It takes a lot to break through decades of thought policing, many of these people have been bathed in these Marxist ideas since primary school, every opinion they hold is based on it, without them even realising.
I think in most cases it has to happen slowly and organically, you can’t argue someone out of it as this simply triggers a strong defence mechanism.
The work of citizen and dissident journalists calling this nonsense out it vital, as this can be discovered gradually by skeptical (of us) but inquisitive people. Substack is brilliant in this regard.
For me it was the Fulashima ‘disaster’, and the ridiculously unnecessary measures that were taken against the imaginary radiation risks to the wider public, which caused actual suffering and death as people were forced out of their homes.
This also opened me up to the insanity of the anti nuclear brigade, and of the wider ‘sustainable’ energy policies which are obviously not designed to solve the problem. From there i eventually realised its all a self perpetuating con, which requires suppression of all dissenting voices.
Thats the part that at least gives me a little hope - they can’t shut us all up.
If you would let me play devil's advocate, I can see where he comes from. There are all manner of loons on the internet that are not worth the time. One could waste his entire life arguing with flat earthers and never change a single mind. One needs to quickly sort the misinformed but rational from the fanatics. I have opened some to race realism in a single conversation. Others have an almost religious faith in racial equality and no rational argument can change their mind. We all cherish some beliefs so deeply that challenges to them go straight to the heart, not the head. Only sustained, internal doubt can eventually wear away at the wall of faith and let curiosity slip through. Challenges from outside only build up that wall. I know this from personal experience as a former teenage leftist.
Topics like global warming, the WEF, etc. attract many unwilling to have a rational argument. These beliefs centre around the idea that elites are out to get the individuals that hold them, so their proponents often take disagreement to mean that someone is on ‘the other side’ and assume bad faith. And they are often right! I have yet to see a single good faith argument against the Great Replacement, for example. But few that rant about the WEF will see good faith when it is there, and the rest of us tend to write them off.
He obviously wanted to see whether you had any new information that he knew not, and dismissed you when you gave none. You can criticise his focus on data and his scientism, but the existence of global warming is an empirical question! Only data can settle it.
You gave an explanation of what could be, but not any evidence to support it. You might be completely correct that this is all a massive wealth transfer. That is not an argument against the existence of global warming. The Bush administration wrongly used 9/11 and Islamic terrorism to justify the Iraq War. Was 9/11 faked? Was Islamic terrorism never a real problem? Look at the COVID lockdowns. We both agree on the absurdity of that policy. Does it follow that there was never a virus at all?
I am not terribly informed about the issue, but I see no reason to doubt the scientific consensus. Compare global warming to race realism. Most intelligence experts in anonymous surveys agree with race realism and rate Steve Sailor's blog as the best source on the topic for laymen, well above the mainstream media. The scientific consensus should not end a discussion, but it is a robust enough heuristic to withstand even the political pressure stacked against Race realism.
Race realism is theoretically and empirically solid. If one accepts the materialist, monistic conception of the mind and Darwinian evolution, it is theoretically impossible that different subgroups of mankind, shaped by different environments with different selection pressures, should be psychologically identical. The empirical evidence for racial difference confirms the theory. There is no equivalent reason why global warming should be impossible, and even the small minority of dissident voices accept that the earth is warming.
Climate change is real. This has been the hottest in record.
For a lot of people, climate change, like other things, is just a vehicle for their hatred of white people. They'll blame white people for climate change and environmental destruction. Ignoring some of the largest contributors are places like China or India. Greta screaming "How dare you!" to a bunch of a white boomers comes to mind.
Ironically, it's white people trying to do the most with climate change (it's a very white thing to care about climate change [with few exceptions] besides white ethnonationalists who sit on the right ironically enough).
Also these people can't reconcile their desire to eliminate inequality of the 3rd world and become 1st world countries is a problem for both climate change and environmentalism. Right now, they want white dominated countries to make sacrifices while the 3rd world makes none because they need to develop. They also want to increase migration from the 3rd world and give them a 1st world lifestyle that increases climate change. They also want globalization in markets and production that increases carbon emissions because ships have to travel longer distances vs production being closer at home. None of this is stuff they reconcile. And rich people who fly private jets, yadda yadda yadda. I get that. And yes, "Global South" is a racial dog whistle.
Ironically, authoritarianism is the only way to truly deal with climate change. Democracies are too ineffective. So this guy has another contradiction. He wants to deal with climate change but believes in democracy and decries when a democratic populism arises he doesn't like (which he calls authoritarianism).
I get you're an ethnonationalist, and so you center on ethnicity and race and the contradictions or double standards in relation to climate change, it's understandable, but not everyone is like the guy you're talking about (yes a minority but still). But none of this takes away the reality of climate change, the heat increasing every year, multiple fires in Greece and Canada, and unprecedented flooding. So I agree with the Left even though they're not as sincere on climate change they like to believe they are (so you're not entirely wrong).
