U.S.—A series of new bills working their way through state legislatures in New York, California, Oregon, Hawaii, and several other progressive states will require you to listen to a Greta Thunberg lecture before purchasing gasoline.
Motorists will be required to watch a 20-minute lecture by the 16-year-old climate activist before they purchase gallons and gallons of harmful fossil fuels.
"We want to make sure drivers are informed," said California Governor Gavin Newsom, who says he will sign the bill into law. "So we are having them get lectured by a 16-year-old so they will have all the facts before they do something rash like put gasoline in their cars to go to work."
Once the driver has listened to Thunberg's entire lecture, they will be prompted to complete a quick, fifteen-question quiz to show they understand how horrible they are for driving a car. Drivers who get at least 80% will then be allowed to refuel their vehicles. As they refuel, the screen will simply play a clip of Thunberg saying, "How dare you!" over and over again.
The law will not apply to celebrities purchasing jet fuel.
Yes, you would be dumb enough to quote the Babylon Bee as a reliable source for information. It is satire.
For some reason you're scared of global warming. What if it was the reverse. What if we were talking about a colder climate that would bring on really harsh winter's and shorter growing periods for farmers? Would that worry you? If so, if you are worried about global warming, and if you would be equally worried about the reverse, global cooling, then you're one of those people who make a perfect cult member because no matter what the Prophets say, you're going to believe.
This makes no sense at all. Our civilization is predicated on the assumption that the climate will be more or less the same as it has been since the last ice age ended: that all the regions where humans farm will still have arable land and adequate water supplies, that our ports will be at sea level rather than above or below it, that our cities won't suffer heat or cold too extreme for our technology to protect the inhabitants from the temperature. If we were looking at a new ice age, we'd be worried about farmland becoming too cold for crops to grow and millions of people freezing to death. In the warmer climate we're expecting instead, we're looking at farmland becoming desertified and millions of people dying of high wet-bulb temperatures.
Sometimes people believe in false things for good reasons. They have some decent evidence and arguments, but unfortunately their evidence is incomplete and they've overlooked a few subtle flaws in their arguments.
It's more common, though, for people to believe true things for bad reasons. The good reasons are often hard to understand, so it's hard to base belief on them. And if what you believe for bad reasons is actually true, then reality usually won't bite you too hard for your mistaken belief.
That means that it's not a good idea to judge whether something is true or false by looking at the irrational reasons some people have for believing or doubting it. Just because many people who believe in something do so for bad reasons does not mean they are wrong.
Drawing conclusions on complex subjects just by analysing people's motives is foolish. So what if lots of people believe in climate change in an irrationally religious way?
Isaac Asimov wrote:It is the chief characteristic of the religion of science that it works.
One sign of being in a cult is the repeating of the same phrases over and over despite the fact that the phrases are false. And that’s what Atlantic Mike is doing. Why is he obsessed with describing groups of people he doesn’t like as “cults?” Because that lets him dismiss huge amounts of evidence without ever grappling with them to figure out what they mean. It’s also projection. He’s a member of a political cult and, as a result, sees everything he doesn’t like as political.
Nailed it. Projection appears to be the first defense mechanism among Right Wing religious types. The examples are numerous. Claim to care about law and order, but then embrace politicians who've engaged in the most criminal activity. Claim to care about lives of children, but then support policies that kill them. Embrace sources that are fake news, but then claim all sources contradicting your beliefs to be fake news. This is all very much like the Mormon's defense mechanism of calling everything "anti-Mormon" as if that is supposed to negate the information that refutes a religious premise. The first job of any cult is to convince the sheep that everyone else is lying to them.
He states that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. But so what? The important time frame for us is the period time during which there have been humans and, more importantly, during which human civilization has developed. We built our civilization during a period of remarkably stable climactic period, and it was built with an assumption of continued stability.
Precisely. Who cares if the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago when the issue before us is climate? The earth likely didn't even have an atmosphere for a billion years and no breathable oxygen to sustain human life until about 400 million years ago.
But worst of all, he talks about global temperature changes as if they were magic—that they just happen for no reason.
Kind of like COVID miraculously going away before Easter 2020.
I think you undergeneralize. Projection is a defense mechanism common to humans of all political flavors. It's easiest for you and me to see on the right because we're on the left. But projection seems to be one of those features of human brains that we have to continually fight if we want to try and get a clear picture of what's going on. I wouldn't mention it at all but for the fact that Mike keeps dropping in to a discussion about science, reciting the equivalent of the Catholic catechism, and then mocking a bunch of stuff that isn't science. He does this repeatedly, even though the science itself is literally at his fingertips.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Our civilization is predicated on the assumption that the climate will be more or less the same as it has been since the last ice age ended: that all the regions where humans farm will still have arable land and adequate water supplies, that our ports will be at sea level rather than above or below it, that our cities won't suffer heat or cold too extreme for our technology to protect the inhabitants from the temperature. If we were looking at a new ice age, we'd be worried about farmland becoming too cold for crops to grow and millions of people freezing to death. In the warmer climate we're expecting instead, we're looking at farmland becoming desertified and millions of people dying of high wet-bulb temperatures.
