But it’s more than careless. It’s an intentional withdrawal of kindness, but not intended to cause harm as such. A mean person has no regard for the feelings of others. There’s a difference between this and being intentionally harmful. — Possibility

Having no regard for the consequences counts as intent in my book. It is, after all, an intentional disregard of the safety of others.

My argument is that it’s not a ‘right epistemic judgement’ if it’s limited to the victim’s perspective. You need to take into account the ‘mean’ person’s perspective, which includes whether or not they genuinely intended to cause harm. — Possibility

How is that supposed to work, practically? And why are you now qualifying the intent as genuine? What's an example of a non-genuine intent?

You won’t get accuracy from your own limited judgement - especially if you’re the one who was harmed. — Possibility

Optimally, one should of course take as much evidence into account as possible. But I don't quite see what option I have, when judging the morality of an act, apart from making the judgement myself. At best I can refer the case to the court of popular opinion.

Marijuana doesn't talk.

Is that what you were looking for? — Terrapin Station

As good a rejoinder as any.

I will continue to disagree that the mean person is trying to inflict some sort of pain on someone. — Possibility

If that wasn't the intent though, why would we call it "mean"? At worst it'd be careless.

But you don’t get to decide whether or not someone else intended to cause harm — Possibility

Uh, why not? It's a fairly basic feature of human interaction to judge intent.

You have a tendency to read everything "as 'literal' as possible," with no evidenced ability to pick up on contextual clues for semantic nuance. — Terrapin Station

If that isn't an instance of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

I believe that we should care for our poor and destitute, provide housing, healthcare, and education, not as a government policy, but as a duty to one another as human beings. — NOS4A2

What if we discharge our duties to one another as human beings by instituting certain government policies?

We shouldn’t conflate the PKK, a terrorist organization , with the Kurds, an ethnic group. Turkey’s enemy in this operation is former, not the latter. — NOS4A2

You're not that naïve, so I guess you're now also spreading propaganda for Erdogan? I would have guessed you'd be against someone with an Islamist agenda.

So think about it from the other side. There was a separatist uprising for the past few years in southern Turkey along the Syrian border and beyond. — NOS4A2

The conflict between the Turkish central government and the Kurds is older than "a few years". And it was Erdogan's government that escalated it for political gain (it worked, too).

If we are to believe Pompeo, American soldiers were in danger. — NOS4A2

What danger would that have been?

Trump gave no green light or go ahead to Turkey, only to pull American soldiers out of the area. — NOS4A2

Which is, of course, the same thing.

Considering this, Leaving American soldiers in the area to help Kurdish separatists fight off a Turkish invasion would be a horrible mistake. — NOS4A2

What do you mean "help"? The soldiers only prevented the Turkish military from shelling the area due to the danger of friendly fire. They were entirely a blocking force, not intended to fight anyone.

So what's the "horrible mistake" here?

Not sure how to interpret this. You realize that he’s not what you’d call an honest man, don’t you? — praxis

I think he refers to the stance that it's better to have a politician that is openly lying than one who is secretly lying. Essentially, a bunch of the American population has become so cynical about politics, or perhaps humanity in general, that they think everyone is a lying, racist, sexist asshole, they're just all hiding it. Since Trump isn't, he is therefore more honest.

This is essentially persecution and it has no place in a free society. We should humanize our political opponents instead of the other way about. — NOS4A2

Perhaps you should tell Trump?

BREAKING: Person who will vote for Trump thinks the Democrats shouldn't nominate a left wing candidate. — Maw

As bad as his reasons for voting for Trump are, his analysis isn't without merit. It's a mistake to think racism or sexism will hurt Trump's chances of re-election.

An important distinction that sometimes gets overlooked between Hitler and Trump is that the former had death camps where millions of people were systematically murdered in an attempt to create a pure race and in the latter the guy would send out a bunch of fucked up tweets that pissed everyone off. — Hanover

Hitler had no death camps in 1931, but he was already dangerous. I agree that Trump isn't Hitler. But claiming that no comparison is permissible unless the terrible consequences have already happened is absurd and dangerous. It should be rather obvious that we don't want to "wait and see" until the first death camp actually opens.

