[QatzelOk]

It appears from the last 2 decades of politics, that humankind will not be permitted to change its consumption patterns in order to avoid ecological catastrophe. This should be obvious.

What isn't so obvious is why the public was allowed to know about this subject in the first place. To freak everyone out? Is that the only reason the information was allowed to reach consumers?

Because if the leadership of the West wants to actively seek to overrule all popular opinion, in favor of corporate dictatorship, then this same government ought to be blocking access to information about "anti-capitalism" things like climate change and wars.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because the petro-chemical consortium does not have a perfect stranglehold on human communication. The tradition of sharing scientific and academic knowledge happens to be older than the supremacy of the black gold, so by the time the powers that be could do anything about it, the scientific community was already able to share the required knowledge.

[Beren]

What isn't so obvious is why the public was allowed to know about this subject in the first place. To freak everyone out? Is that the only reason the information was allowed to reach consumers?

It wasn't allowed, it just couldn't have been kept in secret, simple as that. That the atmosphere of our planet is heating up and the climate on its surface is changing are not such informations as how JFK was actually assassinated.

[Bubba]

Because if the leadership of the West wants to actively seek to overrule all popular opinion, in favor of corporate dictatorship, then this same government ought to be blocking access to information about "anti-capitalism" things like climate change and wars.

Rational people discard a theory once they've encountered an internal inconsistency in it, not conspiracy nuts/religious people, they just go out on a limb to create a new conspiracy theory/doctrine to plug the hole, building an infinite house of cards in the process.

Which are you, QatzelOk?

[GandalfTheGrey]

While it is impossible to cover up such a strong scientific consensus completely, they are actually doing a pretty good job in covering the wool over the public's eyes:
97% of scientists who are actively publishing studies specifically on climate, believe in AGW. However only 28% of media coverage (according to one study) depicts human contribution to global warming as significant. Notably, almost exactly the same amount of the public - 26% believe in AGW.
http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/wp ... aphic1.pdf

The science cannot be refuted, but it is discredited in the ignorant public's eye by throwing in a lot of irrelevant noise - such as the "climategate" emails, and giving the clear impression that there is a lively debate within the scientific community - when there is not.

[CounterChaos]

Why are we allowed to know about climate change?

We live in a world of propaganda - of lies and half truths. The truth is a bitter pill for the movers and shakers to make public.

"We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter."
~Diderot~

What is this truth that I speak of and why is it a bitter pill? To acknowledge that the system from which they flourish is flawed by their use of our 'natural capital' (oil and other non-renewable resources) as 'income' rather than capital as it truly is - would mean to admit leadership failure.

A non-renewable capital resource is something you conserve. So, how do you begin to conserve it yet still retain face? You create a scenario.

http://dieoff.org/

[QatzelOk]

Rational people discard a theory once they've encountered an internal inconsistency in it, not conspiracy nuts/religious people, they just go out on a limb to create a new conspiracy theory/doctrine to plug the hole, building an infinite house of cards in the process.

What "theory" are you talking about?

What was the internal consistency?

Who encountered it?

None of this is clear in your post. You need to use slightly more words if you want people to debate with you.

[pdandreu]

Pure contrariness.

Hello, welcome to PoFo. Please note that...

Additional rules for this forum: No one line posts please.

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

It appears from the last 2 decades of politics, that humankind will not be permitted to change its consumption patterns in order to avoid ecological catastrophe. This should be obvious.

What isn't so obvious is why the public was allowed to know about this subject in the first place. To freak everyone out? Is that the only reason the information was allowed to reach consumers?

Because if the leadership of the West wants to actively seek to overrule all popular opinion, in favor of corporate dictatorship, then this same government ought to be blocking access to information about "anti-capitalism" things like climate change and wars.

Information about climate change has come to us over the span of decades, and is based on the work of tens if not hundreds of thousands of scientists.

No one is being prevented from changing their consumption habits. If you want to ride a bike and eat vegetables, have at it. If you want to convince others of the merits of your lifestyle, you are free to do so.

Technology has advanced to the point where the awareness of the masses cannot help them overthrow or even significantly affect the power structure. it is here to stay until it rots from the inside, as it usually does over time.

[redcarpet]

Well it's really only the big polluters that have a vested interest in suppressing it. Everyone else aren't going to suffer total industry replacement because of an effort to green the economy.

[QatzelOk]

No one is being prevented from changing their consumption habits.

Well, actually, they are.

Converting to a sustainable lifestyle is pretty well impossible because our governments/corporations ensure that we need to drive cars, work in cubicles, and eat out of plastic containers.

We are being regulated to death by corporate greed, and then told that all the pollution and disaster is "our fault." This little-guy mea culpa is another type of corporate pollution.

Cars should have been taxed and regulated away 20 years ago. But our governments don't really care about the common good or the future. They are just a bunch of guys trying to secure a well-paid job with some corporation.

[bobgnote]

Information about climate change has come to us over the span of decades, and is based on the work of tens if not hundreds of thousands of scientists. No one is being prevented from changing their consumption habits. If you want to ride a bike and eat vegetables, have at it. If you want to convince others of the merits of your lifestyle, you are free to do so. Technology has advanced to the point where the awareness of the masses cannot help them overthrow or even significantly affect the power structure. it is here to stay until it rots from the inside, as it usually does over time.

I still find masses of people are so ignorant of CO2-neutral biomass including switchgrass and industrial hemp, as vital commodities, many of my better rants start right up or migrate to this recital.

We are not free, where is a drug war, which supports prison and war industry, and people are too uninformed, to make a unanimous choice, to end those subsidized, anti-humanist activities, which have such a dangerous carbon footprint, they should be discontinued, summarily. Where prison or war or petro-industry have a common purpose, expect the drug war to continue, until biomass is not viable, from some sort of tragedy, to the US breadbasket.

People are not putting together the consequences of both heat and acid, from the carbon footprint of humanity. They sometimes muse, about the poison, but they seldom reason, how chromosomes are broken, by either petroleum or nuclear media.

DDD leads to DDDeath, soon enough.