Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate. — Tzeentch

Definitely.

I wasn't referring to any quotes from NASA. I was referring to the very thing you linked me.

There is a an important psychological aspect to climate change, that it demands a huge transformation in ones fundamental understanding of oneself, of humanity, of society and economics, and a change of direction away from endless growth that threatens ones' identity like no other issue. Denial is commonplace, and particularly denial that anything is happening that will radically change the way of life of the human world. — unenlightened

If this isn't pseudo-religious hooey, I don't know what is.

More “esotheric” knowledge (you know, a graph):



It takes a lot of work, and years of libertarian “thinking,” to look at something like this and conclude “it smells of grift to me.”

If this isn't pseudo-religious hooey, I don't know what is. — Tzeentch

Ah, so a guy on the internet saying something you don’t like makes for climate science being a “grift.” Got it.

I don’t like a lot of what Richard Dawkins says, or how he says it. Zoology is a grift.

Cramped reactions like these only suggest the aforementioned intellectual foetal position to me, to be honest.

Way to project your ignorance. Well done. Please go on telling everyone about the “climate grift.”

If this isn't pseudo-religious hooey, I don't know what is. — Tzeentch

It's psychobabble Jim, not pseudo-religious hooey, and definitely not grift.

And the scattergun adhom epithets you are using are exactly what it explains. You have to defend your way of life. But you'll come around, or die in denial, I don't much care which.

Well, another element of the climate grift was how they chose a child, Greta, as their spokesperson. That's a pretty classic example of grift.

It's psychobabble Jim, not pseudo-religious hooey, [...] — unenlightened

Gotcha.

[...] and definitely not grift. — unenlightened

No, I wasn't calling you a grifter. But if you're genuinely under the impression the world is about to end, you've fallen victim to a grift.

That's a pretty classic example of grift. — Tzeentch

"They" the media? choose a child because that makes it more believable?

Rather than - a grown up climate scientist or someone like that.

That totally makes money! Absolutely classic!

___________________________________________________________

But if you're genuinely under the impression the world is about to end, — Tzeentch

I'm not. I'm under the impression that most of the world's mega cities are coastal and low-lying and will therefore be subject to major flooding within a century and in some cases within a couple of decades. The millions of resulting climate refugees will overwhelm the ability of governments to cope and a breakdown of civil society will almost certainly result. This will be exacerbated by a continuing decline in global food production, desertification and the added involuntary mass migrations that will result. Not the end of the world, just the end of your world. And it will not stop there, but continue to get worse.

But if you're genuinely under the impression the world is about to end, you've fallen victim to a grift — Tzeentch

It's been making excellent click bait for thousands of years. 'Course one of these days they're going to be right. :grin:

You're such a sucker, frank, responding to our clickbait all the time. If only there were adverts on this thread you'd be making us a fortune.alas I'm not smart enough to be a real grifter.

It's kind of weak though isn't it? We know that Oil companies and oil exporting countries have been spending a great deal of effort and money undermining any suggestion that there is a climate crisis. So where are all these successful doom laden grifters making their money from? It's a fantasy - there is no market for them or their doom, because the market has long been cornered by the apocalypse and rapture brigade. Mundane flood and famine is boring.

there is no market for them or their doom — unenlightened

I believe, on the account that it's somehow a 'grift', the market consists in academia, media appearances and global climate summits.

I don't think that's the case, beyond a handful of cynical wankers, to be clear. That said, I have say, this seems self-evident:

Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate. — Tzeentch

But i don't think denialism is a legitimate reaction (or even some kind of 'truth wrapped in a lie' take). I think, per a couple of other comments, its worth noting (entirely aside from the facts of the matter, which Mikie so aptly re-presents), there is inarguably a psycho-social element to the entire situation whereby some can fall into a pattern of behaviour around their beliefs which is satisfying in itself viz. othering those who don't either react the same way, or deny the facts. Both seem to me extremely unhelpful from either hte psychological or the physical facts angle. Group-think doesn't necessarily skew the facts, or at least not only the facts but the emotions too.

"They" the media? choose a child because that makes it more believable? — unenlightened

Yes. Why would a climate apocalypse unfolding before our very eyes need to be "made more believable"?

Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. The choice of a child was deliberate, because people don't like to criticize children. And grifters don't like criticism.

Further, fearmongering and targeting children is a deliberate and grifty tactic.

Not the end of the world, just the end of your world. — unenlightened

I think you know little of my world, but don't you think this is a bit ironic considering the tone you've chosen?

Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. — Tzeentch

This also seems inarguable. More people have turned to denialism and wholesale derision as a result of Greta's presence. I think it's been a detriment.

But i don't think denialism is a legitimate reaction — AmadeusD

If the topic is: the world's about to end, then denialism is fine. If it's: if you buy this type of lawnmower, you're being eco-friendly, then denialism is fine. If the topic is: anthropogenic climate change, then denialism is just ignorance of the facts.

More people have turned to denialism and wholesale derision as a result of Greta's presence. I think it's been a detriment. — AmadeusD

I agree. She's a sideshow.

If the topic is: the world's about to end, then denialism is fine. If it's: if you buy this type of lawnmower, you're being eco-friendly, then denialism is fine. If the topic is: anthropogenic climate change, then denialism is just ignorance of the facts. — frank

The latter-most seems to include the former-most, to those like Mikie. The facts of the matter entail the impending end of the world (as least in some sense). His position (and others like him) seems to be that the facts of the matter infer that denying the impending end of the world can only be the result of ignorance (or, i guess, more importantly to them, inaction)

The latter-most seems to include the former-most, to those like Mikie. The facts of the matter entail the impending end of the world (as least in some sense). — AmadeusD

The world is going to end in some sense no matter what we do. But toward the beginning of the thread Mikie warned that the earth will soon have a climate similar to that on Venus. I wouldn't listen to anything he has to say, tbh.

