[Citizen J]

Quite the contrary, I'm assuming there IS copious amounts of propaganda coming from all sides, that everyone is biased, that every institution is suspect, that all sources have been infiltrated by someone with an agenda. That's why it's darned near impossible for the average American to sort out fact from propaganda. And the average American has neither the desire, the skill, the resources, and/or the time to sort it all out. That's why American propaganda is so bloody effective - they rely on the fact that we can't spend our entire lives fact checking every bit of information and background checking every author and every source.

The chance of an American having an opinion on global climate change that is NOT based, at least in part, on 'bullshit' (as you say), is vanishingly miniscule. This is regardless of what that opinion happens to be. Because the U.S. propaganda machine manufactures dissent, obfuscates and buries the truth, and distorts data itself - there is no way the United States will have the political will to act on the matter.
The world is just going to have to act without the United States.
Personally, I think the American science community in that global climate change is real, but they grossly exaggerate its effect. And there's been plenty enough of faked "data" coming from all sides.
My argument is an attempt to cut through all that 'bullshit'. I argue that who is responsible is not important. We are technically capable of preventing climate change - and we have a vested interest in doing so. It's time we took a more global, systematic, and responsible approach to regional weather management and global climate. We are on the cusp of becoming a Kardeshev type I civilization. We should grow up and act as such.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not my claim, that's your god saying that. 2.4 is not 3, 6/10 of a degree makes a huge difference. And there's no way all of that is anthropogenic forcing, a generous estimate would be 2/3 anthropogenic(the IPCC only says more than half), so the estimate should be 1C - 2.4C. That's way lower than the IPCC range. The honest estimate is still cause for some concern and good reason to implement some precautionary measures, but alarm is definitely not warranted and forcing the world off fossil fuels in a very short span of time would be genocidal insanity. You people have gotten caught up in a mass hysteria and you've gone way off the deep end in your reaction to this manufactured crisis.

Is there an argument or rebuttal here?

It seems like insults mixed up with your misunderstanding of the IPCC’s claims.

[Steve_American]

@Citizen J,
I gave you a like.
I agree with your main point.
It IS unlikely that the US can get its act together.
I place my hope on Straus and Howe's theory of Generations or The Fourth Turning.
That the next generations of Heroes will step forward and do whatever it takes to save the situation.
Previous generations of Heroes were around for: Great Depression&WWII, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and the Glorious Revolution back in England.
The 3 things that need to be saved are: Save civilization from AGW, save democracy in the world from the Plutocrats, and save capitalism from itself.
This time we need to enshrine the Progressive imperatives in the Constitution and not leave them open to being whittled away by the rich.
Examples are : right to health care, right to secure retirement, right to a job, no massive inequality, a multi-party system with 2nd choice ranked voting and multi-Rep. districts (about 5 or so Reps. per district), understand that MMT is a much better economic theory, etc.

[Hindsite]

My argument is an attempt to cut through all that 'bullshit'. I argue that who is responsible is not important. We are technically capable of preventing climate change - and we have a vested interest in doing so. It's time we took a more global, systematic, and responsible approach to regional weather management and global climate. We are on the cusp of becoming a Kardeshev type I civilization. We should grow up and act as such.

You are just adding more bullshit to the pile.

[Potemkin]

@Citizen J,
I gave you a like.
I agree with your main point.
It IS unlikely that the US can get its act together.
I place my hope on Straus and Howe's theory of Generations or The Fourth Turning.
That the next generations of Heroes will step forward and do whatever it takes to save the situation.
Previous generations of Heroes were around for: Great Depression&WWII, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and the Glorious Revolution back in England.
The 3 things that need to be saved are: Save civilization from AGW, save democracy in the world from the Plutocrats, and save capitalism from itself.

What if capitalism doesn't want to be saved from itself?

This time we need to enshrine the Progressive imperatives in the Constitution and not leave them open to being whittled away by the rich.
Examples are : right to health care, right to secure retirement, right to a job, no massive inequality, a multi-party system with 2nd choice ranked voting and multi-Rep. districts (about 5 or so Reps. per district), understand that MMT is a much better economic theory, etc.

Everything you have described are things which capitalism cannot delivery and does not claim to be able to deliver. Everything you have described are, in fact, examples of collective social goods and are therefore socialist.

Capitalism cannot be "saved from itself" and does not even want to be saved from itself. And I don't understand why you want to save it from itself. To what end?

[Steve_American]

...snip...

What if capitalism doesn't want to be saved from itself?

