe exactly whatever they want to believe, about everything and anything, regardless of their senses or their general capacity for reasoned analysis.
fuck that. i'm just gonna watch netflix and contemplate my own hopeless broken heart.
good luck, folks.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Until quite recently, it was accepted scientific _fact_ that
(1) men and boys have XY chromosomes and male anatomy, while women and girls have XX chromosomes and female anatomy. And while there were cases of transsexuality, diagnosis and transition was a long, involved process. One couldn’t simply (2) declare oneself to be the opposite sex (let alone some fantasy “gender”) from one moment to the next — people would have regarded that as a delusion.
Today, the progressive “party line” seems to favor the view that (1) is no longer scientific fact but bigotry and, in the case of (2), “fact” is whatever the person in question subjectively feels it is and claims it is.
As for Young Earth Creationism, that is just one facet of a complex of religious belief systems, another arm of which manifests itself as Zionism — “this land is mine; [thousands of years ago] G_d gave this land to me.” The elite view: the former is delusion; the latter is not just fact but sacrosanct fact and the very foundation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.