The Politics of Climate Change: Green New Deal And Other Madness

I haven't read the whole discussion here yet, but I would like to mark some important data.

CO2 composes 350-ppm of atmosphere, so its 0.035% of Air. Plants use CO2 to build organic substances that serve the entire food chain.

The more CO2, the more plants can develop, and the more oxygen is released into the atmosphere, so controlling CO2 can imply controlling the life on a large (planetary) scale.

I comment on this because I have never seen a scientist contradict this reasoning.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Above in September had cited Susan Crockford, Ph.D (zoologist) as she discusses the polar bear issues and in association the climate buffoons who would use these bears to bolster their positions with an attempt at shock & fear (not awe) and of course lay on the guilt.

She was removed from UVic after the Uni came under pressure (probably after discovering she was actually teaching kids about polar bears against their concocted narrative) - likely from WWF or some other NGO-political group. You can read here 'UVic bows to outside pressure and rescinds my adjunct professor status' and further reading can be done on those Russian Polar Bears recently in the news 'No joke: Russian scientists marked problem Kara Sea polar bear with T-34.' A person can also read about how the 'Canadian Inuit file court documents stating polar bears are thriving' and last but not least there is a good lecture with Susan teaching students about how they are excellent swimmers, like 'thin ice' - read about how males fast for 5 months and pregnant females fast for up to 8 months. Hear how the weight gains go from 250 - 950 lbs in a season and how their populations have indeed thrived.

Yeah, she is big:

1577053449977.png

and yes, they are fantastic swimmers:

1577053507103.png

which you can see them doing here:


You can also
catch up on David Attenborough Seven Worlds, One Planet spin on Walrus and also video production mention of Polar Bears.

A new video with clips of critical footage not available outside the UK shows that Sir David Attenborough and Netflix producers (who insisted earlier this year that climate change – not polar bears – were to blame for Russian walrus falling to their deaths) had deceived audiences around the world.


 

Sol Logos

Dagobah Resident
Why do all these major world financial, political even religious organisations agree on climate action, have massive amounts of wealth, power, resources and influence and climate action is talked about as a resistance and revolutionary movement?


Council of foreign relations
Climate Change | Council on Foreign Relations


World economic forum


Bank of international settlements


NATO


European union


United nations


Vatican
 

PopHistorian

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Alkhemst wrote,
Why do all these major world financial, political even religious organisations agree on climate action, have massive amounts of wealth, power, resources and influence and climate action is talked about as a resistance and revolutionary movement?

I'm reminded of similar topsy-turvy deception when CNN, after the US invaded Iraq, which was opposed by something like 90% of the world's population, started running very brief daily stories on peace advocates, entitling the segments, "Voices of Dissent."

As for climate change and other "humans are bad" narratives, see this. The web site is clearly rightist, but I'm wondering how this story could be accurate. Perhaps Alexa was actually reading an article off the web as response to a query?
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Often when faced with comments from friends, colleagues or even family members, here is a selection of 10 common myths and rebuttals from FOS:

Providing Insight Into Climate Change

Myths / Facts

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT4 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling from 2002 through mid 2015, then this warming pause ended with a large El Nino event starting late 2015. The average of two analysis of satellite data gives a trend from 1979 to Nov. 2017 of 0.13 ºC/decade, which is less than half of the corresponding trend of 0.27 ºC/decade of the climate models. The mild warming of about 0.7 ºC over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. {it may not in fact be likely to the cited ppm's} The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
See a Wall Street Journal article here.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. See here for graphs and discussion of extreme weather.

{good opportunity (for those not familiar) here to look into Earth Changes and the Human Cosmic Connection (author: Pierre Lescaudron) as cyclical changes are having effect, not least there is the cosmic - and religious/societal/political/psychological changes on a massive scale - the interrelationship looks to synchronize the macro and micro, with history a yardstick}

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here. See here for sea ice extent.

{often while eyes are on the arctic, the much more substantial antarctic is less discussed or altogether avoided - basic graphs below offer variations according to NSIDC

1577428160248.png
1577428212971.png

Summary of differences between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice characteristics
ArcticAntarctic
Average Maximum Areal Extent15,600,000 km2 (6,000,000 mi2)18,800,000 km2 (7,260,000 mi2)
Average Minimum Areal Extent6,500,000 km2 (2,510,000 mi2)3,100,000 km2 (1,200,000 mi2)
Typical Thickness~ 2 m (6 ft)~ 1 m (3 ft)
Geographic DistributionAsymmetricSymmetric
Snow ThicknessThinnerThicker
Trend, 1979-2008Significant decrease of 4.4% (~520,000 km2; 201,000 mi2) per decadeSmall increase of 1.8% (~219,000 km2; 85,000 mi2) per decade
}

More FACTS and MYTHS? See what Professor deFreitas has to say. Click here.