I get you got your mind made up. However, as each year ticks, you're going to find out that I'm right, and you're not. Hopefully you change before then.
Woes, you have the patience of a saint. You'd have to have your head up a sheep's arse not to know by now that # 1) 'climate change' is cyclical, caused almost wholly by variable solar activity - and # 2) that CO2 accounts for 0.04 (of one per cent) of the gasses in earth's atmosphere, and so could not possibly cause 'glowball vormink' on its own.
Btw. did you see the new debunking movie 'CLimate, the movie' ? - cracking stuff. All climate alarmists should be made to watch it Malcolm MacDowell-style with their eyelids pinned open a la Clockwork Orange!
There really is no other way to wake these buggers up. That said, I fear it is all too late and that protest as articulately and passionately as we like, we are all screwed. Even as I write a mini-Boeing 747 is geo-engineering thick clouds over my tiny front garden. My gnomes - if I had any - would be melting. All power to you, my favourite Scottish dissident! 😎
Woes, a minor technical point: There is no hyphen in ozone. It is the name of a chemical compound of oxygen that accumulates at a specific altitude, hence the "ozone layer".
Human alteration of geochemical processes via liberation of 100s of millions of years worth of stored carbon (fossil fuels) in 2 centuries could, in theory, be a contributing factor.
Certain individuals and groups, some sincere and some cynical, seek to exploit the above for their own ends.
We don't understand climatic processes completely. However, caution may be warranted given the potential for nonlinear dynamic processes and runaway feedback loops.
There are more pressing issues in my opinion. Habitat destruction is at the top of the list. We should be paying 3rd world countries to limit their populations (or do it for them) and preserve remaining intact systems. Once a functioning system is destroyed, it is near impossible to repair it.
Given that those advocating various policy measures have made it clear that they hate me and my kind - their recommendations are moot. They have poisoned the well. I might take them more seriously if they were attempting to strongarm India and China into limiting their emissions. I might take them more seriously if they were pouring trillions into modernizing nuclear power and pouring all available resources into realizing fusion power.
He seems worthless. I have no time for such people myself.
They make useless farmers, useless peasants and useless soldiers.
Neither do they make good leaders, they have neither the curious mind nor the courageous spirit to be of value to society.
They are neither Knight nor Yeomen archer.
Neither the stuff of the trusty Sergeant nor of the gallant Captain.
Those with an abundance of instinct and simple feeling have value, those of great intellect also.
Those with only a slight pinch of either are an aberration brought about by industrialised society and can only ever serve their own selfish interests.
Can't help feeling you're being a bit of a hatchling. What sort of response were you expecting? Engaging with these people is just frustrating and demoralising. If they 'change their opinion' it will be because it suits them to do so, not because of anything you say to them.
Very good, Woes. Stand out paragraph for me: "Above a certain level people don’t get brainwashed as such; they do it to themselves. Able to analyse things rationally, they choose to persuade themselves of the consensus in order to retain social acceptance. So the lack is not of intellect, but of curiosity."
This is the "wilful blindness" of the midwit. He's more "rationalising" than "rational" and will find a way of rationalising whatever beliefs the orthodoxy demands that he adopts providing he can secure his place in the social and career hierarchy, and parrot said beliefs as a means to get ahead.
Btw, if you haven't seen it already, make sure you watch a brilliant documentary that came out in the past few weeks, Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI
It's by the same team who made the Great Global Warming Swindle documentary in 2007. They must have thought their job was done back then, but here they are, seventeen years later, and still dealing with the same racket and the same BS, but on an even larger scale. Debunking the regime's lies is a full-time job. It's all so tiresome.
I would've said: "Yes, maybe climate change is a fact; however, the proposed cure (now in motion) will be a catastrophe far worse than having to adapt to aforesaid claimed 'climate change'." JMO.
They don’t listen or debate because, deep down, they know the whole Marxist climate ploy is built on sand and they would be shredded. To see this you only have to listen to the exchanges on the Nana Akua show on GB News between Paul Burgess, a former water resources engineer who has done his homework, and climate nut-case Jim Dale who hasn’t. He simply dismisses all the solid evidence for there being no AGW and no ‘climate crisis’ that Paul Burgess brings to the table.
The whole business is fraudulent leftist politics, not science. They have corrupted science.
It takes a lot to break through decades of thought policing, many of these people have been bathed in these Marxist ideas since primary school, every opinion they hold is based on it, without them even realising.
I think in most cases it has to happen slowly and organically, you can’t argue someone out of it as this simply triggers a strong defence mechanism.