Could you explain why it's important to you? — frank

The likely consequence of the breakdown of political institutions is violence. Sometimes, this cannot be avoided, but we should be aware that what keeps a democracy going is mostly psychological barriers based on internalised institutional principles. Like not using the military to take over the country. Or shoot your political opponents.

The fate of the world in the hands of the enraged inexperienced? What a terrifying prospect! — Janus

Oh no, these young people will destroy the world! That's totally a new thing. It's not like the ancient Greeks said the same thing about younger generations...

That's not our problem though. — frank

I suppose by "our" you mean Americans? How do you figure?

I'm not going to vote, even though like you, I'm in a swing state. I just can't vote for Trump because of what he said after Charlottesville. I'm not going to vote for a democrat either, though. — frank

You could vote for a third party. Though I'd question why you exclude any democrat on principle.

Overall, I think he's been good for the human species. — frank

It's far too early to make a call on that. It's entirely possible for things to go very badly as a result of the US' erratic foreign policy.

People screamed about the same things when Trump first mentioned the withdrawal back in December. So they kicked the can down the road to a later date. That date arrives and here we are again. — NOS4A2

Trump isn't actually withdrawing any troops though. He is just pulling them back within Syria to allow Turkey's operation to go forward unimpeded.

Why should it? — NOS4A2

Previous posts have explained this, and you aren't that stupid.

How long do you suggest the US military remain in that area? — NOS4A2

Until an agreement has been brokered between Turkey and the Kurds or, failing that, until the Kurds have had time to make arrangements for their defense or withdrawal.

His view is mainly that the US is no longer a police force and that an indefinite military campaign is very expensive. He wants to end endless wars. — NOS4A2

Invading Afghanistan and Iraq (the endless wars you are referring to) wasn't a police action. But the criticism isn't really about withdrawing troops, it's about how the troops were withdrawn. You don't think this will reflect badly on the US?

I just don't get the kind of people who would want Neuralink. — Anthony

You don't get people who want more abilities/power?

Trump and the pentagon have been providing the Kurds, manly the SDF, with weapons, training, support and money since the beginning of his presidency. The caliphate is done. The operation is over. Time to bring the Troops home. — NOS4A2

The Kurds received funds and supplies because they were useful. It was not an act of generosity. Now that the Kurds are no longer useful, they are being discarded. Nothing new in the history of armed conflict, but is it that the way the US wants to be perceived by potential allies?

Contrast this behavior with Russia's stance towards it's Syrian allies. They made a massive military effort to safe the Assad regime and managed to turn the civil war around. Putin is sending a clear message with Syria and Ukraine. Get on my good side and I'll have your back. Get on my bad side and I cannot guarantee for your safety. What message is Trump sending with his foreign policy? "Whoever I talked to last is correct"?

Obamacare wasn’t blocked. — praxis

Parts of it were, and the result was a system that never quite worked correctly.

It also wasn’t repealed and replaced, despite a republican administration and a majority in both the house and senate. Granted the work to dismantle it continues. — praxis

Nevertheless, republicans managed to get elected on a promise of dismantling Obamacare despite the fact that public healthcare has majority support in America. Polling indicates the core Republican voter base has been shrinking for years, yet they are still firmly in power.

It's not a coincidence that repubilcans are at the forefront of efforts like gerrymandering and voter suppression.

In a technical sense, we are already cyborgs. We use technology to enhance our biological capabilities.

While this is not usually what people have in mind, I think we're starting to see a trend towards "Sci-Fi" cyborgs with smartphones, voice assistants and wearable electronics.

So, yes I think brain implants are the way forward.

The US has been a force of net ill in the world for a long time now. — StreetlightX

The advantage of a hegemonic US has been relative peace for North America and Europe, with conflicts being resolved via proxy wars in less stable regions.