The trick these gangsters play is to announce the capacity and then "calculating" the homes that could be served based on that. They certainly think we are idiots, because the capacity of a wind farm is just a theoretical technical specification. It's what a wind farm WOULD produce IF there was 100% wind ALWAYS

With wind and solar, this Segways to Geothermal, and the same tricks are applied - this paper deals with Alberta and askes some fundamental questions (and good overall depending on where one lives):

Geothermal for Alberta? A Case for Caution (pdf)

This has some excellent maps (ring of fire) and other illustration, along with links to papers, speakers and even YouTube.

In Alberta, the pitch is to use depleted oil wells to pump and recover heat energy (utilize it). Much of the pdf is a comparison between Iceland and Alberta, yet you get the idea.

snip

Though the earth’s interior is about the same heat as the photosphere (outside layer) of the sun, the earth’s heat travels very slowly through the layers of rock, cooling as it goes. While the sun’s light reaches us in about 8 1/3 minutes, it takes hundreds of millions of years for the heat from the earth’s core to rise. That heat from the earth gives off about 46 Terawatts(TW) in energy –but this is nothing compared to the power of the incoming sun (at light speed) of 123,000 TW. Part of earth’s heat comes from radioactive decay of various isotopes (Potassium 40[K-40], Thorium 232[Th-232], Uranium 235[U-235], Uranium 238[U-238]) and part of it from rising heat of the molten core.The radioactive decay of the long-lived isotopes which are prevalent in earth’s 40 km crust supply much of earth’s stable temperature. The mantle, about 3,000 km thick, also contains these isotopes. The core –liquid and solidexude heat and magma which slowly make their way up through the rock, finding fissures and breaks between tectonic plates where the heat or magma can rise and escape.

Humans presently consume about 18 TW of energy, so the exuding energy from the earth is only 46 TW or about 2 and ½ times that of what people consume. Consequently, it is unlikely geothermal can ever be a replacement for the energy dense, portable fossil fuels or nuclear power we use today. However, geothermalis a valuable supplement in places that are naturally suited to its exploitation. Another kind of geothermal energy can be that of simply tapping into the deep heat of the earth and using it for distributed heating of a region or a facility (i.e. greenhouse, food drying operation) where a stable heat source is required over the long-term with little or no demand for changes in temperature once set.

This document will address the potential electricity generation of geothermal in relation to Alberta.

1577429545284.png

and not the ring of fire:

1577429685931.png

According to a CBC report of July 1, 2015:

Geothermal power plants cost more money than natural gas facilities. For some perspective, consider the Neal Hot Springs plant in Oregon that was constructed in 2012 for $139 million for 22 megawatts of production.The Shepard natural gas power plant in Calgary began operating this year with a total cost of $1.4 billion for 800 megawatts of electricity. In this comparison, the geothermal facility costs three times as much per megawatt of power.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Well, it may all come down to a new climate change enemy, according to these paid for studies: the invasive earth worm - the attack from a killer climate change enemy #2 transported by careless fishermen 🎣 (and American ones at that), which may possibly be right behind enemy #1, C02.

Is there a move afoot to stamp out Lumbricus terrestris?

What to do about the former is as yet unknown...in all seriousness ;-):

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/earthworms-climate-change-carbon-research-1.5370724

There is a confounding mystery wrapped up in the tiny turds of two different types of earthworms, and the secrets locked inside are influencing climate change around the world.

Scientists say some earthworm species are potentially speeding up climate change by feeding on leaves, then pooping out a mix that's fodder to tiny microbes and fungi that spew carbon into the atmosphere. By contrast, other worms are helping lock carbon in soil.

Canada is ground zero for this paradox. Earthworm populations are growing as warmer temperatures allow the invertebrates to move farther north than ever before.

And no one knows exactly how much carbon they are helping release into the atmosphere.

"Some of the early work has shown that they could have as much of an impact as, let's say, wildfire," said Sylvie Quideau, a professor of soil biogeochemistry at the University of Alberta.

It's possible, she said, worms in Canada could release millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere in a year, but that estimate is still subject to a lot of uncertainties, including the rate of earthworm invasion across the country.


sylvie-quideau.jpg

Sylvie Quideau, a professor of soil biogeochemistry at the University of Alberta, says early work on earthworms show 'they could have as much of an impact as, let's say, wildfire.' (Submitted by Sylvie Quideau)

The most common earthworms that live in leaf litter, on forest floors or in the top layers of soil are called Dendrobaena octaedra. They eat plant debris, and their poop, also known as casts, is more easily broken down by microbes and fungi that then release carbon dioxide.

"Microbes find earthworm poop very attractive," said Quideau.

The more earthworms there are, the more plant debris is broken down at a faster rate and the more carbon gets released into the atmosphere.

