25 thoughts on “Climate Change”

  1. Mental illness manifests in many forms. I hope she eventually seeks treatment. Would not her time be better spent running for office to change policy rather than on feckless ‘activism’? I pity her parents.

    1. h/t to William Barton in advance, who I know would have provided this correction had I given him a chance:

      …rather than on feckless feculent ‘activism’?

  2. I can’t take this seriously. Using one demented woman to represent an entire movement is problematical in the extreme. It’s no different than the the events of 1/6 being held up as representative of conservatives and/or Republicans in general.

    It’s sad that discourse has descended to this level.

    1. Only it isn’t one demented person. It is hundreds of millions of people across the globe but instead of nameless faceless people we see blocking roads, lighting themselves on fire, derailing trains, killing animals, and other forms of protest and terrorism, we see the story of an individual that is caught up in the religiosity and extremism.

      Behind every member of this cult, there is a similar tragic story.

      1. It is hundreds of millions of people across the globe but instead of nameless faceless people we see blocking roads, lighting themselves on fire, derailing trains, killing animals, and other forms of protest…

        I’m sorry but you lose all credibility when you claim hundreds of millions of people are doing that stuff. Demonizing people is not an effective strategy for dealing with them. It doesn’t work when they do it to you. Why do you expect it to work when you do it to them?

        1. I’m not going to waste my time finding a link to that ludicrous display at the last dem president debate where they all raised their hands when asked if they agree that the most existential threat the country faces today is it’s weather. I’ll just point out how many millions of people voted for the one who came out on top.
          And if “demonizing” that mentally defective twit in the OP is the wrong approach, what’s the right one? Humor? Sympathy? Boredom?
          I’m listening.

          1. It is one thing to believe global warming to be a serious threat. It is quite another to dump feces on a statue. Pretending the former is just like the latter is demonizing the former by conflating them with the latter. Surely, you can see this?

            If that’s not clear try this this similar situation. It is one thing to claim that electric cars are a poor choice for consumers. It is quite another to vandalize charging stations. Is it fair to denounce everyone who has doubts about global warming, the effect of CO2, the efficacy or electric cars, etc. as vandals because a minute few of them are actually vandalizing charging stations? I don’t think so.

            Every movement, group, political party, or whatever has a lunatic fringe. Judging a group by it’s lunatic fringe is just grossly unfair. Since you’re here on Rand’s blog maybe you’re a space advocate. Would you like to be branded as a scientific illiterate because some space advocates believe in EM drive, ancient astronauts, and alien abductions?

          2. Thanks for not answering my simple question. Hell you didn’t even address it. I’m guessing it’s because I didn’t provide enough suggestions. Specifically this one: Set-to-ignore. That’s the correct one, right Jim? If we can all just agree that these ignorant, detestable vandals should receive no publicity, no coverage, that recording their actions in any way should be outlawed, we’d all be so much better off. Right Jim? That way we’ll all be relieved of the stressful and harmful exposure to this “lunatic fringe”. We’ll all be free to comfortably conclude they don’t exist. And wouldn’t that be a much better world?

            Again, a simple question Jim. Care to try again?

          3. Curt, you’re being silly. The issue is not demonizing the lunatic fringe it’s demonizing everyone that happens to have something in common with them. One hardly needs to demonize a mass shooter. It’s demonizing all gun owners because of a mass shooting that is objectionable. Or demonizing all climate activist because one of them is pouring feces on a statue.

            I’m not sure why you’re having such a hard time with this.

          4. One last time Jim. Here’s what you said:
            Demonizing people is not an effective strategy for dealing with them.
            If the “people” you’re referring to in that comment are the sane, rational folks who are being unfairly “demonized” by being grouped with the idiotic twit in the OP, why do you think they need to be “dealt with”.
            On the other hand, if “people” means the idiotic twits themselves (as I think is a reasonable interpretation of what you said), then what is an effective strategy?

          5. If the “people” you’re referring to in that comment are the sane, rational folks who are being unfairly “demonized” by being grouped with the idiotic twit in the OP, why do you think they need to be “dealt with”.

            Because they are numerous and extremely influential in all aspects of American and international life. If they enact new taxes or raise old ones you and I have to pay them. If their governors say you have to be vaccinated or wear a mask or else you can’t do x you and I will be getting vaccinated or wearing a mask or not doing x. If their school boards say this will be taught in schools and this will not be taught in schools our children will be taught or not taught those things.