There have been signs for a while now that US hegemony is falling apart and we are returning to a multipolar world. Trump is accelerating that process. The major powers succeeding the US are unlikely to have more scruples than the US did, and a multipolar world comes with the danger of more direct military conflict between major powers. I don't really look forward to it.

In a better world, this ought to the the grounds from which Trump is truly thrown under the bus, and not some obscure phone calls that bear on the fates of some millionaires. — StreetlightX

In a better world, Trump would have been thrown under the bus when he refused to unequivocally state that he would concede a lost election. Peaceful transfer of power and all that.

The problem with the Kurds is that it's difficult to see how they could end up in any other situation as long as Erdogan is in power and NATO wants Turkey as an ally. Of course, one could have at least negotiated a settlement instead of just giving Turkey carte blanche. The art of the deal strikes again.

The perception is easily understood with celebrities appearing to be overwhelmingly liberal, and so many of the narratives expressing liberal values. — praxis

Artists of any kind are, historically, not known for their conservatism. But I think the "overwhelmingly liberal" messages are only slightly left of center of the mainstream. And if they didn't sell tickets, we wouldn't see them, either.

In any case, I’ve yet to see an explanation for why conservatives, with their power position prowess, have failed to dominate these areas.

How did they lose the majority in the House of Representatives in the midterms, for that matter. — praxis

The fact that Republicans are in power in the White House and Senate at all is a sign of their prowess.

In the last 10 presidential elections, Republican candidates won the popular vote 4 times, yet they had 6 terms. Since 1990, they have won the popular vote only once.

There is also a majority support in America for many "left wing" policies such as public healthcare or increased gun control. Yet not only do republicans succeed in blocking such efforts, they also get re-elected regardless.

Free speech encompasses lies as it does the truth. — NOS4A2

I disagree.

You cannot hold a government accountable when it decides what can and cannot be said. — NOS4A2

This is a matter of degrees. The german government forbids anyone from lying or equivocating about the Holocaust, for obvious historical reasons. This is a fairly direct restriction of speech, even political speech. It nevertheless doesn't mean the German people cannot hold their government accountable.

Rules and regulations of the internet are rising at a frightening pace. — NOS4A2

The topic is a complex one. But I have always been more a "Brave New World" person than a "1984" person. Which is to say I am more worried about soft, algorithm-driven manipulation than about the police state.

It's odd that for all your cynicism about human nature, you ignore the ways people manipulate each other, quite apart from any state apparatus.

Fake news, lies, satire, misinformation, propaganda etc. are natural features of democracy. Censorship is problematic for democracy, given that free speech is fundamental to it. — NOS4A2

I disagree about misinformation and propaganda being natural features of a democracy. Quite the opposite. The whole point of democracy is to hold the government accountable to it's subjects. That cannot work if those subjects don't receive accurate information. Lies are not protected speech.

Unless a government institutes a comprehensive lockdown of the internet like China's great firewall, censorship isn't really a threat.

In your response to my question you generally claim that the Left doesn’t take advantage of these positions for various reasons or that they don’t actually hold them. — praxis

It's not really "the left" holding these positions. Academia may, in general, be more left-leaning than other sectors of the economy, but that's not a new phenomenon. What looks like "the left" holding power is actually just the mainstream having shifted to the left, especially on social issues.

The idea that main stream media and the entertainment industry have been taken over by "the left" is actually somewhat laughable. It could only look that way if you were way over on the right.

I’m not sure how they can lose, but they often do. — NOS4A2

If we're talking the US, specifically, the Republicans have been very good at using the weaknesses of the US democratic system to their advantage. They don't really win popular votes anymore, but they do win seats.

The result is a crusade against “fake news”, which found credence in the EU and elsewhere. This is something the Chinese did to justify censorship of the internet. — NOS4A2

Slippery slope fallacy? Fake news are hugely problematic for a democracy, since they make it difficut to implement policies based on facts.