This kind of carbon being released from Canada's boreal forests is new, according to Quideau, since earthworms are not native to the country. They were wiped out during the last ice age. {Maybeee}

The earthworms here now, save for some found in British Columbia, are invasive species transported into forests when Europeans arrived or brought them in from the United States as fishing bait. {damn fishermen}

"Earthworms can both be allies and enemies," said Joann Whalen, a professor in the department of natural resource sciences at Montreal's McGill University who has studied earthworms for 20 years.

In agriculture, earthworms are beneficial, said Whalen: They help make soil more fertile, and allow water and roots to more easily enter the ground.


eartworm-casts-poop.JPG

In spring, it is common to see spherical lumps of earth on the soil surface. These earthworm casts are a mixture of soil and organic residues that all earthworm species poop out or egest onto the soil surface. The white object is a toonie, to give an idea of the cast size. (Submitted by Joann Whalen)

In the boreal forest, worms can do more harm than good.

Some eat the leaf litter covering the forest floor, and many plant seeds need that thick covering to grow in. Without it, the seeds can't take root, said Whalen, which means earthworms can reduce plant diversity in the forest.

But earthworms aren't all bad. There are some burrowing species that actually trap carbon in the soil {thank the stars for those worms}, because their poop binds it more tightly and makes it harder for microbes to break down.

Often sold as fishing bait, Lumbricus terrestris is a common deep-burrowing earthworm found in Canada. It can be identified by the small mounds of earth it leaves on lawns or in forests. {ban fishing with Carbon sink worms might be an answer}

How much carbon is being trapped by these worms and whether it's enough to offset the carbon other worms are helping release isn't clear. Finding the answer to that question is part of Quideau's research.

"What keeps me up at night is wondering if I can quantify their effect on climate change," she said.


joann-whalen.JPG

'Earthworms can both be allies and enemies,' says Joann Whalen, a professor in the department of natural resource sciences at Montreal's McGill University. (Submitted by Joann Whalen)

Whalen isn't losing any sleep over worms. She said the carbon dioxide coming from decomposing plant material is a natural process, and worms help it.

"I'd be more concerned about what people are doing in terms of utilizing fossil carbon that had been buried for millennia and is now being released into the atmosphere."

Still, in Canada, the earthworm invasion continues.

Erin Cameron, an assistant professor in the department of environmental science at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, has been monitoring the invasion's progress since 2006.

In northern Alberta, she's been studying how fast earthworms are spreading, and has discovered they are moving north at a rate of 17 metres a year. The earthworm population appears to have grown as well.


earthworms-dendrobaena-octaedra.jpg

Dendrobaena octaedra is one of the most common earthworms that live in the leaf litter on the forest floor or in the top layers of soil. (Submitted by Erin Cameron)

The most abundant kind of earthworm she finds live in leaf litter or in the top layers of soil, the ones that help release carbon into the air.

"Earthworms may benefit from warmer temperatures in Canada's North, for example, because that may currently be restricting the distributions of some species," said Cameron.

So as climate change continues to warm the country, earthworms could continue to become more abundant and possibly drive more climate change {something will obviously have to be done about those worms}.


erin-cameron.jpg

Erin Cameron, an assistant professor in the department of environmental science at Saint Mary's University, has been monitoring the earthworm invasion's progress since 2006. (Submitted by Erin Cameron)

Quideau doesn't think there's anything that can be done to stop the worm march through Canada {at 17 meters a year :scared:(example Calgary to the North Pole = 4,332,386.235 meters) it will take these worms 255 thousand years, give or take, to reach the pole - assuming they navigate some of the water straights}.

"What's important is that we can understand, quantify their effect better so that we can project better in the future what their influence will be. There might be ways then to manage a forest."

She and other researchers hope to do just that in the next few years. They want to crack the secret of earthworm poop, and determine how much carbon earthworms release and store in the earth. {stay tuned for further earth planet shattering studies}
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
Ahhh, the holidays!

When family won't take a hint, and need to polish their hobby horses by denouncing Trump and raising Greta up as some kind of apostle savior. The hint being, "Talking politics in mixed company over dinner is SO not cool. Can we leave the activism out in the streets, please?"

Well, not quite so well enunciated, but you get my meaning.

I did somehow manage to weave and dodge a bit while still not lying and maybe even doing some good: "Greta is just a kid. I really don't think it's appropriate for adults to transform her into some kind of savior. That's lazy and extremely selfish. Do you remember what it was like to be that age? I do. I grew up during the nuclear war fears, and I really did believe that my world was going to end. Kids don't have filters yet. Greta doesn't get that this alarmist stuff is just dramatic effect nonsense used to propel people but which we all know isn't literally true; for her, she really, truly believes that we're all going to die in 11 years. Do you get that? What's happening to her is cruel and unusual, and her parents and the activist community are flat-out exploiting her. If she survives into adulthood without severe psychological issues, it won't be because of her supporters."