The work of citizen and dissident journalists calling this nonsense out it vital, as this can be discovered gradually by skeptical (of us) but inquisitive people. Substack is brilliant in this regard.
For me it was the Fulashima ‘disaster’, and the ridiculously unnecessary measures that were taken against the imaginary radiation risks to the wider public, which caused actual suffering and death as people were forced out of their homes.
This also opened me up to the insanity of the anti nuclear brigade, and of the wider ‘sustainable’ energy policies which are obviously not designed to solve the problem. From there i eventually realised its all a self perpetuating con, which requires suppression of all dissenting voices.
Thats the part that at least gives me a little hope - they can’t shut us all up.
Your first and most serious mistake:
You tried to have a constructive conversation with someone who has no desire to have one.
I been there and done that.
Forget about it, man.
If you would let me play devil's advocate, I can see where he comes from. There are all manner of loons on the internet that are not worth the time. One could waste his entire life arguing with flat earthers and never change a single mind. One needs to quickly sort the misinformed but rational from the fanatics. I have opened some to race realism in a single conversation. Others have an almost religious faith in racial equality and no rational argument can change their mind. We all cherish some beliefs so deeply that challenges to them go straight to the heart, not the head. Only sustained, internal doubt can eventually wear away at the wall of faith and let curiosity slip through. Challenges from outside only build up that wall. I know this from personal experience as a former teenage leftist.
Topics like global warming, the WEF, etc. attract many unwilling to have a rational argument. These beliefs centre around the idea that elites are out to get the individuals that hold them, so their proponents often take disagreement to mean that someone is on ‘the other side’ and assume bad faith. And they are often right! I have yet to see a single good faith argument against the Great Replacement, for example. But few that rant about the WEF will see good faith when it is there, and the rest of us tend to write them off.
He obviously wanted to see whether you had any new information that he knew not, and dismissed you when you gave none. You can criticise his focus on data and his scientism, but the existence of global warming is an empirical question! Only data can settle it.
You gave an explanation of what could be, but not any evidence to support it. You might be completely correct that this is all a massive wealth transfer. That is not an argument against the existence of global warming. The Bush administration wrongly used 9/11 and Islamic terrorism to justify the Iraq War. Was 9/11 faked? Was Islamic terrorism never a real problem? Look at the COVID lockdowns. We both agree on the absurdity of that policy. Does it follow that there was never a virus at all?
I am not terribly informed about the issue, but I see no reason to doubt the scientific consensus. Compare global warming to race realism. Most intelligence experts in anonymous surveys agree with race realism and rate Steve Sailor's blog as the best source on the topic for laymen, well above the mainstream media. The scientific consensus should not end a discussion, but it is a robust enough heuristic to withstand even the political pressure stacked against Race realism.
Race realism is theoretically and empirically solid. If one accepts the materialist, monistic conception of the mind and Darwinian evolution, it is theoretically impossible that different subgroups of mankind, shaped by different environments with different selection pressures, should be psychologically identical. The empirical evidence for racial difference confirms the theory. There is no equivalent reason why global warming should be impossible, and even the small minority of dissident voices accept that the earth is warming.
Climate change is real. This has been the hottest in record.
For a lot of people, climate change, like other things, is just a vehicle for their hatred of white people. They'll blame white people for climate change and environmental destruction. Ignoring some of the largest contributors are places like China or India. Greta screaming "How dare you!" to a bunch of a white boomers comes to mind.
Ironically, it's white people trying to do the most with climate change (it's a very white thing to care about climate change [with few exceptions] besides white ethnonationalists who sit on the right ironically enough).
Also these people can't reconcile their desire to eliminate inequality of the 3rd world and become 1st world countries is a problem for both climate change and environmentalism. Right now, they want white dominated countries to make sacrifices while the 3rd world makes none because they need to develop. They also want to increase migration from the 3rd world and give them a 1st world lifestyle that increases climate change. They also want globalization in markets and production that increases carbon emissions because ships have to travel longer distances vs production being closer at home. None of this is stuff they reconcile. And rich people who fly private jets, yadda yadda yadda. I get that. And yes, "Global South" is a racial dog whistle.
Ironically, authoritarianism is the only way to truly deal with climate change. Democracies are too ineffective. So this guy has another contradiction. He wants to deal with climate change but believes in democracy and decries when a democratic populism arises he doesn't like (which he calls authoritarianism).
I get you're an ethnonationalist, and so you center on ethnicity and race and the contradictions or double standards in relation to climate change, it's understandable, but not everyone is like the guy you're talking about (yes a minority but still). But none of this takes away the reality of climate change, the heat increasing every year, multiple fires in Greece and Canada, and unprecedented flooding. So I agree with the Left even though they're not as sincere on climate change they like to believe they are (so you're not entirely wrong).