Absolutely, but if it's an exercise in risk management, then the measure of the 'power' of any belief is no longer truth is it? Its the valuation resulting from your risk assessment. The most 'powerful' belief is the one with the greatest payoff for the least risk, which may or may not turn out to be true (where 'true' is corresponding with reality). That's the point I was making. — Isaac

I think we mostly agree here, I am just using "power" a bit differently. Not as instrumental value but as inevitability. Truth seems to be inevitable in a way that fiction isn't. Perhaps, quite apart from any theories of what truth refers to in a specific field, inevitability is the overall characteristic of truth. But I admit this is a bit of whimsical speculation.

Newton's theories (to my limited knowledge) were not just less detailed. They were completely wrong, totally not the way things actually are, a fiction. Just a very useful one. — Isaac

Right. I am not well versed in the particulars. But I think it could be said that, as long as we only want a certain degree of accuracy, like when we are controlling a thruster, we aren't using fiction. We're still interested in getting a true result, within the parameters. That's difference from claiming our calculations are actually correct for all parameters.

Fiction can work better than truth as a decision-making tool if the fiction is more easily calculated and still right most of the time. — Isaac

Sure. You can also selectively employ fiction to achieve a goal, and this may be more efficient than using the truth. But it's an exercise in risk management. By deviating from the truth, you risk being blindsided by it.

Newton's theories on gravity are a fiction, they're not a true representation of how gravity works, but for making a quick judgement on thruster adjustment in a returning apollo capsule it's better than Einstein. — Isaac

Arguably, Newton's theories were truth at the time, since they were arrived at using proper methodology and not yet falsified. I think there is a distinction between fiction and simulation. You can tell the truth without going into every conceivable detail.

So it's not its lack of truth that's making fiction more likely to backfire, it's its lack of utility. — Isaac

But the thing about truth is that it limits the utility of fiction. There are things we can afford to be wrong about, but we can never outright ignore truth.

But shouldn't the truth, by virtue of being the truth, exert some power of its own? We can only reside in fiction for so long, right? — frank

An interesting question, I quite like this take on it.

It seems like we reside in fiction at our own peril. Truth is that which reasserts itself regardless of our interests. Base your decision on fiction, and there's always the chance it's going to backfire. So in that sense, truth has power.

What in the world would it mean for a person to be morally valuable? — Terrapin Station

It's when reason values you. Duh!

I have my own question: how is it "intrinsic" value if it's entirely based on the subjective assessment of reason?

This isn't a question of principles, this is one of strategy. It is the obsessional concern with Trump's character that is, when not naive, actively harmful to alleviating the worst of his administration's maleficence. You don't fight a black hole by pointing out over and over again that it sucks. — StreetlightX

Right. So how do we fight a black hole? And is it always the right choice to be purely pragmatic when it comes to politics or is there a place for principle?

Those who say he is “pressuring countries for dirt to influence the 2020 election” know he is actually asking for help with corruption pre-2016, which Trump has explicitly stated. So why do they continually say he is “looking for dirt to influence the 2020 election”, which is a motive that is absent any evidence? — NOS4A2

I am curious, how are motives established, in your opinion?

Especially since as a 'strategy', it has quite obviously been - and will continue to be - a marked failure.In fact more than a failure, banking on 'moral outrage' at this point would count as outright maliciousness and strategic support for Trump, if I did not believe instead in the infinite capacity of human stupidity. — StreetlightX

Oh I agree with that. I just don't agree we shouldn't care about the character of the people we elect. I think that the trend towards only looking at a narrow band of policy questions - who will do what for immigration, jobs, families etc. - has truned politicians into wishing wells. Whoever has the best promises wins. I think this is an important factor in the ability of populists to tap into the disillusionment of the working class. If instead we looked at their actual voting history, their industry affiliations, their record on factual questions, we might have avoided a couple of contemporary catastrophes in terms of people in power.

focusing on how Trump is distracts form seeing what is being done (not just by Him but in His name!) and trying to counteract it. — Janus

I think that's highly questionable though. You're only going to be distracted if you didn't care about the policies beforehand. And if that's the case, what exactly would arouse your interest absent the distraction?

There is also the question of what exactly we should be doing that we're not because of the distraction.