Silence. Blessed silence.
 

PerfectCircle

Jedi Master
Seems like it can't past more than two days without seeing an article or hearing news about global warming and climate change.
Even colleagues on my workplace have begun discussing it.
What is the situation regarding this issue in your surroundings?
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
Seems like it can't past more than two days without seeing an article or hearing news about global warming and climate change.
Even colleagues on my workplace have begun discussing it.
What is the situation regarding this issue in your surroundings?
Many people around my parts have bought whole hog into the Official Culture version of the narrative; things are BAD and we all have to DO something.

Some shops try to avoid or flat out refuse to offer plastic shopping bags, for instance. Climate Change will be a subject that comes up in casual conversation with the low-level intelligencia types, those who have the brains for knowledge collection, but just never took the correct on-ramps. I sometimes, when I have the energy and time, will air my views and make an effort to explain things according to my understanding, after which people leave off with the rhetoric, but don't generally follow up with their own research into the ideas I'm talking about. There's simply too much work between standard knowledge and ideas like electricity being a major component of the solar system, or comet clusters. It all sounds nuts to them, so they just tend to tune it out and carry on with the climate hysteria parade.

That's the thing, I'm finding; knowledge requires level-building. It can take years to come to terms with the basic ideas upon which more complex deductions are built, -and then a person has to scale those deductive ideas effectively in order to arrive at the levels above. Learning this stuff is rather like being on a rocket ship, where with every new nugget of intelligence, you accelerate further, leaving the bulk of the human race waaaay down on Earth. It becomes difficult to fit in with the regular folks and hard to explain why you think the way you think and do the things you do.

Luckily, knowledge also provides the means and strategic options to navigate an increasingly alien human world. It's not necessarily alarming to see and work through the confusion of the everyday world, but it can leave one feeling a little isolated. I focus on being present in the ways which still ring true for both myself and the people around me. There's plenty of common ground in the human experience. I can still feel happy for folks when they give birth or have successes at work, or if they find themselves in distress, I can still offer a warm ear and encouragement. That keeps things flowing in a positive way, but I don't think the world is going to get off the Climate Crisis train any time soon.
 

flashgordonv

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
That's the thing, I'm finding; knowledge requires level-building. It can take years to come to terms with the basic ideas upon which more complex deductions are built, -and then a person has to scale those deductive ideas effectively in order to arrive at the levels above. Learning this stuff is rather like being on a rocket ship, where with every new nugget of intelligence, you accelerate further, leaving the bulk of the human race waaaay down on Earth. It becomes difficult to fit in with the regular folks and hard to explain why you think the way you think and do the things you do.
Oh, so true Woodsman. With climate change, smoking and vaccines the official narrative is so strong it is almost a waste of time trying to share facts that disagree with the narrative. And as I have realised (and keep forgetting) the majority of these people are not asking me to educate them or to share the truth with them, in fact they actively don't want to know. So I am trying to do the STO thing and leave them in peace.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Luckily, knowledge also provides the means and strategic options to navigate an increasingly alien human world. It's not necessarily alarming to see and work through the confusion of the everyday world, but it can leave one feeling a little isolated. I focus on being present in the ways which still ring true for both myself and the people around me. There's plenty of common ground in the human experience. I can still feel happy for folks when they give birth or have successes at work, or if they find themselves in distress, I can still offer a warm ear and encouragement. That keeps things flowing in a positive way, but I don't think the world is going to get off the Climate Crisis train any time soon.

Well said, Woodsman. I had a Greta discussion the other day with parts of my family, and it quickly escalated. But when it was over, everything was fine again - relationships can handle such things if there is a solid foundation. At the end of the day, I think most people don't really care about all these things and don't really believe we are all going to die unless we quit taking planes and all that silliness. (Unless they are die-hard activists or their whole lives revolve around climate change.) It's just that they absorbed all this nonsense from the mainstream media and repeat it, and it's next to impossible to bridge the gap between the "mainstream bubble" and reality when it comes to such questions. But we can still relate on so many other levels, and again, most people know deep down that these other levels are what really counts, as opposed to the latest fad in the media.

Time and again I also make the observation that those who simply don't care about the media, about following the news, who don't read newspapers and who just live their lives, are generally so much wiser than those among what you called "low-level intelligentsia" who consider themselves oh-so informed just because they read all the propaganda. For the former, news media-abstinent, when they happen to hear stuff about Greta on the radio or something, their common sense kicks in and tells them "BS", and then they forget about it. I think the Cs said that no knowledge is way better than false knowledge - so true!
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
It becomes difficult to fit in with the regular folks and hard to explain why you think the way you think and do the things you do.

Luckily, knowledge also provides the means and strategic options to navigate an increasingly alien human world.
And as I have realised (and keep forgetting) the majority of these people are not asking me to educate them or to share the truth with them, in fact they actively don't want to know
I think the Cs said that no knowledge is way better than false knowledge - so true!

