Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[Shaul]

So you're saying wars are random chaos with no command structure or strategy ? Also, weather can't be magically confined within national boarders.

I wrote the opposite.

 

[wellwisher]

My concern is natural climate change is also real. Data shows climate change is natural to the earth and has cycled warm to cold and cold to warm over the past billion years. Say we are in a natural cycle that will occur, even if we cripple the world economies, placing all the eggs in the manmade basket?

There are already predictions, that even if we stop green house gas, the temperature will continue to rise. I tend to think this is connected to the unspoken natural climate change. So say we waste $100 trillion of resources, and the climate is still getting worse, now more people will be unable to adapt, thinking we are done.

Would it not be a better idea to adapt to the change, now? For example, we can change building codes to be at least 100 ft above sea level. This does not cost anything, other than target some choices in the name of future safety.

The way this is being done, is a money grab. Those $trillions destined to third world countries, will be skimmed worse than the $200 billion stolen during COVID solution. It will leave people behind, when adaptation is paramount.

I do not mind if the earth gets warmer. I live where there are four seasons, with a change to three and a half seasons being just fine. I am also about 150 feet above sea level. Being harmed by economic chaos and world wide inflation would bring worse hardship. The Kerry's and other like him, will be sitting pretty, with their skim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.

Ummm ... how?
How are the two parts of this sentence even connected to each other?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

And if the couch had not been moved it would have affected some of you more than others. Hope that helps.

Potentially, but regardless, a problem that requires a group effort is best solved by cooperation.

In the case of climate change, the unfortunate truth is that it really is a global problem that will ultimately impact everyone, but those with less resources the most. The tyranny is that those with the most resources are unwilling to let go of these resources for positive global change.

Thus, a whole political party has decided to engage the public in Orwellian tactics of doublespeak denying climate change while the other one engages in lipservice and some positive interventions in order to maintain power and control of resources.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

My concern is natural climate change is also real. Data shows climate change is natural to the earth and has cycled warm to cold and cold to warm over the past billion years. Say we are in a natural cycle that will occur, even if we cripple the world economies, placing all the eggs in the manmade basket?

Even if climate change isn't being impacted by human activity (extremely unlikely given the evidence), as @Daemon Sophic's cartoon in post #3 suggests, we would be better off changing our energy usage anyway. Surviving in a world with dramatic climate change is going to be easier with cleaner water and air regardless of the source.

There are already predictions, that even if we stop green house gas, the temperature will continue to rise. I tend to think this is connected to the unspoken natural climate change. So say we waste $100 trillion of resources, and the climate is still getting worse, now more people will be unable to adapt, thinking we are done.

Humans will adapt. I don't think we'd just give up. Also, do you really think investing in innovative energy infrastructure is a waste?

Would it not be a better idea to adapt to the change, now? For example, we can change building codes to be at least 100 ft above sea level. This does not cost anything, other than target some choices in the name of future safety.

The way this is being done, is a money grab. Those $trillions destined to third world countries, will be skimmed worse than the $200 billion stolen during COVID solution. It will leave people behind, when adaptation is paramount.

If the adaptation doesn't cost anything, then why not do both, and make sure the "skimming" is minimized by oversight?

I do not mind if the earth gets warmer. I live where there are four seasons, with a change to three and a half seasons being just fine. I am also about 150 feet above sea level. Being harmed by economic chaos and world wide inflation would bring worse hardship. The Kerry's and other like him, will be sitting pretty, with their skim.

And how about food supply, which is very likely going to be impacted? How will you feel when everyone in intolerable areas of the world begin migrating to your part of the world? How about when resource wars begin impacting the economy and everyone's life? How about rising crime as poverty increases and resources become more scarce?

 

[exchemist]

Even if climate change isn't being impacted by human activity (extremely unlikely given the evidence), as @Daemon Sophic's cartoon in post #3 suggests, we would be better off changing our energy usage anyway. Surviving in a world with dramatic climate change is going to be easier with cleaner water and air regardless of the source.



Humans will adapt. I don't think we'd just give up. Also, do you really think investing in innovative energy infrastructure is a waste?




If the adaptation doesn't cost anything, then why not do both, and make sure the "skimming" is minimized by oversight?



