Eschatology and Global Warming

Good point.

 

Climate alarmism is a fundamentally religious, not scientific belief.
A Short Political History of Climate Change
Bill Ponton, Princeton Venture Advisory (Sept ’24)
When does the fantasy end for them? It doesn’t. They derive life’s meaning from this endeavor. They will try to implement evermore convoluted net zero schemes in the hope that…
Towards the end of the 20th century, passion for environmental causes displaced much of the socialist fervor of an earlier period. Environmental poisoning has been the overarching theme of the environmental movement, but the targets chosen for demonization changed over the years. The list of targets includes DDT, asbestos, nuclear power, CFCs, acid rain and more. In retrospect, the struggle against these things may not have satisfied fully the quest by movement members for self-meaning in the way that socialism had for a previous generation. The movement craved for an existential environmental threat that would infuse more passion and meaning to their fight. However, there was already an existential threat of global annihilation from nuclear war that hung over mankind. The environmental movement was going to find it hard to come up with an existential threat that topped nuclear armageddon, but with the introduction of climate catastrophism they were on their way to success. . . .

 

It is estimated that banning DDT resulted in ~ 50 million deaths from malaria.

https://www.discoverthenetworks.org...on-ddt-caused-50-million-deaths-from-malaria/

 

Yes..... the zeal of Al Gore's supporters... and Bill Gate's supporters.....

is comparable to a religious zeal.... I actually ran into one of Bill Gates's supporters who asserted that he would

quite possibly make plans to euthanize himself if he concluded that his Carbon Footprint was too high........

[which to his mind would make him a danger to the other seven point nine billion of us]!?

I really did not even know how to reply to this man.......

there is a level of Religious Zeal that to my thinking is impossible to talk somebody out of.

But.... AL GORE was terribly intellectually dishonest when he attempted to leave us with the impression that a Carbon Tax

could in any way protect low lying real estate from the threat of rising ocean levels.

The LAND BASED Greenland Ice Sheet is less white these past ten to twenty years so obviously

large chunks of ice will tend to crack and slide from off the land based Greenland Ice Sheet more rapidly than was the case even a decade ago.

But by far the greater danger for rapidly rising ocean levels is the physics of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that is

resting on ice... that is below sea level... so rapid cracking and sliding of ice off the W.A.I.S. could be set in motion

for many reasons.

I believe that deliberately turning deserts green using Israeli mega-scale sea water desalination technology is great news

for all owners of real estate that is vulnerable to the threat of rising ocean levels.

The Truth about Climate Change can play a significant role in assisting the nation of Israel to economically cooperate with

all of Israel's neighbours.........

and my nation Canada is in an interesting position to get people thinking about this very different angle on stabilization of the climate......


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-record-high-in-2022.607027/#post-1073948749

Immigration levels to Canada hit record high in 2022 ..

https://www.water-technology.net/projects/sorek-desalination-plant/

 

In the service of their "noble cause," alarmists have weaponized peer review.
Weaponizing Peer Review With 'Tactical Science'
Roger Pielke, Jr., The Honest Broker

 

The millenarians have disagreement in their ranks.
Civil War Breaks Out in the Green Blob But Don’t Expect the BBC to Report it
by Chris Morrison
The hatred arises because carbon capture is seen as legitimising the continued use of hydrocarbons. The less insane greens are finally realising that they cannot ban hydrocarbons altogether. This is…

Greens hate hydrocarbons but open warfare is breaking out in their ranks as the world outside their luxury millenarian cult realises it is impossible to run a modern industrial society without hydrocarbons. In the U.K., the penny is finally dropping that gas is the only realistic backup to an electricity system powered by unreliable breezes and sunbeams. But at the same time the mad Miliband crew is closing down local oil and gas exploration, and step forward Professor Robert Howarth of Cornell University who claims transportable American liquified natural gas (LNG) has a bigger ‘carbon’ footprint than coal. The Guardian was all over an early draft of Cornell’s work which helped support last year’s pause by the Biden Administration of pending LNG export permits. LNG was described as a carbon “mega bomb”. Cornell’s work was funded by the billionaire Park Foundation which supports ‘progressive’ causes and divestment from oil and gas extraction. By a happy coincidence – such coincidences, of course, being common in the complex webs of the Green Blob – Park has given $650,000 to the Guardian over the last three years. . . .