I refer you to the majority of the discussion around Trump, which is almost singularly devoid of policy or process, of which this thread and it's participants are exemplary. — StreetlightX

I don't think it's all that singular. People are interested in personal drama. If it wasn't Trump's personal drama, it would be someone else's. Of course, the constant drama is part of the strategy with Trump. But I think you're overlooking one aspect of the strategy: It only works because people are willing to tolerate this kind of behaviour from a president. If everyone thought it was a moral outrage, Trump would have long since been abandoned by his party. And that is true for a lot of the dirty tactics the republicans use to stay in power.

Physical descriptions don't actually hinge on talking about sensory experiences. A lot of stuff in physics, for example, isn't something you could sense. For example, you can't sense a neutrino. You can't even sense meteorological pressure systems really. We just sense things like temperature differences, humidity, wind, etc. — Terrapin Station

Still, our knowledge of all these things is ultimately based on sensory data.

And I don't agree with "as an experience in the world consciousness presents to each individual as an immaterial phenomenon." I can't even make sense out of the idea of something "immaterial." So I couldn't say that my consciousness seems immaterial to me. — Terrapin Station

Would you agree that it's non-physical?

1. If I am morally valuable, I am morally valuable even if no subject values me
2. I am morally valuable
3. Therefore, I am morally valuable even if no subject values me

So I have actually put a machete on the table for anyone to pick up and have a go if they think they're hard enough. But no, you stick to your water balloons. Odd. — Bartricks

Perhaps this is because it's rather obvious you desperately want someone to play along so you can display your superior resoning some more. Unfortunately most people aren't interested, and in any event the flaw of that argument is rather obvious.

Look, the focus on personality, character, integrity, behaviour, whatever, is completely trivial. It destroys any attempt to understand why the world is as it is in terms of interests, relations of power, history, economics, and so on - points at which one might actually intervene to make a difference i.e. engage in politics and attempt to excercise agency. — StreetlightX

This is a complete non-sequitur. Why would caring about the character of the people you entrust with power destroy your ability to engage in politics? Putting the right people in power is part of politics.

This is why I asked whether or not you are in favor of some system of complete direct democracy, because otherwise your insistence that who is in power doesn't matter makes zero sense.

The focus on charcater or whatever psychological bullshit is effectively an argument for political impotence and mystification - it says: don't look at the world and try to understand and alter it, just put it down to some ineffable internal psychology. — StreetlightX

That's just nonsense. I have no idea where you get that from, certainly not from anything I wrote.

And once this happens all anyone can talk about is useless shit like affections and feelings: embarrasment, laughter, shame, whatever. — StreetlightX

Again, I don't see how this follows. Perhaps you could make a structured argument for all these claims.

The only thing worse than a Trump supporter is a Trump opponent whose political literacy extends as far as 'this is not normal'. They ought to be first against the wall when the shit hits the fan. At least Trump supporters have a keener instinct for things that actually matter. — StreetlightX

And that just looks to me like an ad-hominem.

What is this, a hallmark card? — StreetlightX

I suppose you're an adherent of direct democracy then?

Character entails nothing. Character is for gossip magazines, TV reality shows, and children's fairytales. Good Guys and Bad Guys. Only the politically infantilized talk about character as if it meant anything at all. — StreetlightX

We can call it personality, or integrity, or anything else if you're interested in semantics. What matter is electing people that you can actually trust to act in the common interest, rather than their own or that of their party.

Don't care about any of this, at all, in the slightest. 'Character' is another distraction made for dupes. — StreetlightX

If your political system is a representative democracy, the character of the people you elect matters. It might actually be the most important thing. You don't elect representatives to micromanage every one of their decisions. You elect them so they will make the right decisions in your name.

However, the way Greta Thunderbeg deliver her ideas in her speech is a to an extent very aggressive and harsh, — Seneca Advocate

It should probably be noted that this was not her only speech, and it was by far the harshest one.

accusing people that actually have no power over this fundamental problem. — Seneca Advocate

Wait, the world governments have no power? Who does, then?