And how about food supply, which is very likely going to be impacted? How will you feel when everyone in intolerable areas of the world begin migrating to your part of the world? How about when resource wars begin impacting the economy and everyone's life? How about rising crime as poverty increases and resources become more scarce?

Re your last para, agree entirely.

It really pisses me off to read people complacently saying "I'll be OK, where I live, so f*** the rest of humanity". This is exactly what I meant in post 12 when I spoke of "a self-serving culture that glorifies individualism to the point that any kind of social interdependence is denied". It's all this Ayn Rand crap, rebranding selfishness as a virtue.

(It is, by the way, the antithesis of the Christian message, for those on the Right who profess to be Christian, as so many do.)

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Re your last para, agree entirely.

It really pisses me off to read people complacently saying "I'll be OK, where I live, so f*** the rest of humanity". This is exactly what I meant in post 12 when I spoke of "a self-serving culture that glorifies individualism to the point that any kind of social interdependence is denied". It's all this Ayn Rand crap, rebranding selfishness as a virtue.

(It is, by the way, the antithesis of the Christian message, for those on the Right who profess to be Christian, as so many do.)

It's also ridiculously shortsighted. Humanity can no longer think regionally. We are going to have to start thinking globally whether we want to or not. What happens in one place is going to have an effect on everyone.

 

[exchemist]

It's also ridiculously shortsighted. Humanity can no longer think regionally. We are going to have to start thinking globally whether we want to or not. What happens in one place is going to have an effect on everyone.

That's a widespread issue. It's hard to get voters to understand that the reason the rich countries provide aid to the poor ones is out of long-term self-interest. We know that wars, famines and revolutions in distant parts of the world can often come to bite us in the bum. Climate change is just one example of that.

 

[wellwisher]

But Biden is really what this is all about, isn't it. Since conservatives can no longer deny global climate change, the next best way to take the blame away from corporate industrial pollution is to get people to blame the government. The capitalists always want us to blame the government for the damage they cause so we won't blame them, and so they can keep the government weak and subservient. And since the Republican Party is just a toady for the corporate oligarchy, blaming the democrats in government, specifically, will be the ideal goal.

Natural climate change, has been documented, for the last 1 billion years, by geologists. The earth does climate change all the time, in various cycles of warming and cooling. We came out of the last ice age, when the glaciers were thousands of miles further south; to NYC, then they were 100 years ago. The glaciers melted back to modern days; Arctic Circle, all without humans. The earth can do great things all by itself. There was an ice age where the ice reach the equator and warming cycles where Canada became tropical.

Where the scam comes in, is creating a manmade bogeyman, to blame natural events onto.

This tactic is not new. It has occurred throughout history, such as a solar eclipse being blamed on witches, so they could be rounded up and killed. The people will not be able to deny, what they saw with their eyes; the eclipse, therefore it must be the witches. They were not told eclipses are natural or else they would not act.

The Democrats party has been after the Big Oil Witch, for decades. Even in the 1960's they did not like them. They only donate to the Republicans. They needed an eclipse of sorts. It was first global warming. But Global warming was not making people scared enough. They rebranded it to climate change, since they needed a scarier eclipse of common sense. Earth Climate is never static. Ir cycles but there is noise between cycles. They decided to blame the witches for climate change, since all will see the scary change, that also occurs naturally, but which will be blamed on the witches.

The Political Left did a good job selling the Russian Collusion Coup, that sacrificed freedoms. This shows these people know how to play games, stage illusions, censor and intimidate those who do not go along. Plus then do not ever get punished at the ballot box, since their base is ready for the next game.

 

[Shaul]

Ummm ... how?
How are the two parts of this sentence even connected to each other?

They are connected. By definition anthroprogenic climate change is done by people. Governments are composed of people and therefore can do anything people can. Governments are certainly possible of committing tyranny. A government bent on tyranny could use climate change as the vehicle. They are connected.

 

[Shaul]

Potentially, but regardless, a problem that requires a group effort is best solved by cooperation.

In the case of climate change, the unfortunate truth is that it really is a global problem that will ultimately impact everyone, but those with less resources the most. The tyranny is that those with the most resources are unwilling to let go of these resources for positive global change.

Thus, a whole political party has decided to engage the public in Orwellian tactics of doublespeak denying climate change while the other one engages in lipservice and some positive interventions in order to maintain power and control of resources.