Steve_American wrote: This time we need to enshrine the Progressive imperatives in the Constitution and not leave them open to being whittled away by the rich.
Examples are : right to health care, right to secure retirement, right to a job, no massive inequality, a multi-party system with 2nd choice ranked voting and multi-Rep. districts (about 5 or so Reps. per district), understand that MMT is a much better economic theory, etc.

Everything you have described are things which capitalism cannot delivery and does not claim to be able to deliver. Everything you have described are, in fact, examples of collective social goods and are therefore socialist.

Capitalism cannot be "saved from itself" and does not even want to be saved from itself. And I don't understand why you want to save it from itself. To what end?

Does America have capitalism now? It has Soc. Sec., so if it has capitalism and S.S. then it is possible to do all I wrote and still have capitalism. Even the no massive inequality part.

Why keep capitalism? Because I'm not smart enough to know a better way.
I'll be dead so the living can do what they want. They just need to put things into the Constitution to keep the lesions from being forgotten. Like has happened over the last 35 years, IMHO.

Of course the capitalists don't want capitalism saved. SO WHAT! The people of the US get to decide what is best for them. The rich don't get to make that choice for everyone else. [They seem to have forgotten this.] The 1st 3 words of the Constitution say it all --- "We, the People"...

[Citizen J]

Capitalism cannot be "saved from itself" and does not even want to be saved from itself.

I liken humans under Capitalism to the monkeys in the cocaine experiment. (edit: not just Capitalism - any money based economic system). Constantly hitting that lever to get their next hit even as they starve themselves to death. In our case, we keep chasing that most addictive money even as we despoil our environment, defecate in our own wells, soil our own nests, whatever euphemism you want to use to mean we are cutting the future of our species short.

And here you are saying we should let the human race destroy itself. In my mind, there's a very dark place that holds nothing but contempt for the human race. It believes that the entire human race deserves annihilation - as cruelly, as violently, and as utterly as possible. That dark part of my thoughts wholly agrees with you.
My more enlightened side disagrees; the human race deserves at least a fighting chance to grow up and out of our more self destructive behaviors.

[Potemkin]

I liken humans under Capitalism to the monkeys in the cocaine experiment. (edit: not just Capitalism - any money based economic system). Constantly hitting that lever to get their next hit even as they starve themselves to death. In our case, we keep chasing that most addictive money even as we despoil our environment, defecate in our own wells, soil our own nests, whatever euphemism you want to use to mean we are cutting the future of our species short.

And here you are saying we should let the human race destroy itself. In my mind, there's a very dark place that holds nothing but contempt for the human race. It believes that the entire human race deserves annihilation - as cruelly, as violently, and as utterly as possible. That dark part of my thoughts wholly agrees with you.

"All that exists deserves to perish." - Friedrich Engels.

My more enlightened side disagrees; the human race deserves at least a fighting chance to grow up and out of our more self destructive behaviors.

...and be violently replaced by a utopian Communist society. Right now, it is humanity's only hope.

[One Degree]

Local autonomy is the only hope. The Sentilinese seem to be surviving just fine without even thinking about the best system for world authoritarianism.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is a meme where the denialists argue that climate change is all just a hoax engineered to exercise greater control over others.

To me, this always sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[One Degree]

There is a meme where the denialists argue that climate change is all just a hoax engineered to exercise greater control over others.

To me, this always sounds like a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy is nothing more than a group of people planning to accomplish their goals. Walmart is a conspiracy to trick you into giving them more of your money. The DNC is a conspiracy to trick you into voting for them. Our life is surrounded by conspiracies. The most successful conspiracy was convincing people calling something a conspiracy invalidates it.

[Pants-of-dog]

That does not address my point at all.

My point is that there is no evidence for this, it makes no sense, assumes that a whole bunch of peoole would work against their own interests, and would require a whole bunch of people keeping quiet about it for no reason.

[Sivad]

That does not address my point at all.

Yes it does.

no evidence for this

There's evidence.

makes no sense

Makes sense.

assumes that a whole bunch of peoole would work against their own interests

No it doesn't.

would require a whole bunch of people keeping quiet about it for no reason

No it wouldn't.

That's how easy it is to rebut an appeal to babbittry.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please explain how climate change is a ruse to control others.

Thanks.

[Sivad]

Please explain how climate change is a ruse to control others.

Thanks.

It's crazy that you haven't even given it a moment's thought. Why don't you think about it for a few minutes and then tell me. That's how rigorous, intellectually honest thinkers approach an issue. They start off trying to figure all the angles, and then with open minds they critically assess the validity of the various theories they come up with. They don't assume anything is impossible or absurd without thinking it through first. They don't draw conclusions without thinking.

[Sivad]

"


...and be violently replaced by a utopian Communist society. Right now, it is humanity's only hope.

