The Demon-Haunted World [Carl Sagan (1995)] - Politics Discussion

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

Terrific quote! He really was quite prescient in much of his work. Scientific thinkers like him don’t exist anymore. And yet, even then, Sagan himself was already falling prey to the superstition of climate change, as he began to get swallowed up by group-think.

https://thefederalist.com/2014/02/26/the-original-sin-of-global-warming/
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 3 years ago

Carl Sagan was describing people who think climate change is a superstition when he wrote. "our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true."

"swallowed up by group-think."

Group think at the time was to deny global warming. Scientific consensus confirmed it.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

Group think at the time was to deny global warming.

Yes, that is indeed also group-think. Like I always say, don't believe in favor or against. Both are a form of biased group-think.

By the way, read my post carefully. When exactly did I deny the possibility of CO2-driven climate change? I didn't. I condemn any unquestioning belief in it, i.e. superstition, or any denial of information that's contrary to that used to support the concept.

And no Sagan wasn't specifically referring to climate change with that statement. It was more general and broad in scope.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 3 years ago

Ah I disagree. I believe what I see and if what scientists say match up with it, it makes sense. I knew about it before they were talking about it. You see the lake I live near has been drying up since I was a kid. It's now about 5 feet lower than it used to be. It's been hotter than ever. Temperatures never used to be above 70 degrees at night where I live and now they are in May and August. Every house built around here was built WITHOUT central air conditioning when central a/c was available and now it is intolerable without it.

Was just reading today about the giant holes opening up in the permafrost in Siberia and Canada as methane bubbles explode through the ground. Kind of interesting if not somewhat terrifying.

All is pretty much lost. I just hope where I live won't get as hot as the las vegas desert before I am old.

The younger you are the more fucked you are.

"Never believe." Then why not just walk into rushing traffic because you can't believe it is there?

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

Except not all scientists say this. That 97% consensus nonsense doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Unfortunately, for political reasons only those enthusiastically supporting the specific notion of CO2-driven manmade climate change get highlighted, even though it's clear that some of them blatantly lie or manipulate data and/or computer models to support their bias (making prediction after prediction that never comes true) instead of forming a conclusion based on raw evidence collected.

My primary concern is that this zealotry will keep us focused on the magic trick being presented while we completely ignore the sleight of hand mechanism that’s really occurring, distracting us from what the real problem might be, producing a possible future calamitous outcome that we are utterly unprepared for. In other words, while we're looking one direction the real issue might actually be just out of sight and may eventually blindside us. This is the fallacy of belief.

Localized events have always occurred, and are also often mistakenly attributed to climate change. The methane bubbles are an example of this. Lakes drying up like the one you live near, and weather patterns changing in local areas, are another. When the Sahara dried up from a lush forest to an arid, dry desert, was that manmade CO2-related climate change? Such events are constant and natural. Just because they're happening doesn't make them CO2-driven climate change.

Traffic is empirically observable, and a deadly car can't be mistaken for a harmless puff of smoke. Local weather events and environmental changes, on the other hand, are empirically observable events that can easily be, and these days often are, mistaken for CO2-driven manmade climate change. That's like directly observing a strange object in the sky and immediately attributing it to extraterrestrial aliens, or seeing a large mammal in the woods and calling it bigfoot.

Anyone studying the wealth of information available with an open and skeptical mind finds doubt with manmade CO2 emissions as a primary driver for climate change (but should never dismiss the possibility). No information should be dismissed. As soon as we do, we’re engaging in the cognitive process of belief, closing our awareness off to all other possibilities. Once locked into a belief, we become willfully blind to anything that falls outside the scope and context of that belief system, only listening to those who confirm that bias, an escalating bubble that pushes aside all other ideas.

Those who follow the climate change religion are doing little more than lining the pockets of charlatans while making themselves feel good about themselves. It’s evangelism and indoctrination 101. That doesn’t mean such conclusions should be dismissed. It just means they should not be believed to the extent that all other possibilities are dismissed.

Believe nothing, dismiss nothing.