You presume that governments seek cooperation to "solve" problems more than they seek their own interests. That is not proven by history.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Being harmed by economic chaos and world wide inflation would bring worse hardship. The Kerry's and other like him, will be sitting pretty, with their skim.

Global warming is will increase things like droughts amd food prices/scarcity for all. Those rising temperatures will cause more than economic chaos as low harvest volumes and outright crop failures become more consistent amd widespread.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You presume that governments seek cooperation to "solve" problems more than they seek their own interests. That is not proven by history.

I don't actually, presume that, since solving a problem can be in a government's self-interest.

International cooperation has happened, notably in the mitigation of ozone depletion: Montreal Protocol - Wikipedia

 

[Shaul]

I don't actually, presume that, since solving a problem can be in a government's self-interest.

International cooperation has happened, notably in the mitigation of ozone depletion: Montreal Protocol - Wikipedia

And in contrast China, as one example, is building coal fired power plants as fast as it can. So what is your point? Yes, countries and governments can cooperate when they determine it is in their interests to do so. No one wrote otherwise. But likewise governments can act quite selfishly when they choose to do so. Which is all I have said. One problem here is that some don't want to concede the possibility that a government could act in its own interests vis-a-vis climate policies. Possibly because to admit that means that any government's climate policy motives are then open to questioning. Something pro-statists want desperately to avoid.

 

[exchemist]

And in contrast China, as one example, is building coal fired power plants as fast as it can. So what is your point? Yes, countries and governments can cooperate when they determine it is in their interests to do so. No one wrote otherwise. But likewise governments can act quite selfishly when they choose to do so. Which is all I have said. One problem here is that some don't want to concede the possibility that a government could act in its own interests vis-a-vis climate policies. Possibly because to admit that means that any government's climate policy motives are then open to questioning. Something pro-statists want desperately to avoid.

Er, not true. You said that governments could change the climate in ways that would allow them to coerce the population.

That - apart from being quite mad - is quite different from saying they can act selfishly without regard to global needs, which is what you now seem to be saying. If you have changed your mind to this, that's great. It makes a lot more sense.

 

[Shaul]

Er, not true. You said that governments could change the climate in ways that would allow them to coerce the population.

That - apart from being quite mad - is quite different from saying they can act selfishly without regard to global needs, which is what you now seem to be saying. If you have changed your mind to this, that's great. It makes a lot more sense.

Both are possible and both are not mutually exclusive. Do you concede that a government can act in manner that hurts the climate?

 

[exchemist]

Both are possible and both are not mutually exclusive. Do you concede that a government can act in manner that hurts the climate?

Oh, so them acting selfishly is not all you are saying, after all? I wish you could be consistent.

To your question, we are not going round that idiotic loop again.

 

[Shaul]

Oh, so them acting selfishly is not all you are saying, after all? I wish you could be consistent.

To your question, we are not going round that idiotic loop again.

I have been completely consistent. I see you are being consistent in not being able to simply state that a government can act in a manner that hurts the climate. We can therefore ignore you.

 

[Father Heathen]

So the idea is that, when it turns out that climate change is real and the world is suffering the catastrophic impacts, instead of accepting that they were wrong, the denialists will try to blame the "leftist new world order" for purposely orchestrating it as part of some vast nefarious scheme?

These people, if they were to **** in their own pants, would accuse liberals of covertly placing it there.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

And in contrast China, as one example, is building coal fired power plants as fast as it can. So what is your point? Yes, countries and governments can cooperate when they determine it is in their interests to do so. No one wrote otherwise.

My point was challenging your assertion that I "...presume that governments seek cooperation to 'solve' problems more than they seek their own interests."

But likewise governments can act quite selfishly when they choose to do so. Which is all I have said. One problem here is that some don't want to concede the possibility that a government could act in its own interests vis-a-vis climate policies.

It should be assumed that governments likely are going to act in self-interest. Hopefully that will not negate the problem-solving, which is in their self-interest.

Possibly because to admit that means that any government's climate policy motives are then open to questioning. Something pro-statists want desperately to avoid.

I should hope any policy is open to questioning! The dissent against it should also be open for questioning. Why has a portion of our government insisted on kicking the can down the road using climate change denialism for so long? How have they been acting in self-interest by not wanting to change the status quo?