Then humanity is doomed because I doubt well educated Westerners are gonna be herding themselves into gulags anytime soon. You might be able to convince illiterate peasants that gulagism is the way to go but politically awakened educated people with a history and culture of liberty are just gonna laugh in your face.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's crazy that you haven't even given it a moment's thought. Why don't you think about it for a few minutes and then tell me. That's how rigorous, intellectually honest thinkers approach an issue. They start off trying to figure all the angles, and then with open minds they critically assess the validity of the various theories they come up with. They don't assume anything is impossible or absurd without thinking it through first. They don't draw conclusions without thinking.

If you cannot even formulate an argument as to why this is true, then there is no need to respond to me.

But the complete lack of evidence in your post does lend credence to my first point about there being no evidence for this conspiracy theory. Thank you for that.

Anyway, back on topic:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_ ... ory#Claims

In a speech given to the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on July 28, 2003, entitled "The Science of Climate Change",[14] Senator James Inhofe (Republican, for Oklahoma) concluded by asking the following question: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" He further stated, "some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor."[15] Inhofe has suggested that supporters of the Kyoto Protocol such as Jacques Chirac are aiming at global governance.[16]

Commenting on criticism of the Lavoisier Group by Clive Hamilton, the Cooler Heads Coalition notes that "Hamilton accuses the Lavoisier Group of painting the UN's global warming negotiations as "an elaborate conspiracy in which hundreds of climate scientists have twisted their results to support the climate change theory in order to protect their research funding" and adds, "Sounds plausible to us."[17]

William M. Gray said in 2006 that global warming became a political cause because of the lack of any other enemy following the end of the Cold War. He went on to say that its purpose was to exercise political influence, to try to introduce world government, and to control people, adding, "I have a demonic view on this."[3] The TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle was made by Martin Durkin, who called global warming "a multi-billion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists." In the Washington Times in 2007 he said that his film would change history, and predicted that "in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bunk."[18]

Climate change has also been called the "greatest scam in history" by John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel.[19] When questioned by the IPCC regarding his claims, he responded "The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number."[19]

In 2012, Donald Trump claimed that "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."[20]

In 2015, The Spectator published an article by Matt Ridley describing the "climate change agenda" as a "conspiracy against the poor."[21]

Let us start with the first absurdity: almost all climatologists are lying in order to protect their funding. If this were true, it would require a single source of funding for all climatologists on the planet, or at least all the funding would have to go through a very small group of donors that would then be controlled by the mysterious cabal. It would also require all climatologists to keep the secret, even though many of them would profit by not having a shadowy cabal control all of the funding.

And it would be easy to show that funding was constricted in such a manner, but I doubt anyone will.

The “take over the world” part is hilarious:

1. Seize control of funding for climatologists.
2. Make them say that anthropogenic climate change is real.
3. ?
4. Take over the world!

[Sivad]

If you cannot even formulate an argument as to why this is true, then there is no need to respond to me.

Oh I can formulate a response, I just thought I'd give you one more chance at honest intelligent discourse before I did. I also thought I'd give you another chance to display your complete and utter intellectual dishonesty before I rubbed your face in it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your posts have become irrelevant.

I think my favourite part from the Wiki article is where people describe climate science as an industry run by anti-industrialists.

[Hindsite]

...snip...

Steve_American wrote: This time we need to enshrine the Progressive imperatives in the Constitution and not leave them open to being whittled away by the rich.
Examples are : right to health care, right to secure retirement, right to a job, no massive inequality, a multi-party system with 2nd choice ranked voting and multi-Rep. districts (about 5 or so Reps. per district), understand that MMT is a much better economic theory, etc.

Does America have capitalism now? It has Soc. Sec., so if it has capitalism and S.S. then it is possible to do all I wrote and still have capitalism. Even the no massive inequality part.

Why keep capitalism?

Yes, we still have capitalism and should keep capitalism, because it has proven to be the best economic system known to man. We have social security, but it is not a right. Workers must pay taxes from their paychecks into the fund, so that they will have a source of income in their old age.

We do have social welfare programs that are supported from federal and state taxes. And other welfare programs that are supported by churches and other charities.

I also believe people should have access to healthcare, if they pay for it in some manner. However, our social programs allow even those that are unable to pay to have healthcare.

The right to a job seems like a crazy thing to put into a constitution. Your lasts political proposals for being included in the constitution are unnecessary, in my opinion.

I think my favourite part from the Wiki article is where people describe climate science as an industry run by anti-industrialists.

It is a play on the word. In case you did not get the point. What it means is that climate change science has created itself into an "industry - an activity or domain in which a great deal of time or effort is expended" to destroy normal industries (economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories), because those people don't like something about those industries.