Excellent, all good things to remember guys. Friends, family, colleagues or people in the street - they are not asking, and if they do you can try in a sincerer way knowing there will be a whole bunch of default cognitive gymnastics going on, best not make it hard.

Luc, you mentioned that many, although perhaps not all the details, when they hear things often indeed "their common sense kicks in and tells them "BS", and then they forget about it," which seems so.

The irksome issues are with the usual scientists (who trying to make a living knowing they need to bend their findings around climate change verbiage - like studying worms above) or the politicians who know they would pay a high price if they step out of the narrative line - of the narrative makers. And there is not much that can be done about that given the controls in place, but you never never know, when people are suddenly faced with something being so utterly crazy to their 'common sense' it will be then that they ask (usually too late) to get new bearings. Even at that, if you do a whole lot of listening, you can see some people incrementally changing on many of the issues that you mentioned, flashgordonv - it can be seen more and more, which makes me think that you can't beat common sense, and it usually surfaces eventually.
 

Aeneas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
A couple of stories that only shows the extent that these people are willing to go to. They are clearly looking for scapegoats. One of the scapegoats are the older generation and eerily reminiscent of the use of Hitler jugend to tell on their parents and grandparents, there is this story from Germany, using the grandchildren to bash their grandparents.
‘My grandma is old environmental pig’: German broadcaster in hot water over brazen children’s song
28 Dec, 2019 19:32 / Updated 1 day ago
Get short URL
‘My grandma is old environmental pig’: German broadcaster in hot water over brazen children’s song

FILE PHOTO. © Global Look Press / Soeren Stache

A German public broadcaster has decided to make a choir of young girls sing a ‘very modern’ eco-friendly grandma-bashing song with a clear Greta Thunberg twist. What could possibly go wrong?
The German regional broadcaster WDR proudly presented a new video featuring the channel’s all-girl children’s choir. “They can sing and they can be naughty,” read the announcement published on the WDR 2 Facebook page on Friday evening.

A minute and a half long footage demonstrated some three dozen young girls happily singing a remake of a German humorous song from the 1920s. Its text was updated to match the trends of 2019 lambasting an imaginary ‘grandma’ for allegedly excessive fuel burn rate and undue taste for meat. The song has a refrain calling the unfortunate grandma “an old environmental pig” and features such unchildish lines as “My grandma drove a range rover to a doctor and ran over two grandpas with a rollator.”
The song ends with children, suddenly as grave as a judge, speaking in the voice of the teen climate change speaker Greta Thunberg warning the grown-up that they “will not let you get away with this.”

WDR staff apparently found the video funny. The channel's news editor, Udo Stiehl, called it “scandalously good.”


Udo Stiehl

@udostiehl

https://twitter.com/udostiehl/status/1210695100310966276

Skandalös gut :-)) Für die ⁦@WDR2-Comedy wurde ein Kinderlied umgetextet: „Meine Oma ist ne alte Umweltsau.“ Humorlose Kritiker sind natürlich bereits in Schnappatmung verfallen und haben 17,50 Euro Blutdruck. Aber das gehört ja zur Folklore hier :-) https://www1.wdr.de/mediathek/av/video-wdr--comedy-kinderchor-meine-oma-ist-ne-alte-umweltsau-100.html …

491

11:53 PM - Dec 27, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

645 people are talking about this



It seems, however, that the WDR audience saw it as “scandalous” rather than “good.” Some people rushed to social media to brand it “disrespectful” and “offensive” especially over the choice of the word “sau” which means pig, not of a Peppa kind, but rather “sow” and is used as a vulgar curse. Others went further and accused the broadcaster of turning children against their family members.

WDR initially sought to mitigate the scandal by declaring the controversial video ‘satire’ but was eventually forced to delete the footage altogether. On Saturday, they also issued an apology and said that the channel “regrets that our satire has hurt the feelings of some members of our audience. That was not our intention.”


Their audience, however, appeared to be not satisfied with such a response and called WDR “liars” while demanding all those responsible for the scandalous video to be sacked. Many also doubted that the channel had any good intentions when it released the video in the first place.


880 people are talking about this



“WDR 2 was making fun of the older generations and portrayed them as irresponsible CO2 sinners. Was it your contribution to conflict resolution? We can only hope that you do not try to mediate any other conflicts,” one person wrote in a comment section under the channel’s apology statement.


666 people are talking about this



Twitter, meanwhile, saw the battle over environment and generational cohesion taken to an entirely new level when an apparently disgruntled member of the WDR staff took to social media to tell all those dissatisfied with the children’s performance that their real grandparents were not “environmental pigs” but “Nazi pigs” instead.(So those who dare to complain are Nazies)


See Marco R's other Tweets



The fact that some other WDR employees “liked” the provocative tweet only added fuel to the fire and sparked another wave of indignation. At the same time, social media saw no shortage of self-described eco-activists coming to support the environmentalist cause and happily stating that their family members are indeed “environmental pigs.”