The world is going to end in some sense no matter what we do. — frank

Right; I guess it's the idea that we've got >100 years to go that's a hard sell.

Right; I guess it's the idea that we've got >100 years to go that's a hard sell. — AmadeusD

It's not likely that humans will become extinct due to climate change. Could the present global system fall due to climate change? Sure. When exactly? Don't know. It will be the third large scale collapse since humans invented civilization.

We know that Oil companies and oil exporting countries have been spending a great deal of effort and money undermining any suggestion that there is a climate crisis. — unenlightened

Exxon’s own scientists knew what was happening in the late 70s, and as has now been exhaustively documented, this was deliberately minimized and the scientists fired in favor of hiring the same “merchants of doubt” that tobacco companies used to sow doubt about smoking and lung cancer.

Massive propaganda from the fossil fuel industry for decades. But it’s the climate scientists that are the “grifters.” And graphs are “esotheric knowledge.”

I guess the latest tactic of climate denialists is to build a new strawman: “Well we agree on the facts, but we just don’t believe the WORLD WILL END.” You saw a lot of this on Fox News a few years back claiming that AOC et al. were saying “we have 12 years before the world explodes.” Just more nonsense.

Same things being used here. It’s the only way people with no understanding of an issue can avoid any real substance (or work) and still feel like they’re contributing to the conversation somehow. The thread has been great in this respect — it’s like an intellectual fly trap. Makes it much easier to ignore various posters on every other topic once they show their hand on this one.

Remember the calls for reducing nuclear weapons? Yeah — a grift. Because nuclear war never happened— and besides, it wouldn’t have been the END OF THE WORLD. A few people would probably survive. Check and mate.

I guess the latest tactic of climate denialists is to build a new strawman: “Well we agree on the facts, but we just don’t believe the WORLD WILL END.” You saw a lot of this on Fox News a few years back claiming that AOC et al. were saying “we have 12 years before the world explodes.” Just more nonsense. — Mikie

This is, in no sense whatsoever, a strawman. It's definitely a weak position for those who initially denied the facts, though but it an entirely legitimate position that allows for much action and seriousness, without taking and overwhelmingly cynical position of claiming the world is literally ending.

But on AOC, i'm not quite sure if you're trying to deny she said it, and in any case, it was glib, but here is the quote:

"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'"

and climate scientists reacting: https://www.axios.com/2019/01/22/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocasio-cortez-12-year-deadline

It is absolutely inarguable there is a degree of fantasist alarmism on that side of the issue, politically. AOC likening the CC to WWII is another rather bizarre example.

Makes it much easier to ignore various posters on every other topic once they show their hand on this one. — Mikie

Once again showing in how-bad-of-faith you deal with people.

This is, in no sense whatsoever, a strawman. — AmadeusD

It is— and it’s been used for a long time. Hence why the term climate “alarmism” was invented and repeated ad nauseam within the conservative media bubble. Glad I used the example of AOC — I see you got sucked into that as well.

It’s such a stupid point that I barely give it attention anymore. I treat it the same way I would read the buffoons (forgive the accuracy) who claim nuclear war wouldn’t count as “existential” because people could potentially survive in some underground bunker. Nah, I’ll keep using “existential threat.” But thanks anyway.

Imagine the level of a mind that hears “the world is facing an existential threat,” is given the overwhelming evidence, and chooses to ignore all of it in favor of screaming endlessly about how “existential” is technically the wrong word.

Just more denialism, in the end. They call it “delayism” now— but it’s all just denialism to me.

—

Just to take it out of the realm of chit-chat, where any imbecile can participate:



That should be concerning.

The only one screaming endlessly here is you, ...

:yawn:

It is — Mikie

It isn't.

I see you got sucked into that as well. — Mikie

I gave you the quote, and an independent response to it. Are you like... ok?

It’s such a stupid point that I barely give it attention anymore. — Mikie

Yet further entrenching the obvious fact that you are not communicating in good faith.

Imagine the level of a mind that hears “the world is facing an existential threat,” is given the overwhelming evidence, and chooses to ignore all of it in favor of screaming endlessly about how “existential” is technically the wrong word. — Mikie

This isn't really a coherent thought experiment, but even reading in to it what you must mean, no one is doing that.

The evidence doesn't result in the world ending in 12 years. That's what's been discussed. Please, please try not to make things up that other people think or say to argue with. I stopped using twitter to get away from that.

I think the bolded is about as close to that meme of the dude crying behind his mask as i've seen on this forum.

I gave you the quote, and an independent response to it. — AmadeusD

And apparently didn't even read it. Try doing so.

no one is doing that. — AmadeusD

...

Doomsday prophecies — Tzeentch

It is too late. You must go into the cage and eat the bugs to save the planet. — Lionino

the world is ending — Tzeentch

Are you ok?

Please, please try not to make things up that other people think or say to argue with. — AmadeusD

...

His position (and others like him) seems to be that the facts of the matter infer that denying the impending end of the world can only be the result of ignorance (or, i guess, more importantly to them, inaction) — AmadeusD

But please, do go on lecturing others about how to communicate, and about "bad faith."

And apparently didn't even read it. Try doing so. — Mikie

If you could please outline exactly how you deduced this, from my giving no notion of my view on either the quote, or the response, that would be nice. As far as i can tell, you have wholly invented a position on it/them, ascribed it to me, and then reacted to it. It is a fact that I didn't give mine, so .. logic dictates...

Are you ok? — Mikie

Yeah, i'm totally fine. I'm just finding it really interesting trying to connect the non-existent dots you're connecting here.

But please, do go on lecturing others about how to communicate, and about "bad faith." — Mikie

Your hyperbole knows no bounds.