First of all, Greta Thunberg uses social media platforms as a principal form of delivering her ideas and campaign or advocate for climate change; which we know digital platforms abuse the consumption of fossil fuels that harm and prejudice our environment, this shows an inconsistency with her views and advocating for actions to solve and help climate change.As she could be doing his movement with other campaign or platforms alternatives that would not harm the environment. — Seneca Advocate

That just seems to be an "argument from hypocrisy", but being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong. So, ultimately, it's just a veiled ad-hominem.

The trend, including the spikes, has started to occur before global carbon emissions were anywhere near the levels they are today. That undermines the assertion that mankind's carbon emissions are the primary cause. — Tzeentch

That doesn't follow. The trend on the graphs is visible from the 1970s onwards, well after humanity had started significant carbon emissions. That at the time, the concentration was still lower than it is today does not undermine the assertion that carbon emissions are the primary cause.

What would undermine it is if the trend started in, say, 1750. But it didn't.

The video features scientists that explain why they question the common narrative, using facts, graphs, etc. And there are tons like it. There is no shortage of scientists disputing the common climate change narrative. — Tzeentch

What is "no shortage" supposed to mean here? That there are more than 5, 10, 100? In relative terms, there absolutely is a "shortage", as various meta studies have shown.

Anyways, the video: The first scientist featured in the video is an aeronautics engineer with no formal training or background in a related subject. So, why should I listen to him concerning the topic of climate change?

Well I did anyways. The first 5 Minutes were a bunch of ad-hominems and self-congratulation about standing up to "the system".

So then we get to another borderline ad-hominem about the forest fire graph. Even without looking it up, it seems pretty likely that up to 1950, a lot more forest area was burned intentionally, something that would not have happened since. But regardless, it's obvious that the purpose of the argument is to undermine the credibility of the scientist that made it, even though Mr. Soon told us just minutes before that credibility doesn't matter, only the facts.

After that, more ad-hominem. An unjustified assertion that you only get awards for doing bad science. The graph at around 14:00 minutes is wildly misinterpreted. Then a non-sequitur about expecting more extreme cold weather (I suppose Soon thinks that this contradicts global warming, but of course that's nonsense). And more ad-hominem.

Well that was 10 minutes. Let's look at the next guy.

So now we have a professor for particle astorphysics and comsology. At least it's a professor, though I struggle to see how he has any qualification in the field. He starts talking about how politically independent his work about particle physics is. But of course, right now he isn't actually talking about his work in that field. And he goes on and on about that. Also he is not an expert in the field of climate science, as expected.

Eventually, he gets to the point: The politically charged nature of the field is sending the science "off the rails". Ok, interesting thesis. What does that mean exactly? Let's see some points.

- Many experimental results contradict the worst-case predictions of the IPCC. Ignoring for the moment that none of these results is mentioned, I would expect this to be the case for a worst-case prediction.

- Then, a book plug. Ok.

- This paper mentions that it's likely we get temperature data from the tropics wrong. Ok. What does that mean for climate science in general? Have we rechecked the numbers with that new info?

- Now the only actually interesting part is the chart about how baloon data doesn't agree with any of the predictions. Aaand we immediately use this to poison the well because we are going by insinuating someone tried to kill the author of the graph because of his views.

I did look up the graph though. Turns out there are a few problems with it. It uses a non-standard basline. It averages together the different satellite data sets and ignores the uncertainity in their measurements (these are not simple thermometers). It also uses the one dataset - that of the middle troposphere - that climate models are worst at predicting.

So, to summarize, I found one salient point, though that one point already has a bad rep. It also is not evidence against anthropogenic climate change, but merely that the rate of warming might be smaller that models currently predict.

The rest has, to put it mildly, not been encouraging.

What further fuels my skepticism is cases where climate skeptics are silenced and/or lose their jobs because of their concerns. Or how the fact that Michael Mann and his "icehockey graph" was exposed as being a fraud (in court), is kept almost completely silent. — Tzeentch

Can you give some examples for people "silenced"? And what do you mean that the "hokey stick" fiasco was "kept silent"? It was a hughe scandal. It was all over the media. It is, however, in the past, and newer models also show a "hockey-stick" curve without similar problems. Would you like every prediction to come with a disclaimer about how one previous model was publicly disgraced?

