60 percent of Likely Voters Agree “Climate Change Has Become a Religion.” “Climate change has become a religion that ‘actually has nothing to do with the climate’ and is really about power and control.”

submitted by Chipit from thenewamerican.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Every single one of these predictions failed to happen.

You might be mistaken about that.

Hansen's predictions based on a model built for the analysis of the atmosphere of Venus in 1981 was eerily accurate

https://apnews.com/article/science-30-years-of-warming-us-news-climate-james-hansen-664cf2e917604adf90472daa35989ffb

More modern modelling has been bang on the nose wrt global mean surface temperature.

Climate change at the poles seems to be progressing much worse than predicted. But models have a limit of resolution, and the nature of the beast is that some of the small changes that fall in between the pixels blow up into measurable or even large effects.

This climate religion must be stomped out of existence for humanity to survive.

You need to follow the money. Oil is making people who own the reserves very rich. Sunlight and wind aren't owned by anyone.

Religion is counter to science. The science behind climate change is pretty straightforward:

  • Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide.
  • Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
  • Increasing greenhouse gas concentration increases the greenhouse effect.

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You need to follow the money. Oil is making people who own the reserves very rich. Sunlight and wind aren't owned by anyone.

You need to do that with renewables as well. It's naive to think solar and wind aren't also influenced by business interests. The former especially require you to buy expensive panels that need rare earth metals to work. So the mining and manufacturing interests certainly have a stake in their wide spread adoption. Similar situation with wind and metals and construction needed to build turbines.

The climate "religion" has less to do with realistic concerns about rising temperatures but more to do with hysterical takes by environmentalist types, the doomsayers, the extreme conservation types that think any change is bad. There's a thread of severe anti-humanism that runs like a cancer throughout the climate movements. I can get behind most climate movements, and indeed most people can, so long as you can answer a simple question "how does this improve the human condition?".

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You need to do that with renewables as well. It's naive to think solar and wind aren't also influenced by business interests.

The economics is much weaker. Everyone owns the sunlight that hits their roof. I can pay for solar panels by running the solar panel for 18 months.

The former especially require you to buy expensive panels that need rare earth metals to work. So the mining and manufacturing interests certainly have a stake in their wide spread adoption.

The rare earth mining industry is $9.5 billion and not dependent on green energy solutions. They are necessary for all kinds of electronics.

The fossil fuel industry is $988.95 billion, and every part of it has greenhouse emissions.

Which side will be paying for most of the misinformation?

That is why that side is against the consensus of scientists.

Similar situation with wind and metals and construction needed to build turbines.

That's different. There there are many players in the game who could meet demand. The earth's crust has lots of metals.

The climate "religion" has less to do with realistic concerns about rising temperatures but more to do with hysterical takes by environmentalist types, the doomsayers, the extreme conservation types that think any change is bad.

The science behind climate change is perfectly doomsaying enough. Steve Milloy has made a career denying that. And he's lying.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

People have been saying we'll be dead in 50 years for the last 5000 years.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

People have been saying doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase global mean surface temperatures by 3°C for 125 years.

The difference is, they've been right.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yes. Three degree temperature rise is not at all an unlikely outcome.

Human extinction is an unlikely outcome of a three degree temperature rise. As are many of the other doomsday prophecies such as runaway greenhouse effect.

The most likely doomsday scenario is nuclear war, such an outcome may come from increased economic and migrant issues driven by warming climate on a geo-political level. Such an outcome also fixes the warming with nuclear winter. Also does not result in human extinction.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Human extinction is an unlikely outcome of a three degree temperature rise.

Three degrees would cause an unpleasant population drop. But humans and black rats won't be amongst the extinctions.

The most likely doomsday scenario is nuclear war

Conflict is related to hunger and resource scarcity. Which in turn is related (in part) to climate change.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The rise in temperature won't cause the population drop directly. Rather it's the nuclear war that does that. (Which will raise temperatures locally by thousands of degrees temporarily but cause a global cooling phenomenon afterwards).

I suggest you learn more about nuclear war, there is an excellent museum in Nagasaki on the topic. You can learn about the children being burned alive in their school then go out for ice cream and designer shopping at the haute dutch shopping street.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Back in 2000 the anthropogenic part of climate change killed about 160,000. It'll be worse now. Cause of death of nearly half: malnutrition.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Again gonna have to see a source before I buy that. We can say "climate change killed this many people" but the real answer is more "it's complicated"

Did climate change kill the Jews during World War 2? I can draw lines between the industrial revolution and it's consequences and the rise of Nazism. Doesn't mean that the CO2 emissions made Hitler decide to murder Jews. Even if it's an element in the larger interactions of geo-political mechanisms as a whole.

Most of the populist climate change stuff is just political fundraising grifts. Ban the plastic straws save the planet. Well sure not tossing them in the ocean is definitely a good thing and I'm very much in favor of harsh penalties for littering. (Think chain gangs and the like).

But is that plastic straws making the planet warmer. Lol no.

The real problem with a lot of this shit is the third world countries that don't really have the economic power yet to give a single fuck about the environment. Go to Mongolia. Burning coal like no tomorrow. Trash everywhere. Vietnam, slightly better but same shit. China, much better than it used to be but still far from optimal.

You wanna fix this shit you've gotta push heavy into technology that is containable but at a certain point you've got to accept that there are pros and cons and some degree of change of the environment is going to happen and is desirable to the alternative.

The climate movements in their populist stances play I to this almost reverent awe of "nature" and a belief that humans are the evil element that that "nature" is somehow this superior state of homeostasis or some such shit. It's a borderline genocidal ideology but it's not new it's from the old "there's too many people we all going to die" nonsense that was popularized with shit like the "population bomb".

More politicized this gets the harder it is to manage. Got the climate grifters on the one side selling nonsense with fear mongering and the people on the otherside seeing the shit and complete ignoring the problems. All together you've got people making a great deal of money scaring the shit out of everyone. The planet is dying on the one side. They wanna genocide you on the other. The latter is closer to the truth as it's the obvious reactionary position to the former. If you want to get past it you've gotta stick to the cold hard facts with no narrative spin. Good luck with that now.