In understanding these civil war battles that are breaking out in the green movement, the general public is hamstrung by a news blackout long imposed on all sceptical consideration of Net Zero and climate science. The BBC can broadcast a 40 minute antisemitic rant by the Iranian leader justifying the rape and slaughter of women and children in Israel, but it will not consider a single second of sceptical comment around the ‘settled’ science of climate change. It justifies the former with a free speech, need-to-inform argument, but withholds such an indulgence over Net Zero. As a result, a Potemkin village of fake science, fudged weather figures, ridiculous computer model attributions and predictions and Jim Dale/Dale Vince pronouncements are allowed to flourish with little or no push back permitted. Largely unreported are the increasingly vicious battles breaking out in the green movement as it continues on its handcart-to-hell journey. . . .

 

The righteous need sympathy.
The Oppressed Scientist: When Emotions Replace Objectivity in Climate Research
Charles Rotter
If climate scientists want to be taken seriously, they need to stop whining about how hard their job is and start focusing on doing it well. Until then, they’re not…

It’s time we asked an important question: who needs cold, unfeeling objectivity when you’re saving the world from a climate apocalypse? Apparently not climate scientists, according to the recently published article in Nature Climate Change by Schipper, Maharaj, and Pecl. This manifesto—masquerading as a scientific commentary—argues that emotions, anxieties, and grievances belong in the laboratory, right next to the Bunsen burners and climate models. Because, why not?

The piece begins with a bold premise: “The dominant paradigm holding that science is always objective needs to be challenged.” And challenged it is! Objectivity, the bedrock of scientific inquiry, is brushed aside as an oppressive relic of a bygone era. Why? Because, they claim, suppressing emotions weakens climate science. How, exactly? They don’t explain that, but their assertions are thick with the aroma of self-righteous victimhood. . . .

 

You can't make this stuff up. smh

 

The alarmists' fervor is indeed religious.
Psychoanalysis on Climate ‘Denial’? (stranger and stranger)
By Robert Bradley Jr. Climate alarmists live in a self-righteous bubble where humankind is the scoundrel. Nature is optimal and fragile; anthropogenic change cannot be good, even toward greening, warming, and moistening. Think about…

 

Yes, we can always be fully confident that if any one person in a select group possesses an odd or self-righteous or even psychologically twisted viewpoint toward the occupation of their select group that the majority of their cohort shares their particular and questionable perspective.

 

The three authors' article was published in Nature Climate Change.

 

Yeah, so why was the paper published in a climate science journal rather than an abnormal psychology journal, hmmmm?

 

Yup. Three out of how many?

Beekeepers are pretty emotional about the current massive bee die-off. I guess they're not to be trusted either. Kinda like medical professionals during COVID . . . too emotional to trust. Besides, on climate change we can surely trust an "anti" website.

 

Do you dispute the publication in Nature Climate Change? If not, then I suggest you knock off trying to bring WUWT into the discussion. Nature Climate Change chose to publish.
Three out of how many? That's an unimportant question. The decision to publish suggests there's an audience.

 

He has no argument to make just complain about it being published thus he has nothing to build on against it.

 

Per the scientific method only one is required.

 

Those pushing the CO2 climate narrative tell you to trust them. Climate realists encourage you to think for yourself.

 

Oh yeah, there's an audience. There's an audience for violence, sociopathic acts, trump, fascism, B&D, and sexual perversion among other evils.

Your website publishes only anti-climate change propaganda from what I saw.

 

If you post what YOU think I have, you must have no argument, yourself, or you would have posted it.

The majority of people and climatologists want to cut climate change by cutting CO2 by cutting fossil fuel consumption. And we will win as we ignore you.

 

Your opinion of WUWT is irrelevant to the question, and certainly a matter of indifference to me. The three authors' call for what might be termed faith-based climate science seems more on-topic in this particular thread.

 

It indicates that your defense that it was three authors, and your anti-CC website, are both meaningless. You're VASTLY outnumbered.

 

LOL I was talking about your failure to rebut anything JACK posted.

You have no argument which is why you don't debate anything.

 

So, you have no argument to offer just bellicose replies, that looks a lot like you have nothing useful to post.

 

He is making it clear he didn't read the paper at all...... , which is why he is being bellicose against it as a defensive response.

 

If you understand the scientific method you understand that one us enough. Consensus is not science.