Another beautiful day of choosing sides based on a propaganda and belief. Seems Americans (the whole world) just can’t get enough of each other, but in the realms of endless polarity, should we expect anything different? If you want to know peace you must have discord—and if you cling to belief without understanding the nature of truth vs human cognition? My respects to the whole world—we’ve done it. What is the best way to confront nature, anyway?
This HERE from a front-line climate activist. (5min read)
And HERE for a expert rebuttal
There is no 12 step program to decontaminate the dialogue, but one bold one. Has it ever occurred to anyone, that the president is fighting because you are? Has it ever occurred to anyone that everyone is wrong because the questions are?
In christianity there is a principle (although they don’t know it) that confessing they are a sinner, whether it’s even “sin” or not, is exhilarating because in this one moment of life they know with absolute surety they are right about being wrong—and now have a benchmark to measure any success because of the failure. And realizing one is completely wrong is about as accurate a statement as can be mustered.
In order to be effective, a doctrine must not be understood, but has rather to be believed in. A doctrine that is understood is shorn of its strength—If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague. If neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable—Eric Hoffer
TheCommonAtheist 
I like Eric Hoeffer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Did you mean heifer, hoeffer, or hoffer?
LikeLike
Hoffer. My bad
LikeLike
For a minute i thought you were referring to a cow owned by a german family
LikeLiked by 1 person
That would be an injustice to both Eric and the cow😁
LikeLiked by 2 people
You know he’s not a climate scientist, right? You know he’s a paid advocate for nuclear, right? He is portraying certain climate-related points of contention as if climate scientists refutes them when, in fact, most climate scientists have been saying the same thing for decades. The rational alarm is about real changes to climate patterns that we commit to having way down the road by our collective energy use actions today. The alarm is about not dealing with problem today but putting it off and making the harm greater later. These climate changes will cause harm and the greater the changes, the greater the harm. Calling those who try to explain this fact ‘alarmist’ is not helpful but an inaccurate label so typical in today’s group identity frenzy. So apologizing for the fear this facts might cause is not helpful because – as we see – it has been used as if it were an apology by climate change scientists to apologize for stating a fact as if the fact were somehow inaccurate because Shellenberger says so. And some of what he says – not all – is tangent to what’s true, which is a significant distortion that is also now used to distort what is true.
This is how you are able to use this example as if ALL of us were wrong about a fact – that climate change is the premier problem for the welfare of humanity as a whole than any other problem we have. Well, regardless of what any of us might believe, reality has a way of being ‘right’ completely indifferent to what questions we may ask. So your criticism is strengthen if you take the position that asking the kind of questions reality can answer is the ‘right’ kind, rather than going along with some ideological framing of reality that creates partisanship concerning it, is a much more productive and rational method. If you follow this line of reasoning, you arrive at science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So I’m confused. Several science based thinkers here have been telling me that these actions of mankind are as natural as any other extended phenotype, that our actions and pollutions are just a byproduct of natural selection and survival of the fittest, yet you in your scientific mind are suggesting that we suppress the natural order of these things. Not to mention that in the mechanical universe, how could it possibly matter at all when extinction comes, when there will be nothing at all to recall it? Its a hypocritical stance to assign meaning to preferences when ultimately none of it matters at all. Simply a product of motion, hot gasses, and lots of time.
Maybe we should just enjoy our excesses as a product of a random fluke and stay out of everyones business?
According to your statement here, what is your choice, this guy or Greta?
Btw, its hard to be an alarmist when I’ve been going to the same beach on the Hood Canal fir fifty years, and there is virtually no change at all. Where are all the dead seas, ice ages, and catastrophe? I think this is the point of the article. Science has shot its wad and now has a young girl attempting to validate them.
Many of these I remember. Maybe you do too. https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim, there are a bunch of points you raise that deserve a response. For now, let me direct you to a site that explains far better than I why Shellenberger’s apology was a puff piece (meant, I presume, to promote his new book) and not any kind of article that accurately describes climate change and why it is the predominant problem of our times. I think it’s exactly right to say this generation (Greta’s) is the first generation to truly understand the problem and the last one that can effectively do anything about it. Now, if you think that is not factual but ‘alarmist’ and should be dismissed as such, then I suggest you do not understand the problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks boss. I’ll give it a look and reply.