What I do know is that it isn't the large powers who are paying the bill for their own pollution. It's mostly small countries and toothless nations like the EU who do. — Tzeentch

And what does that tell you?

Okay, but what does that look like? — Marchesk

The mobilization? Or the measures? The former, as I said, would probably look like a global revolution, people going on strike and electing "green" parties with absolute majorities.

The problem is that if nobody wants their lifestyle drastically altered, then there won't be political will to implement those policies. Let's imagine the greenest democrat wins 2020 and tries to implement some serious CO2 and consumption reduction measures. How do you see that going? — Marchesk

It will only work if there is enough social cohesion and agreement about the necessity of the measures. Societies, including democratic ones, have made all kinds of sacrifices for war in the past. If we manage to treat climate change like a war, or some religious conflict, psychologically, people will do things they would otherwise not want to do for the cause.

Then it won't be there for anything more extreme. Politicians will simply lose elections and fail to convince their colleagues. — Marchesk

Exactly. Hence why I say significant social mobilisation is required for anything to move. Humans in general are conservative, institutions are more conservative, and there is a lot of power behind fossil fuels to abuse that conservatism.

Yet we see a steady upward trend from where the graphs start (~1880), including several spikes, which would question the anomalous nature of what we observe today. I'm curious how one would account for that. — Tzeentch

I don't see how the spikes, that is the fluctuation which is normal in complex systems, "question the anomalous nature". You can clearly see the trend. That is your answer - the trend is anomalous (and dangerous).

Also, how would one account for some major criticisms of the climate change narrative, some of which are addressed here: — Tzeentch

Haven't had time to watch that yet, but the obvious first question is why we, as laymen, feel qualified to question the overwhelming scientific consensus based on watching a YouTube video? If we're basing our views about empirical questions on evidence, an overwhelming scientific consensus ought to be extremely good evidence, no?

I don't necessarily believe everything that is said by 'climate skeptics'. Similarly I don't necessarily believe everything I'm told by 'climate hysterics'. I observe a narrative and a counter-narrative, both of which are quite likely fueled by political agenda. — Tzeentch

I don't really understand this position. The agenda of the climate change deniers is pretty obvious. They want to make more money. What do the "hysterics" stand to gain?

I have an inkling you're going to say "governments wanting more power", but the majority of governments is either indifferent or openly hostile to the "hysterics". You'd think that if China, the US, Russia or India thought they could control people with the fear of climate change, they'd push for action.

See this language is what fuels skepticism about taking radical action to avert climate catastrophe. It comes off sounding like an excuse to implement a preferred system by certain leftists. If you read any of the comments on Reddit related to climate change, you will see all sorts of things about eating the rich, destroying capitalism, and forcing a one world government on everyone. — Marchesk

My point there was easy to misunderstand, apologies for that. To clarify, I don't advocate we Institute global communism to stop climate change. I just think that stopping climate change before a lot of significant damage has already happened will require a social mobilization on that scale. Otherwise, governments will keep appeasing the powers that be until either the damage becomes too great to ignore, or they collapse.

It will also sound potentially threatening to the mainstream. Who wants to be forced to drastically reduce their lifestyle? Do the developing countries want to be told they can't continue developing by the developed countries? — Marchesk

No-one wants that, obviously, but at this point it's necessary to prevent very serious damage to the biosphere, the consequences of which are hard to predict.

And how do we know that such radical economic and political polices won't be the wrong action? Maybe the only way forward is to adapt with technological innovation and encourage the markets to transition, instead of trying to force everyone to consume less, which would likely cause a worldwide depression, which means less innovation. — Marchesk

That's kinda what moderates are trying to do, but even relatively modest, market based approaches like taxing green house gasses are mostly failing because the political will isn't there.

Relying on innovation to prevent disaster is hugely risky. The more we do right now, the less fucked we are if innovation doesn't show up on time.