Twenty years of Real Climate blogging. Anybody listening?
Posted by Der on December 14, 2024, 9:03 pm
Twenty years of blogging in hindsight. ... "One thing that I didn’t anticipate then was the vast global scale that fake news and conspiracy theories later would attain. Neither did I foresee how they would penetrate other disciplines, nor the extent of the division in today’s society between those who value truths and those who don’t..."
(It must be a sad, fruitless job being a climate scientist. Expecting people who have no background in science to believe that their activities are impacting the temperature of the planet. Why would they believe such a thing?)
It's not even about taking on the sceptics and deniers. I could understand those posts getting a bit heated. But most of these feckers - the regulars - just seem to hate each other. They'll fight over anything. I think they lie in wait for each other. The sceptics must go home happy thinking they're doing my job for me.
One guy gets jumped on because he said "Russiagate was a hoax"!
Read the articles not the comments seems to be the solution. But then again sometimes you learn a lot from the comments...
That one guy who says Russiagate is a sham is the only guy who blames capitalism for climate change.
The rest of them dismiss him (Dharma) as a troll and a socialist.
Here's an example of one of his comments:
"please try to instead think outside the myopic box of climate science pronouncements and consider the bigger picture involved. Example is no where does Rasmus address the implications of Economics or Consumerism or the Financial Systems as being drivers of climate change and global warming.
That's spot on.
Anyway, I've read enough of their comments. For now...
Don't get me wrong. It's a good website. But you need a strong stomach.
Reminds me of a cat I used have. Whenever he saw two cats fighting he would pick sides and jump right in. Even if he'd never seen either of the two cats in his life before.
Re: That one guy who says Russiagate is a sham is the only guy who blames capitalism for climate change.
Thanks. It's clear from the graph that we are on an inevitable path to global warming, with, one assumes an inevitable 'tip-point'. I think this needs to be discussed at some point too. For example, the Atlantic Gulf stream 'tip point' with reference to the salinity of rotating vertical streams. So far, I haven't seen a verdict regarding this event.
In a broader context, we have zero chance with the US/EU led, i.e. the 'golden' billion power block, getting us out of this jam. My hope is with BRICS.
Cheers
And even if all three cats believed in Anthropogenic Climate Change. nm
Bless, they still believe this is about communication, and getting the message through to policymakers, the public, even fossil fuel ceos. Not the slightest understanding of the power of the filtering system, or even basic human psychology, they're just not explaining it well enough. It's like Gandhi writing to his 'sincere friend' Adolf Hitler, about how what he was doing was bad and he should stop, and then being surprised that he didn't: https://www.mkgandhi.org/letters/hitler_ltr1.php The blindspots on russiagate and the trustworthiness of the msm are more evidence of their lack of political understanding. De-smog are the same - they can grasp the implications of the science but have a playground understanding of how it interacts with society. Trump Baaaaaad!
No worries. Also reminds me about Roger Hallam's sage advice to the Palestinians which I think we talked about before: 'This is the hidden and dark origin of the modern notion of nonviolence. Not the shallow contemporary obsession with “what works”. Love works because it does not work. It only works when it is done for itself. Only the very few receive the gift of this realisation but society is always redeemed by the actions of the very few.
For Gaza love in action would require a hundred people to sit by the road and stop eating and drinking. When asked what they are doing, they would say they are waiting to die, or the killing needs to stop. They would win because love is prepared to die for love. And many of the hundred might indeed die before love shames those doing the killing to stop. They are warriors of god.
Of course, people will be outraged. But why object to a few people dying for love when thousands die for hate?
To be clear then; love is only love when it is for itself; because love is god and god is for god. Infinite.
And those who die for love, with mayhem happening all around them, will have a smile on their face. They have entered the Kingdom as it was once called. Reunited with the One. At peace at last.' - https://rogerhallam.com/gaza-on-love-and-forgiveness/
A peculiar kind of sickness in the liberal mind when it preaches nonviolence to the oppressed. It's like they're bragging about being ineffective, that even to think that what you're doing should have some kind of chance of success and create some practical change or relief in the short term is somehow unenlightened or a failure of spiritual purity. They think they're above it all basically, and when the lower orders fail to live up to the standards they demand they're often more angry about those resisting than with those using violence against them. Gandhi was especially bad on this, eg:
'On 6 April [1919] there were general strikes in most Indian towns and cities with widespread displays of Hindu-Muslim unity. The protests were generally peaceful, although there were some clashes, particularly in Punjab, where the governor, Michael O’Dwyer, was a strong proponent of repression. When Gandhi was arrested (he was soon released) to stop him travelling to Punjab, however, serious rioting broke out. In Ahmedabad the textile workers took to the streets, fighting with the police and burning down government buildings, offices and police stations (51 buildings were destroyed). By the time the police had regained control of the city, 28 people had been killed, including a British police sergeant. There was a two-day general strike in Bombay on 10 and 11 April that went off without violence, but in Calcutta on the 12th troops machine-gunned a crowd, killing nine people. Gandhi was appalled by the violence which he blamed on the people rather than the police. According to his doctrine, there should never be retaliation against police attack. indeed, on 14 April he wrote to the viceroy to condemn events in Ahmedabad as “utter lawlessness bordering almost on Bolshevism”. He expressed “the deepest humiliation and regret” that the people were not yet ready for non-violence, that he had “underrated the power of hatred and ill will”. This completely ignored the fact that deaths and injuries were overwhelmingly inflicted by the police and troops' - John Newsinger, 'The Blood Never Dried', p.111
on December 14, 2024, 9:03 pm