Fortunately, there are persistently skeptical scientists out there who aren’t falling into the trap of belief. Unfortunately, their theories, ideas, voices and data aren’t being widely distributed or touted by those with a megaphone, which are primarily owned by elites who couldn’t care less about truth, and who profit from perpetuating a very specific narrative.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/elgin-courier-news/ct-ecn-elgin-library-climate-change-st-0226-20170225-story.html

http://mason.gmu.edu/~bklinger/Warming/warmingwhysure.html

https://euanmearns.com/the-staircase-hypothesis-an-alternative-explanation-for-the-recent-global-warming/

https://theconversation.com/earths-magnetic-field-broke-down-42-000-years-ago-and-caused-massive-sudden-climate-change-155580

https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/earth-sciences/magnetic-reversal-caused-massive-climate-shifts/

https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/02/26/are-the-earth-s-shifting-magnetic-fields-causing-climate-change

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMGP51B..02F/abstract

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth-magnetic-field-reversal-mass-extinctions-environment-crisis

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/study-blames-earths-magnetic-field-flip-for-climate-change-extinctions/

https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=NE%2FJ018058%2F1

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/magnetic-north-update-navigation-maps

https://www.pri.org/stories/2021-04-19/scientists-link-earths-magnetic-reversals-changes-planets-life-and-climate

https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/60ddd0d0966d4236638b47b6/Hundreds-Dead-in-Canadian-122-Degree-Heatwave?reply=60e148aa0683a1378646026b
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

So, you don't believe in climate change and you think posting all that drivel makes you sound informed? You are not informed enough to weigh the different scientific takes on this subject, thus you are driven by your emotions - what you want to be true or what you think makes you sound smart.

You are one of the most dangerous misinformed people I've come across here, even more dangerous than the Russian and Republicans shills, because they know they are lying, you don't.

>> Anyone studying the wealth of information available with an open and skeptical mind finds doubt with manmade CO2 emissions as a primary driver for climate change

You say no information should be dismissed, but you are aren't educated enough to look past the initial claims to the actual information. The fact is that the temperature curve tracks exactly and only with man's CO2 emissions. You dismiss that and think you are keeping an open mind by quoting lots of bad studies that are only there to misinform, just like the cigarette scientists or the ozone hole deniers.

Truly, you disgust me because you would not know a scientific thought if someone blasted it into your brain.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

I don't think anything of the like, nor do I care how I "sound". It's not about me. It's about waking people up from delusion and belief, and countering and curtailing emotionally-charged logicless posts like yours here.

And no, the temperature curve does not track exactly with CO2 levels, not until the raw data has been manipulated to make it appear as though it does. If it did, the global average temperature would be much higher than it currently is. Additionally, past correlations fluctuate wildly when using ice core readings to compare CO2 levels to temperature.

But as I’ve said, there appears to be at least a loose correlation at certain points throughout the historical record, and therefore some form of interrelation, even if it’s not consistent. It just hasn't been proven that there's causation, and yet that’s the core of the belief that’s being perpetuated, while countless data to the contrary goes largely ignored.

So basically, you outright dismiss any information that doesn’t fit your belief, and you find me disgusting?

It’s that type of unscientific, irrational reasoning that nullifies everything else you state. Perhaps make an effort to present a convincing argument in favor of anthropogenic climate change instead of lobbing inflammatory remarks, doing so with fully fleshed out references and studies instead of just repeating the same manipulated graphs. Until you’re willing to thoroughly imbibe other information out there, you’re merely parroting dogma and propaganda.

It’s you and believers like you who are, in fact, dangerous, by kowtowing to elites in power who control the flow of information, and who impose their will in a way that influences people to bend to their interests, and merely repeat their talking points instead of seeking and speaking truth. Wake up, wise up. Always question. Never believe.

It's always good to consider alternate viewpoints, even if they aren't 100% accurate (none truly are). A truly informed conclusion can only be made once all possible theories and ideas are taken apart and analyzed, then pieced back together into something that's greater than the sum of its parts. Below are a few quick examples of such parts:

https://www.icr.org/article/does-carbon-dioxide-drive-global-warming/

The detailed temperature record since 1850 shows a temperature decline between 1940 and 1970, which flies in the face of the explanation that a continuous exponential increase in carbon dioxide causes global warming. And the simultaneous record of temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in ice cores indicates that carbon dioxide concentration changes after temperature changes, not before, indicating that carbon dioxide is the result, not the cause, of global warming.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/355119-greenhouse-gases-simply-do-not-absorb-enough-heat-to-warm-earth

Climate scientists argue that the thermal energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-radiated, causing warming of air, slowing cooling of Earth and even directly warming Earth. There simply is not enough heat involved in any of these proposed processes to have any significant effect on global warming.