The new scandal comes just days after the German branch of Fridays For Future – an international movement spearheaded by Greta Thunberg – found itself in hot water following what was described as another tasteless joke.

The group also jumped on the bandwagon of the generation-bashing spree and said in a tweet that grandparents do not have much to say to their descendants simply because “they won’t be around much longer. The movement was then quickly accused of being insensitive to those who lost their grandparents and disrespecting elderly people.

----------
Another scapegoat is obese people, who according to Danish research are really bad for the climate. One wonders how these people can call themselves scientists, but there it is:

Danish Research: Obese People Weigh Heavily in Climate Balance Sheet
© CC0
ENVIRONMENT
09:59 30.12.2019Get short URL

The total extra greenhouse gas emissions from overweight people correspond to those from Mexico and Canada combined. The researchers, however, are afraid that the data will “further stigmatise the overweight”.
Extremely overweight people emit over a tonne more carbon dioxide per year than a normal-weight person, a new report from the University of Copenhagen has concluded.

In the new study, researchers from the University of Copenhagen have attempted to calculate the cabron footprint of the world's 600 million extremely overweight citizens, the newspaper Politiken reported.
According to the report, the total extra climate emissions from obese individuals correspond to 1.6 percent of the globe's emissions. This is the same as the emissions from Mexico and Canada combined.
The greater carbon dioxide emissions from overweight people mainly stem from eating more food, emitting more from their transport and even exhaling more carbon dioxide than normal-weight people.
Severely overweight is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of above 30. For example, a man of normal height weighing over 100 kilogrammes, or a woman of normal height weighing over 85 kilogrammes.
The researchers behind the study are concerned that the results will be used to “further stigmatise the overweight”, head of department Arne Astrup said.
“I am concerned about how it can be interpreted in certain media and on social media, where one often sees very stigmatising statements about overweight people. But conversely, keeping the results secret can never be a goal. The job is to make sure that it is not misinterpreted or distorted to some conclusions we cannot stand”, Astrup said.
The research underscores that a climate-friendly diet must at the same time be a diet that allows one to keep their weight. According to the researchers, this must serve as an input for opinion makers in deciding on issues such as taxes on fatty foods.(The answer is always tax, which only highlights that they have no understanding of nutrition either)

Professor of food production Jørgen Eivind Olesen from Aarhus University estimated that the calculations are correct, though a bid rough.
“But if you were to play the Devil's advocate, you could just as well argue that being overweight leads to premature death, and thus you have saved the climate because people who live longer burden the climate more. It shows what problems can occur when going down that road. There are so many interactions in this that affect people's carbon footprint”, Olesen concluded.

English bulldog
© CC0
Overweight Owners More Likely to Have Fat Dogs – Danish Study
According to a 2010 national health bulletin by the National Board of Health, 47 percent of all Danes are overweight, while 13 percent are obese. The latter category amounts to 600,000 in a nation of 5.6 million inhabitants.

The share of severely obese people has soared in recent decades, seeing a whopping 75 percent increase between 1987 and 2000 alone.
The prevalence of obesity in the US is over 30 percent, which exceeds the Danish rate more than twice.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has predicted that if the current trend continues at the same rate as before, up to 70 percent of all Europeans will be severely obese by 2030.

--------
There is an active looking for scapegoats, from earthworms, cows, meat eaters, obese people to god knows what. Is the aim to make everybody so guilty that they readily will pay more in taxes just to get rid of some guilt? or is the aim to actively target groups to be lined up against the wall (cue Greta) in a future culling of the herd?
 

manitoban

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Well said, Woodsman. I had a Greta discussion the other day with parts of my family, and it quickly escalated. But when it was over, everything was fine again - relationships can handle such things if there is a solid foundation. At the end of the day, I think most people don't really care about all these things and don't really believe we are all going to die unless we quit taking planes and all that silliness. (Unless they are die-hard activists or their whole lives revolve around climate change.) It's just that they absorbed all this nonsense from the mainstream media and repeat it, and it's next to impossible to bridge the gap between the "mainstream bubble" and reality when it comes to such questions. But we can still relate on so many other levels, and again, most people know deep down that these other levels are what really counts, as opposed to the latest fad in the media.

Time and again I also make the observation that those who simply don't care about the media, about following the news, who don't read newspapers and who just live their lives, are generally so much wiser than those among what you called "low-level intelligentsia" who consider themselves oh-so informed just because they read all the propaganda. For the former, news media-abstinent, when they happen to hear stuff about Greta on the radio or something, their common sense kicks in and tells them "BS", and then they forget about it. I think the Cs said that no knowledge is way better than false knowledge - so true!