LikeLike
I posted the rebuttal under the initial link.
Do you have any concise sources on the extinction rates? That we be a nice follow up post.
As a side note, in my little town of 280, the general store posted they would be honoring governor Inslees’ mandate in wearing masks. Half the town wants to boycott them for caving-in to the left wing conspiracy. Neighbor on neighbor over beliefs in conspiracy theory. These are the same people that will be buying Shellenburgers book.
LikeLike
I get soooo angry at people like this! It is NOT a political statement, for Thor’s sake! It’s caring about your fellow humans!!!
LikeLike
One lady was accusing the store of caving in to fear. I asked, who’s living in fear, the store, or those that think this is a big conspiracy? She replied “eye roll” and that shes not afraid. Its funny how deeply rooted nonsense is blind to itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Notice how vital is the framing applied to whatever that produces an ‘answer’ or ‘opinion’. To frame a virus – and the physical response to mitigating its potentially deadly effect – as a reflection of belief (by assigning to the practices (like wearing a mask) a political perspective) shows just how pernicious is the use of belief as a justification. Put another way, my belief in my beliefs justifies the confidence I have in their legitimacy… even if reality disagrees in the strongest possible terms (like resulting in death)! That’s the power we grant to our framing and it is deadly if and when we don’t recognize it’s use in ourselves.
For this reason, I have constantly harped on the idea that how we think determines what we think. I harp on this because it has such a HUGE importance in every area of human concern. And this is why real education teaches one how to think in a variety of ways to be able to recognize the difference between reality and the beliefs we prefer to hold about it about it, improve our ability to recognize our own biases and preferences and assumptions as best we can, and then act as wisely as possible for the welfare of all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Jim and tildeb,
Like Steven Pinker’s most recent book entitled “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress”, Michael Shellenberger’s most recent book entitled “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All” also contains various issues and biases. As a result, both books are far from being unproblematic and universally applicable, even though they do have significant merits in certain more circumscribed conditions and domains.
Jim, in your reply to tildeb, and assuming that you have not been intentionally facetious, there are a lot of highly problematic (framing of) issues and fallacies in your first paragraph, which I have no time to unpack here.
As for the article “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions” and the many sources cited in it, we need to be very aware of who the authors and sources are, as well as their affiliations and funding sources. Many websites are dubious and even fraudulent, many constituting parts of the very widespread astroturfing operations found all over the world. They can indeed easily mislead people and muddy the water, sometimes creating, fanning or exacerbating what already tantamount to very trying and intractable sociopolitical and environmental issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A paid toady working for Trump. Only a conservative could come up with crap like this. There is no science in his stupidity, just baseless propaganda.
Gee, who else uses that exact tactic to discombobulate his followers. Let me think…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Show me where he is a paid toady working for trump. It is possible that nuclear energy is cleaner than green energy, which has yet to be green at all. There is only one solution and no one will allow it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not talking about nuclear energy, but about his “apparent” reversal from a climate activist to a climate apologist. Being as I have never heard of him, that all could be true. But saying science has been wrong all this time, I don’t think so. It’s only my opinion, but I think he sold out to the highest bidder.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Or sold out to his integrity? I don’t know him either, but he does have a new book and a big audience.
LikeLike
Not taking sides, but this seems like a rather weak endorsement … he does have a new book and a big audience. … when just about anyone can write a book and even garner a “big audience.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure i was very clear in my opening “Another beautiful day of choosing sides based on a propaganda and belief And see how easily it garnered an argument? (not from you) All i can trust is what i see with my own eyes, and some very, ecologically sensitive areas i have frequented my entire life are just the same as always. Science has yards of failed predictions and then there’s Greta. I don’t trust her over me.
LikeLike
OK … just taking your comment at face value — Another beautiful day of choosing sides based on a propaganda and belief — how else does one choose a side if NOT by belief? And who determines what propaganda is?