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

Unfortunately, there is no clear correlation between CO2 and temperature over geological time scales. This lack of correlation should have translated into an upper limit on the CO2→ΔT link. However, because the geochemical temperature data is actually biased by the amount of CO2, this lack of correlation result translates into a CO2 doubling sensitivity which is about ΔTx2 ~ 1.0±0.5°C.

https://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/climate-change-facts-temperature-is-not-determined-by-carbon-dioxide/

Towards the end of the Precambrian Era, CO2 levels (purple curve) were very much higher than now while temperatures (blue curve) were if anything lower. Over most of the more recent times, CO2 levels have been very much lower while temperatures most of the time were considerably higher.

Moreover, the historical range of temperature fluctuations makes a mockery of contemporary mainstream ambitions to prevent global temperatures rising by as much as 2°C; for most of Earth’s history, temperatures have been about 6°C higher than at present.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models

https://www.ourmidland.com/opinion/editorials/article/Global-warming-attributed-to-CO2-emissions-a-hoax-6916658.php

https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/

https://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

You are not smart enough or educated enough to waked other people up ... that is pompous nonsense. You are like the clueless Zen initiate who the master overpours his teacup telling him he is so full of himself there is no room for growth.

You use that as an excuse not to have to actually discuss anything about global warming but throwing up links I bet you have not read and do not understand, and would be clueless as to how to evaluate.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

> which flies in the face of the explanation that a continuous exponential increase in carbon dioxide causes global warming.

No one is saying that. Or rather maybe someone said that in the past, but that is not the point now. You are clueless as to how to sort and parse these things and you are being misled by looking at dishonest claims ... and then you have the gall to lecture others who keeping an open mind. What a putz.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

Well, that was certainly an intellectually productive contribution, and so congenial and civil to boot! You seem to have completely missed my point, which again, is that all alternative viewpoints are worth consideration, even if only partially correct (which all singular ideas will always only be). They'll all have viable information that can be pieced together into a much less biased whole. Once you lock in on only one, it becomes a belief, and you close your mind to all other information, some portion of which will be crucial to understanding reality. It's an inevitability. In other words, believers will always only be partially correct, if at all.

They also typically tend to respond just like you did, with malice and lowbrow ad hominins.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

> all alternative viewpoints are worth consideration, even if only partially correct

I never missed that point or disagreed with it. But when you see one side that is on the losing side keeping on coming up with fake reason after fake reason that is not in line with anything real, odds are they are not worth very much consideration.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

Well-said. It seems on that, at least, we're on the same page.

But when data and historical records have to be adjusted to support the theory instead of the theory being adjusted to explain the data, there's a problem.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

>> But when data and historical records have to be adjusted to support the theory instead of the theory being adjusted to explain the data, there's a problem.

There is where you are 100% wrong. It depends on how you have to adjust the historical data and why? That is just another part of the investigation. There is just as much skepticism to be raised at those who do not validate the data as there is with those to raise questions about it. Over and over in your arguments you have without reason, without cause just attacked the majority of scientists based on something that it appears to me that you are not very clear on ... and you are doing everything but, "always questioning", or maybe it is only one side that you question.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

It depends on how you have to adjust the historical data and why

True enough, but many of the alternations are not legitimate.

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
https://realclimatescience.com/are-government-temperature-graphs-credible/
https://realclimatescience.com/arctic-sea-ice-unchanged-from-60-years-ago/

Indeed, always question, never believe. Anything. But the only concept people are steeped in dangerous belief in right now is CO2-caused warming. This belief is changing culture, effecting politics, crushing jobs and livelihoods, and trapping people in cult-like mindsets. Yes, don't believe any of them, including, for example, the links I cited above. Don't dismiss any of them, either, however. I've always said that. But there's only one big bully on the block that's causing active harm, both socially and mentally, to large groups of society, and if it's based even just partially on falsehoods, which there is evidence of, then it must somehow be curtailed.