Totally agree with this, it seems to me that it is the educated types, often with multiple degrees that are actually the most likely to have swallowed all the nonsense and they will also defend these positions arrogantly. They are very convinced of their knowledge, whereas the types you mention Luc, who don't pay attention to the media, often seem far more open to listening to other points of view. Their ego is not all tied up in their so called superior knowledge which in a way allows them to base their thinking on their own life experiences rather than whatever the talking heads latest points are.

It's quite a lesson in self control and wisdom to continue to remember to respect the free will of others during these conversations and not offer information that, exactly as Flashgordon said, is actively not wanted. And given the ways things are going, we may all have to become masters at judging when and if any knowledge should be shared.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
A couple of stories that only shows the extent that these people are willing to go to. They are clearly looking for scapegoats. One of the scapegoats are the older generation and eerily reminiscent of the use of Hitler jugend to tell on their parents and grandparents, there is this story from Germany, using the grandchildren to bash their grandparents.
‘My grandma is old environmental pig’: German broadcaster in hot water over brazen children’s song
28 Dec, 2019 19:32 / Updated 1 day ago
Get short URL
‘My grandma is old environmental pig’: German broadcaster in hot water over brazen children’s song

FILE PHOTO. © Global Look Press / Soeren Stache

A German public broadcaster has decided to make a choir of young girls sing a ‘very modern’ eco-friendly grandma-bashing song with a clear Greta Thunberg twist. What could possibly go wrong?
The German regional broadcaster WDR proudly presented a new video featuring the channel’s all-girl children’s choir. “They can sing and they can be naughty,” read the announcement published on the WDR 2 Facebook page on Friday evening.

A minute and a half long footage demonstrated some three dozen young girls happily singing a remake of a German humorous song from the 1920s. Its text was updated to match the trends of 2019 lambasting an imaginary ‘grandma’ for allegedly excessive fuel burn rate and undue taste for meat. The song has a refrain calling the unfortunate grandma “an old environmental pig” and features such unchildish lines as “My grandma drove a range rover to a doctor and ran over two grandpas with a rollator.”
The song ends with children, suddenly as grave as a judge, speaking in the voice of the teen climate change speaker Greta Thunberg warning the grown-up that they “will not let you get away with this.”

WDR staff apparently found the video funny. The channel's news editor, Udo Stiehl, called it “scandalously good.”


645 people are talking about this


It seems, however, that the WDR audience saw it as “scandalous” rather than “good.” Some people rushed to social media to brand it “disrespectful” and “offensive” especially over the choice of the word “sau” which means pig, not of a Peppa kind, but rather “sow” and is used as a vulgar curse. Others went further and accused the broadcaster of turning children against their family members.

WDR initially sought to mitigate the scandal by declaring the controversial video ‘satire’ but was eventually forced to delete the footage altogether. On Saturday, they also issued an apology and said that the channel “regrets that our satire has hurt the feelings of some members of our audience. That was not our intention.”


Their audience, however, appeared to be not satisfied with such a response and called WDR “liars” while demanding all those responsible for the scandalous video to be sacked. Many also doubted that the channel had any good intentions when it released the video in the first place.


880 people are talking about this


“WDR 2 was making fun of the older generations and portrayed them as irresponsible CO2 sinners. Was it your contribution to conflict resolution? We can only hope that you do not try to mediate any other conflicts,” one person wrote in a comment section under the channel’s apology statement.


666 people are talking about this


Twitter, meanwhile, saw the battle over environment and generational cohesion taken to an entirely new level when an apparently disgruntled member of the WDR staff took to social media to tell all those dissatisfied with the children’s performance that their real grandparents were not “environmental pigs” but “Nazi pigs” instead.(So those who dare to complain are Nazies)


See Marco R's other Tweets


The fact that some other WDR employees “liked” the provocative tweet only added fuel to the fire and sparked another wave of indignation. At the same time, social media saw no shortage of self-described eco-activists coming to support the environmentalist cause and happily stating that their family members are indeed “environmental pigs.”

The new scandal comes just days after the German branch of Fridays For Future – an international movement spearheaded by Greta Thunberg – found itself in hot water following what was described as another tasteless joke.

The group also jumped on the bandwagon of the generation-bashing spree and said in a tweet that grandparents do not have much to say to their descendants simply because “they won’t be around much longer. The movement was then quickly accused of being insensitive to those who lost their grandparents and disrespecting elderly people.

----------
Another scapegoat is obese people, who according to Danish research are really bad for the climate. One wonders how these people can call themselves scientists, but there it is:

Danish Research: Obese People Weigh Heavily in Climate Balance Sheet
© CC0
ENVIRONMENT
09:59 30.12.2019Get short URL

The total extra greenhouse gas emissions from overweight people correspond to those from Mexico and Canada combined. The researchers, however, are afraid that the data will “further stigmatise the overweight”.
Extremely overweight people emit over a tonne more carbon dioxide per year than a normal-weight person, a new report from the University of Copenhagen has concluded.