LikeLiked by 2 people
All of our decisions are based on the common sense of the current culture. Todays common sense comes from reading opinions of specialists, vs an older style of sense based on utility—actual experience of multiple disciplines. Instead of belief I would suggest we take a walk, go outside and see the world. The climate alarmists and climate prognosticators (scientists and single disciple opinionistas) have a 50 year track record of being horribly wrong. Maybe there is nothing here to be overly preoccupied with?
When I was a boy, mountains were mountains and streams were streams. After taking a microscope to these things, they became impersonal bits of science projects with separate parts. But once again now, they are mountains and streams.
Don’t get me wrong, I like beauty and preserving nature probably more than most do. It is my home and I want to protect it. Life will be different as the earth warms—but it wont be over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see your point … to a point. 🙂 It’s a subject that, IMO, needs to be discussed face-to-face (with masks on, of course).
Hope you had a good holiday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What kind of world do I want? Better. Improving. Not worse. I know it ain’t gunna happen, but you did ask. There will always be a dark side, forever and ever, amen. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Looks like you’ve stepped into it again, Jim. Daring to question the established orthodoxy of the climate alarmists attracts the same opprobrium as that meted out by every other cult. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, i am currently censured. But really after careful reading my opening statement used the word “propaganda”, but i really cant say is it is or not. The next link i posted was miles of failed predictions by climate scientists. Sounds alarmist to me. No?
LikeLike
Let’s put it this way:
Science can only confirm that CO2 levels are rising and that the climate is changing — just as it always has. But the predictions made by the climate alarmists have failed to materialize — just as they always have.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If you put everything under a microscope and magnify it enough, it certainly looks like chaos. Then it has to be categorized, documented and published as findings. Maybe were too good at looking? Maybe the naked eye is more relevant than data?
I remember Niels Bohr to the effect that things appear dependent on how we observe them—how we set up the experiment determines the observation. Maybe we should be saying this; that the climate is changing—what must we do to adapt to it, vs always confronting it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, I’ve definitely tried to study this from various angles. I think there is no question that the climate is changing and part of this is due to human activity. But, I think where there is a real difference of opinion is how immediately we are facing sure catastrophe and how draconian the measures are that we need to put into place right now. I think it’s wise and great to look toward sustainables, but I don’t feel that all of our energy needs can met with things like wind and solar alone. It’s also true that in many ways fossil fuels have been a great boon to humanity and have lifted many in the third world from poverty. I feel like we just need to find a wise balance in all this. Definitely don’t agree that the world is about to end in a decade or so. I feel as if folks, especially young people are looking for identity and purpose and the whole climate alarmist movement is something they can key into.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One of the reasons why climate change can be so contentious is because of the disagreement as to what constitutes facts. Turns out the science is pretty much agreed on the impact of human carbon emissions and global temperatures. Even NASA has a fact sheet regarding it. Here is another article explaining how scientists know it’s human carbon emissions going into the atmosphere and not something else.
How is someone supposed to convince others of action when those people refuse to acknowledge facts or cite misleading information? The answer, I think, is in changing the frame of the discussion to values that are shared or agreed upon. There are plenty of reasons why the green economy can benefit people. Efficiency, impact on an emerging business sector, and reduced expenditures are but a few of other reasons to persuade people to reduce their carbon footprint.
LikeLiked by 4 people
i seriously stand with Sirius 🌳
LikeLike
I read his longer, unedited article promoting his new book. I don’t doubt that he has cherrypicked the fact and scientific studies he presents in his book to support his view. And conveniently leaves out the ugly evidence that contradicts him. I’ll still choose grass-fed over CAFO beef. It’s healthier for me and for the environment. (And eating less beef is also better for both.) I do think some of the alarmism he’s trying to counter is unfounded and purely political. He’s guilty of bending too far the other way, though. Let’s look for balance, good science and some common (?) sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Common sense is a term that needs revision. Accepted sense, or some equivalent. Thanks boss.
LikeLiked by 1 person