The problem is that many people believe it without question, falling in line tribalistically for emotional reasons, peer pressure, wanting to fit in, etc. instead of logically considering it as one theory among a wide panacea of other possibilities that aren't even considered, while turning a blind eye to blatant data tampering (i.e. alternations that don't have a scientifically legitimate reason, but that are instead motivated by bias and a desire to affirm the currently popular theory). A theory, it must be noted, that has shifted to accommodate numerous predications on specific deadlines over many decades without a single one of them coming to pass.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

Basically you just say keep an open mind, but blindly support the denialist position by cherry-picking and choosing points from the denialist arsenal, the cigarette companies would be proud of you. You cannot have an open mind and slavish devotion to global warming denialist, but it is a nice brand to try and foist.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

To the contrary, I specifically state that no one should "believe", i.e. "blindly trust" the deniers, but that the information they present should be considered because it overwhelmingly contradicts the opposing narrative, calling out certain disingenuously-derived qualities, and shining a light on the fact that the data doesn't lead to their conclusion unless it's manipulated after-the-fact to match it. While counterpoints to "denier" information fail, typically resorting to personal attacks, refusing to engage, etc. There's a reason they want to shut down anyone who openly questions their forced narrative instead of participating in open debate and discussion.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

We used to call that habit or merely repeating the same thing over and over being a "broken record", so not only is your logic and your opinion broken, but your discussion form or repeating the same BS no matter whatever anyone says to you is broken.

This priority of scrambling any conversation 12 different ways with BS and confusion is THE tactic of the Right. It is the only thing you people got. All one can do it to point it out and ignore it.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

I only repeat something when counter-posts again and again contradict what I've presented before, which forces a reiteration of what was missed or ignored previously (usually because they don’t actually read it comprehensively).

I will take this another direction for a moment, so I'm not just picking on one side of the argument. There are clear examples of groupthink on the other side of this debate that must be called out. Perfect specimens of this can be found in some of the comments on those Tony Heller videos I link to. Some people willfully ignore the fact that fossil fuels are dwindling and will eventually be depleted, especially with the world population increasing exponentially. They've done their job to get us where we are, and have a role still in the near future until something better is pinned down, but everyone should be on board with looking at how to move on, albeit in a responsible way and not as the result of false alarmism.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

You are a total troll now.

>> Some people willfully ignore the fact that fossil fuels are dwindling and will eventually be depleted, especially with the world population increasing exponentially.

Fossil fuels are not dwindling. I guess you don't remember back 20 years when that was the claim, we were at "peak oil" and supply was going to gone soon. The oil companies have been lying and trying to manipulate prices and governments since they existed. Peak oil is like the Laffer Curve, a nice theoretical construct, a curve with no numbers or point. Yeah, there is a finite amount of oil but we don't know what it is and meanwhile we keep finding more of it.

There is more oil than we can burn, and burning oil is not even the best use for the resource.

Also, world population is no longer growing exponentially. It is a race to see if it is famine, war, or birth control that is a major factor to slow it down, but it will slow down.

You don't really know what you are talking about, and are the exact opposite of your question with an open mind branding attempt.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

Agreed, we don't know for sure, but that's part of the point. Fossil fuels are being rapidly depleted, and there's a finite amount. Estimates put it at about 60 years away. If you say that's a narrative put out by big oil, that's something I'll have to investigate, but it'd be nice if you'd presented that information as a debatable counterpoint in an intellectual, civil manner (that's how conversations and information sharing takes place), instead of an emotionally charged jackass which nullifies anything you present. And while it's true population growth has slowed, it's still over the 1% year-on-year mark after skyrocketing over the past 200 years.

https://octopus.energy/blog/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out/
https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/fossil-fuels-run/
https://group.met.com/fyouture/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out/68
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/population-growth-rate

If you have information that’s counter to the material presented in the links above, I’m interested in learning about it. I’m unable to find it.

So essentially, are you now arguing that it's okay to consume fossil fuels with reckless abandon, with China, along with several industrially emerging countries, growing their usage by leaps and bounds annually, instead of figuring out responsible ways to curtail that growth, and just as importantly working out a viable, preferably cleaner, replacement for it?

Why are you not interested in educating people, and instead just want to lambast and chastise, belittle and mock? Sometimes you present in a very intellectual and civil manner. Sometimes you seem to be drunk posting. Yikes. Do you not realize that how you present yourself plays a major part into whether people will listen to what you have to say?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Internet%20Troll

An Internet troll… is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Who's the one trolling here exactly?
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

>> Fossil fuels are being rapidly depleted, and there's a finite amount.

Yet again you loudly show your ignorance at every turn.

If only know that something is a finite pool, and you have a vague logarithmic model of use/decay, and no initial conditions for your model you have no basis to interject your own "stupid now" ( because you keep making so many of these kinds of statement you deserve a smack ) unqualified opinions, which, even worse, do not connect to any of your other theories or statements - just more vague cloudy pointless rambling.