In the new study, researchers from the University of Copenhagen have attempted to calculate the cabron footprint of the world's 600 million extremely overweight citizens, the newspaper Politiken reported.
According to the report, the total extra climate emissions from obese individuals correspond to 1.6 percent of the globe's emissions. This is the same as the emissions from Mexico and Canada combined.
The greater carbon dioxide emissions from overweight people mainly stem from eating more food, emitting more from their transport and even exhaling more carbon dioxide than normal-weight people.
Severely overweight is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of above 30. For example, a man of normal height weighing over 100 kilogrammes, or a woman of normal height weighing over 85 kilogrammes.
The researchers behind the study are concerned that the results will be used to “further stigmatise the overweight”, head of department Arne Astrup said.

The research underscores that a climate-friendly diet must at the same time be a diet that allows one to keep their weight. According to the researchers, this must serve as an input for opinion makers in deciding on issues such as taxes on fatty foods.(The answer is always tax, which only highlights that they have no understanding of nutrition either)

Professor of food production Jørgen Eivind Olesen from Aarhus University estimated that the calculations are correct, though a bid rough.
“But if you were to play the Devil's advocate, you could just as well argue that being overweight leads to premature death, and thus you have saved the climate because people who live longer burden the climate more. It shows what problems can occur when going down that road. There are so many interactions in this that affect people's carbon footprint”, Olesen concluded.

English bulldog
© CC0
Overweight Owners More Likely to Have Fat Dogs – Danish Study
According to a 2010 national health bulletin by the National Board of Health, 47 percent of all Danes are overweight, while 13 percent are obese. The latter category amounts to 600,000 in a nation of 5.6 million inhabitants.

The share of severely obese people has soared in recent decades, seeing a whopping 75 percent increase between 1987 and 2000 alone.
The prevalence of obesity in the US is over 30 percent, which exceeds the Danish rate more than twice.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has predicted that if the current trend continues at the same rate as before, up to 70 percent of all Europeans will be severely obese by 2030.

--------
There is an active looking for scapegoats, from earthworms, cows, meat eaters, obese people to god knows what. Is the aim to make everybody so guilty that they readily will pay more in taxes just to get rid of some guilt? or is the aim to actively target groups to be lined up against the wall (cue Greta) in a future culling of the herd?
Hrmph. Where did I put that thing..? Ah! (Dusting off the old chestnut.)

Ahem...

"First they came for the Privileged and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Privileged.
Then they came for the Straight White Males and I did not speak out—
Because I was not..." Hey.

Erf. I think this chestnut might be cracked...

"Then they came for the Grandmas and I did not speak out—"
Wha-? The hell I didn't! If they come for granny, why I'd..!

(This poem isn't working the way I remember...)

"Then they came for the fat people?" Really?
But it always struck me that half of Twitter outrage comes in extra large (with blue hair)...

"Then they came for people's pets..."
What?? Oh, no they don't..!

Beh.

And then I recalled that these were just a bunch of twitteroids and click farmers.

Time and again I also make the observation that those who simply don't care about the media, about following the news, who don't read newspapers and who just live their lives, are generally so much wiser than those among what you called "low-level intelligentsia" who consider themselves oh-so informed just because they read all the propaganda. For the former, news media-abstinent, when they happen to hear stuff about Greta on the radio or something, their common sense kicks in and tells them "BS", and then they forget about it. I think the Cs said that no knowledge is way better than false knowledge - so true!

That really hits home. The people I consider pillars of my community, who I look to first when I think, "Wise and influential and broadly beloved", while insightful and penetrating regarding important things relevant to people's immediate lives and their own daily affairs, are often clueless when it comes to pop culture and the common news feed. One dear friend of mine, a self-made and successful business owner, an employer and provider for over a dozen devoted people, was trying to describe a Batman movie she'd once inadvertently found herself attending. "It was all about this.., violence person. I didn't like it."

That made me laugh. Who doesn't know who Batman is? Well, the same person who somehow knows all the current trends when it comes to running a business, but who would struggle to tell me any details about Greta Thunberg.

Mind you.., I'm still going to stay tuned in. The way I avoid disaster is by remaining vigilant. You can't do that unless you recognize what the Batmen and German Broadcasters are filling people's heads with. It charges and orients the internal compass, if you will. Lets you know which way the herd is being herded. And my business friend sometimes asks for clarification on certain issues which may come up from time to time; she knows I'm more plugged in, and when I give her the white-paper abstract version on a topic, she can then apply her wisdom muscles to plot an appropriate course of action.

It takes all types, and networking.., works!
 
Top Bottom