What you are saying is flawed. Having some internal reasoning behind it about rich people using others doesn't mean anything. It's about evidence and data. For example https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927823001600 or
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927820300605
from https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/advances-in-climate-change-research
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03666-2
I get you got your mind made up. However, as each year ticks, you're going to find out that I'm right, and you're not. Hopefully you change before then.
Wait. You argued with an idiot on the internet and it didn't go well? Do I understand correctly?
Intelligence is downstream from credulity.
Woes, you have the patience of a saint. You'd have to have your head up a sheep's arse not to know by now that # 1) 'climate change' is cyclical, caused almost wholly by variable solar activity - and # 2) that CO2 accounts for 0.04 (of one per cent) of the gasses in earth's atmosphere, and so could not possibly cause 'glowball vormink' on its own.
Btw. did you see the new debunking movie 'CLimate, the movie' ? - cracking stuff. All climate alarmists should be made to watch it Malcolm MacDowell-style with their eyelids pinned open a la Clockwork Orange!
There really is no other way to wake these buggers up. That said, I fear it is all too late and that protest as articulately and passionately as we like, we are all screwed. Even as I write a mini-Boeing 747 is geo-engineering thick clouds over my tiny front garden. My gnomes - if I had any - would be melting. All power to you, my favourite Scottish dissident! 😎
Woes, a minor technical point: There is no hyphen in ozone. It is the name of a chemical compound of oxygen that accumulates at a specific altitude, hence the "ozone layer".
In which Woes writes an article about a twitter exchange
How about this:
Climate change is occurring
The causes are not clear.
Human alteration of geochemical processes via liberation of 100s of millions of years worth of stored carbon (fossil fuels) in 2 centuries could, in theory, be a contributing factor.
Certain individuals and groups, some sincere and some cynical, seek to exploit the above for their own ends.
We don't understand climatic processes completely. However, caution may be warranted given the potential for nonlinear dynamic processes and runaway feedback loops.
There are more pressing issues in my opinion. Habitat destruction is at the top of the list. We should be paying 3rd world countries to limit their populations (or do it for them) and preserve remaining intact systems. Once a functioning system is destroyed, it is near impossible to repair it.
Given that those advocating various policy measures have made it clear that they hate me and my kind - their recommendations are moot. They have poisoned the well. I might take them more seriously if they were attempting to strongarm India and China into limiting their emissions. I might take them more seriously if they were pouring trillions into modernizing nuclear power and pouring all available resources into realizing fusion power.
He seems worthless. I have no time for such people myself.
They make useless farmers, useless peasants and useless soldiers.
Neither do they make good leaders, they have neither the curious mind nor the courageous spirit to be of value to society.
They are neither Knight nor Yeomen archer.
Neither the stuff of the trusty Sergeant nor of the gallant Captain.
Those with an abundance of instinct and simple feeling have value, those of great intellect also.
Those with only a slight pinch of either are an aberration brought about by industrialised society and can only ever serve their own selfish interests.
Can't help feeling you're being a bit of a hatchling. What sort of response were you expecting? Engaging with these people is just frustrating and demoralising. If they 'change their opinion' it will be because it suits them to do so, not because of anything you say to them.
Very good, Woes. Stand out paragraph for me: "Above a certain level people don’t get brainwashed as such; they do it to themselves. Able to analyse things rationally, they choose to persuade themselves of the consensus in order to retain social acceptance. So the lack is not of intellect, but of curiosity."
This is the "wilful blindness" of the midwit. He's more "rationalising" than "rational" and will find a way of rationalising whatever beliefs the orthodoxy demands that he adopts providing he can secure his place in the social and career hierarchy, and parrot said beliefs as a means to get ahead.
Btw, if you haven't seen it already, make sure you watch a brilliant documentary that came out in the past few weeks, Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI
It's by the same team who made the Great Global Warming Swindle documentary in 2007. They must have thought their job was done back then, but here they are, seventeen years later, and still dealing with the same racket and the same BS, but on an even larger scale. Debunking the regime's lies is a full-time job. It's all so tiresome.
Just google any graph of temperature v sea level v CO2 concentration. Any mong can see why there is concern
I would've said: "Yes, maybe climate change is a fact; however, the proposed cure (now in motion) will be a catastrophe far worse than having to adapt to aforesaid claimed 'climate change'." JMO.
They don’t listen or debate because, deep down, they know the whole Marxist climate ploy is built on sand and they would be shredded. To see this you only have to listen to the exchanges on the Nana Akua show on GB News between Paul Burgess, a former water resources engineer who has done his homework, and climate nut-case Jim Dale who hasn’t. He simply dismisses all the solid evidence for there being no AGW and no ‘climate crisis’ that Paul Burgess brings to the table.
The whole business is fraudulent leftist politics, not science. They have corrupted science.