They don't really even know yet the existence and extent of abiogenic petroleum. The issue is about the carbon from that oil going into the atmosphere, and your life's purpose seems to be about distracting everyone from an existential threat with antics of a fool.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

So, I agree with you that we should get off of fossil fuels, along with it being a pollutant, and your response is personal attacks while ignoring the links that analyze the possibility that those resources are running out, as well as my request for information that might shed more light on that specific piece to counter that idea. Way to go.

Again, I find evidence of an existential threat being produced by carbon emissions sorely lacking, and in part based on falsified data and faulty models. It simply doesn't hold up when looking at the historical record when it was much colder and yet CO2 was much higher (up to 7,000 ppm) than the 400 ppm it is now.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/60e0c31ad33d190ff9d8031f/The-Demon-Haunted-World-Carl-Sagan-1995?reply=60ee192afd5ce05a8dd62289

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkU9FzTuqqA

More historical context that obliterates global warming sentiments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff63AM1Hi_I

But I do see reasons to still get off of fossil fuels, despite deeming climate alarmism as unproven. Refer to all my previous posts for in-depth discussion on the matter, with extensive references.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/604a8d65b6eeb763cc82da0d/The-Hard-Truth-About-Climate-Change
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] EpargneGourou (295) 3 years ago

Scientific consensus confirmed it.

We get it. You can say "consensus" a lot and you really like the way the word sounds.

So anyway, explain to us why the US still has East Coast beaches.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2021/03/11/flashback-1995-new-york-times-failed-2020-prediction-most-east-coast-beaches-gone-in-25-years/

Can your "consensus" explain that?

reply

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 3 years ago

Explain to us why some of those coastal islands and beaches have disappeared?

The Texas coastline is slowly disappearing. Here's how one community is coping.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/01/02/beach-project-aims-save-coastal-habitat-and-refineries-behind-it/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hurricane-destroyed-louisiana-resort-town-never-be-inhabited-again-180961645/

Why have whole islands disappeared off the coast of Texas?
https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/my-frail-island/

Critical Sea Level Rise on Padre Island,
https://climatediscovery.org/critical-sea-level-rise-on-padre-island-april-2014-bruce-melton/

Islanders who insisted on staying died in Ike
https://abc13.com/archive/6431754/

This Remote Hawaiian Island Just Vanished
https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/10/this-remote-hawaiian-island-just-vanished/

Why did the lighthouse at Cape Hatteras have to be moved inland to keep from being swallowed by the sea?

Is that the east coast you're writing about?

That word that you don't know what it means, the people who share it can explain it to you.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16860) 3 years ago

Pfft! Islands... Just islands. We got man-made machines. We can make our own islands now. Just look at China and their man-made islands. Start pumping out the sand. I'm surprised they don't use these machines to make make-shift barriers against the ocean.

reply

[–] EpargneGourou (295) 3 years ago

Islands and a lighthouse? The NYT said the entire east coast would be underwater.

You've got islands off Texas and a lighthouse.

You're a pitiful, pitiful geek.

If thats what they said in 1995, and it clearly didnt happen, why should we listen to them now? Why should we listen to you now?

The only thing your posts are proving is that yes, global warming is a cult, and you are a gullible cretin and you expect everyone else to fall in line with your idiotic "thinking".

reply

[–] chilone (17400) 3 years ago

and you are a gullible cretin

You've only made 158 posts and you've already got this idiot's number. Well done!

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

Crustal shift (i.e. rising and falling) and/or local water level changes explain all of those events. If it was due to a rising of global water levels it would be more pervasive globally, with many more coasts experiencing it, not just in very contained, specific areas, while other areas remain relatively the same or actually experience a lowering of water level. New islands are popping up all the time, just as old islands disappear, with some coasts shrinking as others grow. It's nothing new, and it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2-driven global warming. It's happened continuously throughout the entire history of the planet, and it always will. Sorry, but these examples are meaningless and do not support your stance in the debate.

Let’s throw some other questions out there. Explain why a once lush, green wilderness became the Sahara desert (note: one study suggests it fluctuates in sync with monsoon activity in about a 20,000-year cycle). How did a planet that was once so warm that what is now the arctic flourished with plant and animal life, and at another time was so oxygen-rich that animals grew many times larger than they are now? Why do ice core samples show CO2 levels many times higher than current levels during much colder ice age periods (e.g. during the Ordovician-Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods CO2 levels were greater than 4,000 ppm, and about 2,000 ppm respectively--to compare, right now it's at about 400 ppm).