What about Golf Courses?
I am laughing so hard... "predicated on the assumption." That is the winner of winners and sums this all up very well. I do not agree with the claim entirely, but I know you said it, and it is damn funny. If you look at the growth of the hedge fund industry and specifically short selling, you will see how important this concept of a foundation of assumptions is and how easy it is to exploit. Anything that is "predicated on the assumption" is not likely grounded in facts. Once something is known to be founded on assumptions, it is like blood in the water (that is a metaphor, for Res) and anyone that can exploit the assumptions will do just that.
Now, exploiting the assumptions is not just something that short sellers do. That is something that the crooks do on the long side too. Look at Enron and the mortgage crisis which were high profile cases. Look also at Madoff. A very contemporary case is Theranos. Anytime there are assumptions at the foundation of anything, people will exploit the assumptions for their own benefit, and others will expose those assumptions for their benefit.
Manetho, this post of yours is just garbage and it is all easily debunked. Obviously, our civilization was not predicated on the assumption that all the regions where humans farm would still have arable land and water supplies. That is a simplification predicated on the assumption of stupidity. It is easily debunked. It may be true for a development, it was never true for civilization. Prior to the industrial age, we did not have the means to communicate this kind of information. In this era, we do not have the means to reach consensus for it.
Write better.
If it's easy to debunk, then debunk it. So far you haven't even scratched it.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Global warming is going to be beneficial to a growing global population.
One could argue that it could, although current crop tech and knowledge points to the opposite conclusion. I’ve posted some information on this that you’ve just ignored in order to keep making the same, unsupported claim. What you’re doing qualifies for ‘cult’ behavior more than anyone else in the discussion.
But that’s not even the real issue. The problem is the rate of change, not change itself. It doesn’t matter if 300,000 years ago that the average temperatures were 10 degrees higher, or lower. What matters is that if a large enough change occurs in just 150 years, the biological infrastructure that we depend upon doesn’t adapt in the same time frame. That causes problems, to put it mildly.
Manetho, this post of yours is just garbage and it is all easily debunked.
The usual response. No substance from you.
Obviously, our civilization was not predicated on the assumption that all the regions where humans farm would still have arable land and water supplies. That is a simplification predicated on the assumption of stupidity. It is easily debunked. It may be true for a development, it was never true for civilization. Prior to the industrial age, we did not have the means to communicate this kind of information. In this era, we do not have the means to reach consensus for it.
Write better.
As if there’s not going to be some geopolitical conflict within the next 150 years once the major source of corn production has shifted out of the US Midwest to elsewhere, and while the world becomes more dependent on parts of Asia and Africa gaining arable land for rice, while drought and usable water supplies shift globally.
One could argue that it could, although current crop tech and knowledge points to the opposite conclusion. I’ve posted some information on this that you’ve just ignored in order to keep making the same, unsupported claim. What you’re doing qualifies for ‘cult’ behavior more than anyone else in the discussion.
But that’s not even the real issue. The problem is the rate of change, not change itself. It doesn’t matter if 300,000 years ago that the average temperatures were 10 degrees higher, or lower. What matters is that if a large enough change occurs in just 150 years, the biological infrastructure that we depend upon doesn’t adapt in the same time frame. That causes problems, to put it mildly.
In 150 years Elon Musk will still be alive because he will transplant his brain in a younger body and there will be a thriving population on Mars. Humans will be traveling back and forth to earth for vacation. See!! I just solved everything for you, no worries!!
Maybe some first-world folks will be taking moon vacations then. But a few billion other folks elsewhere may have more serious worries about everyday survival than wondering what to pack in their vacation luggage.
I shouldn't even bother, but it really grinds my gears when people ignore or dismiss evidence when it's presented to them. If you look at my other major participation on the board since it migrated, in the threads on Jesus mythicism, you'll see the same motivation on my part (though that comparison is seriously unfair to Dastardly Stem, who engaged with other people's arguments to a far greater extent than these clowns seem capable of).
There has not been evidence of the predication. Carry on with your yoga. If you can't reach your own back here in Paradise, have a friend pat you until you can limber up.
Are you going to debunk his easily debunked post?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