            Demonizing them is just another way of giving in to them. Surely we can do better?

          6. “Demonizing them is just another way of giving in to them. Surely we can do better?”

            To solve a problem, you must first accurately define the problem. What is a good way to deprogram a cultist? Or what is a good way to persuade people whose views are not rational? Those are great questions. I don’t disagree that persuasion is what we need.

            The problem is that a great many of these people can’t be reasoned with to an extent they abandon their religious beliefs about climate. At best, you could move them a position or two away from where they are. Any change will take a long time.

        2. There are that many people who think that way, a sizeable percentage that will protest, and a small percentage that will engage in terrorism or stunts like lighting themselves on fire. I am not demonizing them. I am accurately relating the activities they engage in.

          With the story that started this, we saw an individual rather than a nameless faceless mass of people marching through the streets but there is a similar personal tragedy for each of those people swept up in this anti-human nonsense.

          In that comment, I wasn’t trying to deprogram anyone or lead them away from their cult. I was just stating reality. It tears at my soul to see people conned into thinking we are living in an apocalypse when we live in the best time to ever be alive as a human being.

  3. People like Dr. Norman Borlaug, Father of the Green Revolution, left the world a better place. This useless twit only leaves it worse…

  4. The greatest tool in my educational stack that helps me understand the world we live in and the people who inhabit it are the lessons I learned in Anthropology. I have long thought that science has become a religion, and same with climate change. It wasn’t until I was a little older that I became aware of what Michael Crichton thinks about this development and found that I had come to largely the same conclusion he did.

    He lays things out is this speech.

    https://spreadgreatideas.org/resources/speeches/michael-crichton-environmentalism-is-a-religion/

    But there is also a warning in there for the atheists who think they are immune from the human condition, you aren’t.

    1. “I have long thought that science has become a religion, and same with climate change.”

      Bill Gates is it would seem a convert to said “religion”. Bill Gates is apparently the largest private farmland owner in the US; and according to Jordan Peterson he is taking the land out of production:

      Jordan Peterson EXPOSES Bill Gates Nasty Plan

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBs34Frdxwo

      Apparently he has a giant woody against people eating meat.

        1. “Maybe he wants to grow bugs there.”

          For people other than him to have to eat of course; sure Gates still has his Filet mignon whenever he wants it. I guess worse case scenario if mass famine is the result the government could use eminent domain to seize the land (compensating him as they see fit) and then sell it back to farmers. Assuming in the interim he doesn’t do something to said land to make it no longer productive farmland

  5. After learning how Facebook and social media almost certainly “caused” two genocides (one was discovered after the fact, the other was genociding along until they turned off Facebook and then the genocide stopped), I fear that you are right about atheism. Humans have two brains, one that is logical and one that is emotional. It is from live brain scans that they are processed in different areas. Humans do not seem to be able to tell which one they are using without training.

    Almost all of our modern political discussion is emotional brain. Hate, fear, etc abound. Reasoned positions are not discussed.

    This will end in fire, unfortunately.

    1. Let’s hope the emotional side of humanity can be harnessed in a way that isn’t detrimental and that rational thought can play a role in it.

  6. What come to mind if global air temperature increasing by 5 C. Goes from about 15 C [cold] to 20 C
    almost warm.
    Well we would be still in an Ice Age.
    We are so deep into this Ice Age +5 C doesn’t make it warm. It goes back to a warmer time in our Ice Age.
    Try something different how about our cold ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C, increases by 5 C.
    Ok that means I believe, we would have left the Ice Age. Or 8.5 C ocean is still cold, but would radially change our global climate.
    NASA and NOAA say more than 90% of global warming as warmed our cold ocean.
    My only doubt or question is, how much more than 90%.
    Could it be 95%? 99%?
    Does anyone know what happens if our ocean warms so it’s 4 C
    How about if it become 5 C
    As far as I know, our ocean has not warmed to 5 C in the last million years.
    And before got into this Ice Age, I would guess our ocean could been 7 to 8 C.
    Anyhow 5 C is what is called the end of world, it would cause an average temperature of 20 C or more.
    And we would still be in an Ice Age.
    Millions nukes couldn’t warm our ocean to 5 C, it would require a very large space rock.
    And it’s immediate impact would count as the end of the world {or close enough].

    1. The warmer ocean may have added as much a meter to sea levels, our warmer ocean may have caused a few inches to sea level.
      A meter rise from thermal expansion is an ocean with average temperature of about 4.5 C

Comments are closed.