For further context, consider the fact that temperatures were higher 8,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, and again 1,000 years ago, all with CO2 in the range of 280 ppm. In the Eemian period 120,000 years ago, global temperature was 2C higher, sea level was 6 m higher, and CO2 was 280 ppm, while just prior to the Cryogenian period 650 million years ago CO2 levels were as high as 7,000 ppm, and yet the Earth was so cold it was almost entirely covered with ice, dubbed the “snowball Earth”. There are eight known drivers on climate, of which CO2 at these levels is perhaps the least significant because of the exponential decline of its effect after reaching 50% in the first 20 ppm. For example, the next doubling to 800ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%, overshadowed by the other drivers, both positive and negative.

How do climate alarmists just dismiss all of this?
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (23977) 3 years ago

The quote is from 1995. There was no evidence of "global warming", temperatures were within natural cycles.

Anyone who uses "climate change" is a moron, climate has never been static. Ever heard of ice age cycles?

reply

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 3 years ago

And mostly true in this regard, "no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues" - like Trump.

But yeah I hate things like tiktok, cancelled cable long ago. The rightist nutcases on this board cannot even follow a train of thought longer than a few words it sounds crazy to them.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16860) 3 years ago

The finicky thing is, what was said back then applied to a different view/issue at the time. Although it still rings true today (Dumb & Dumber/Beavis & Butthead type shows), is painted in a way that can be nitpicked or shown onto others what those think to be the case by both sides on the state of things as they are today - and it’s unnervingly accurate.

You can paint Trump as one part for the left but that it also applies to the right as well. Remember, 74.5m voted for the bugger. It’s important to remember that the 'accuracy' of predictions is often a Rorschach test. An interpretation of a particular prediction’s accuracy usually says a lot about the people interpreting them, and their own hopes or fears for the future.

ie:
https://youtu.be/bX3EZCVj2XA

This one can be applied to Trump as well but also by the right with Marxism on the rise and the opening for Socialism current late stage Capitalism that the US is currently in.

---

ie:
Neo Tribes (1995) [Cyberpunk]

What tore America apart (according to the authors) was Diversity. Specifically "uncontrolled" diversity:

It is now accepted among historical scholars that in the decades before the Collapse, America suffered from the sickness of racism and "cultural identity." Everyone wanted to be seen as special. Every group had to be "equal" or preferably better than its neighbors, and fought to protect its "special" rights. If anyone had something that someone else wanted, they were painted as racist, sexist, elitist, or worse. This divisive "me first" attitude eventually tore the fabric of American culture apart and caused it to self-destruct in a fireball of competing ideologies none of which truly recognized each other's validity. Diversity led inexorably to anarchy.

This is a good one for the right.

reply

[–] TheTwoYutes (238) 3 years ago

Biden can't even go two minutes without fumbling and grasping for a child.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16860) 3 years ago

https://youtu.be/nGanLUnjoPI

HAHAHA! Even MSNBC is now talking about it.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1339) 3 years ago

The irony is that Sagan's words are directly applicable to MSNBC itself (and media outlets like it, be it CNN or FOX News), and their viewers. MSNBC was created by Microsoft and NBC (a division of General Electric at the time) twenty-five years ago, which is when, and in part how, a "service and information economy" began, eventually evolving into current social media platforms, the extreme culmination Sagan predicted. It was the genesis of "technological powers... in the hands of a very few", bolstering a culture and array of policies implemented for purposes of garnering political power until “nearly all manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries”, as a desire to be the best version of ourselves has been eschewed for “superstition and darkness”, the product of a growing, erroneous sentiment that America is divided into groups of oppressors and victims, instead of those with equal rights and opportunity, where many prefer to indulge in self-destructive and counterproductive energies instead of striving for excellence.

I wonder if Brian Williams has any clue just how pervasive the groupthinkers are that his network caters to and enables, those who are "unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true", those who process information in terms of headlines and "30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less)" instead of thoroughly thought-out and patient, reserved and civil contemplation, those who reply to such thoughtful discourse with statements like "TL;DR", or who complain about it being too wordy and in-depth because they’d rather continue believing instead of taking the effort and time required to think about a given subject matter with care. These are the very people Sagan describes as glomming onto "lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition", who engage in a "celebration of ignorance" as their “critical faculties decline.”
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply