Jury awards climate scientist Michael Mann $1 million in defamation lawsuit

More good news.

It’s very interesting doing a Google search of “climate change is a hoax.” Plenty of moronic stuff from all kinds of bullshit sources. So very interesting. At least for those far more interested in denial than anything else…but who definitely aren’t climate deniers.

—

Just as a basic head count on this thread:



@baker

And counting. Far more than I’d expect on this forum, even if a relatively low percentage. Oh well…

I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, the continued promotion of the capitalistic system, and the continued centralization of power in the hands of the United States. I don't believe in equality. — Hanover

This certainty says it all. :up: At least you’re honest about it.

Of course it’s millions of human lives, but whatever.

Honestly, the thing that stands out in my perception is your name— which I like— and the fact that you usually write well and are fairly unassuming. I don’t know much else about you though…

Then they formulate arguments around such biases and believe they are actually intellectually engaging with the subject matter. But they're not, they're using rhetorical twists and turns not to convince the other side, but to make sure they're never acknowledging themselves to be wrong. It's the same behavior as flat earthers and other conspiratorial behaviors. It doesn't matter that there's a truckload of evidence, that there are educators and experts everywhere that friendly provide their knowledge if they want it, or that the publications are out there to be found if they wanted. The reason has nothing to with what is truth or not for them, it has to do with them. — Christoffer

Yep. Which is why at the end of the day, all they have is feelings. When pointed out, they naturally accuse you of having nothing but feelings, and I’m rubber you’re glue, the end. It’s pointless.

But like I said before, this thread is like a fly trap. There’s overwhelming evidence and a de facto 100% consensus, it’s as established as evolution and gravity — and so when members bring their two cents to the issue, it makes knowing who to ignore on others issues very clear. So that’s useful. I say there’s been anywhere from 6-12 people so far. Saves me time.

I’m thinking of going to an evolutionary biology course and explaining to the professor that the reason the subject is “controversial” is because they’re too mean, not empathic enough, not effective in how they communicate, are too harsh or judgmental, etc. I’ll pretend to be a Buddhist monk like Thich Nhat Hanh. This way I can feel like I’m involved in evolutionary biology.

"The science". There is no "the science". — Lionino

Climate science is actually a thing, yes. But good job using the new line. I guess “the climate is always changing” is thankfully becoming passé.

That said, I actually find this place to be populated by above average intelligence. — L'éléphant

:chin:

There’s a dozen or so people who are certainly above average. But there’s a lot of morons too. But those dozen or so make it worthwhile— far more so than Twitter or and other social media sites.

But I will say that your view of me does not say anything about my character more than it does about yours. — Lionino

And yours. Because he’s right. So maybe it’s worth taking the feedback.

Exactly. Better to go under the radar.

I spent the first half of this week reporting in Iceland, and I came away convinced that the country provides a window into our collective future in at least three important ways.

Iceland uses remarkably few fossil fuels to power its economy and heat its homes. Instead, 85 percent of the country’s energy comes from domestically produced renewables, primarily geothermal power and hydropower.

Iceland can claim such a high percentage of renewables, the most of any country in the world, thanks to its unique geology. Its land sits atop an incredibly active volcanic zone, and six major geothermal plants tap that subterranean warmth to provide heating for almost all the country’s homes.

Drive around the countryside, and you can’t miss steam billowing from the ground between the majestic fjords. Just this morning, an active volcano began erupting in a town I visited only a few days ago.

Geothermal power also produces about 20 percent of the country’s electricity, with the remainder coming from a robust network of hydroelectric plants. The oil that Iceland does burn is primarily used to power cars and trucks, as well as the boats that comprise the country’s large fishing fleet.

Iceland a small and wealthy country that is unique, to say the least, in having such abundant geothermal and hydroelectric resources. But as we’ve recently reported, new advances gleaned from the oil and gas business are making geothermal feasible in new locales. And as solar and wind power continue to expand at a rapid clip, it may not be long before more countries are powering their economies not with fossil fuels but with local, clean renewable energy.

Iceland is living our future

Interesting stuff.

We’re going to get there — it’s just a matter of how quickly.

- Permitting reform is necessary to accelerate the building of transmission lines so as to transmit the energy from wind and solar (a large segment of which is restricted to certain geographical areas) to other parts of the country.

- Plenty of fossil fuel use will be needed to mine for necessary metals and manufacture wind turbines and solar panels and car batteries. But this is in the short term — once up and running, they’re practically zero emissions.

The inflation reduction act (IRA) provisions are starting to kick in this year, especially the rebates on heat pumps, which will be key to transitioning away from heating homes and commercial buildings with dirty fuels like oil and natural gas / propane. Rebates on EVs and solar panels will also be helpful.

In the meantime, the best strategy is still local involvement in conservation commissions, zoning boards, and city/town councils. Also advocating for going greener at one’s workplace — which, when cost effectiveness is emphasized, is fairly easy.

Anyway — some relevant information.

The world just marked a year above a critical climate limit scientists have warned about

Global warming surpassed 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 12 months for the first time on record, new data shows, breaching a critical threshold that, if it continues, will push the limits of life on Earth to adapt.

The past year was 1.52 degrees hotter on average than temperatures before industrialization, according to data from Copernicus, the European Union’s climate and weather monitoring service. That 12-month average was boosted by the hottest January on record, which was 1.66 degrees warmer than the average January temperature in pre-industrial times.

https://apple.news/Af18UAJ-GRlKmFwVd55H3vA

I legitimately have no idea what people think of me. Members educated extensively in philosophy may recognize me as a dilettante, and these days I’m more visible in the Shoutbox than anywhere else so I’m probably thought of as a buffoon, and perhaps an arrogant one. — Jamal

Doesn’t track with my perception. You’re one of the better communicators here. Whether that’s true of your verbal skills I have no idea…

As for dilettante: aren’t we all?

I doubt most members think of me at all. — Vera Mont

This is not meant rudely, but for me this is true. But I think it’s only because we haven’t interacted much and you’re often reasonable enough that your posts don’t stand out. And perhaps it’s something about your name — for some reason it blends with so many others that I have a hard time remembering.

These days I suppose I'm just the second-in-command shoutbox class clown, next to Hanover. — Noble Dust

Yeah I do see your posts mostly in that thread, so it’s hard not to relegate you to chattiness.

I think people think of me as the Bob Hope of the forum. Which is great, as everyone loves Bob. — Baden

Yes, you’re definitely the Bob Hope of the forum.

If I die, nobody would truly care. — javi2541997

Oh stop. I’d care— I just don’t know you well enough to care deeply. That’s for real time interactions.



:up:

And proud of it!
It annulls your climate activism. — baker

I’m not a climate activist, and nothing I do “annulls” (sic) climate science in any way. Your worthless, unsolicited opinion notwithstanding.

This is pretty much how I feel most of the time here: — baker

Right— and despite all the feedback, you endlessly go around lecturing others on how to properly and effectively communicate, and how ignorant we all are for not changing our ways. Meanwhile, you continue doing the same thing time after time, apparently without an iota of self awareness or adaptation. Rather, you play a victim.

I’ll start taking your unsolicited advice seriously when you grow up. Until then, leave me alone. I have no interest in your opinions and haven’t once ask for them. Hypocrites are to be ignored, where I come from.

It's extremely offensive the way you assign to people stances they don't hold and then castigate them for them. — baker

You do the exact same thing, and have been doing so for years. When you acknowledge your own hypocrisy, others will take your feedback better.

Now if you have nothing to say about climate change, run along. This thread isn’t about feelings.

Yeah, my post was satirical. Nuclear weapons and climate change are very much worth being alarmed about — assuming one knows anything about them.

We're tired of transplanting our ideals of democracy to ungrateful foreign lands. — magritte

:rofl:

Sorry…carry on.

The degenerate con man/savior is the real victim!

Is Mikie wrong, or is everybody else wrong?
— Agree-to-Disagree

You are wrong. — unenlightened

“Everybody else.” Lol

Yeah that was just a joke. Plenty of people actually think this way though. Of course nuclear disarmament was important and the anti-nuclear proliferation treaties were important— the entire movement was and is important.

Meanwhile you have evidence of climate catastrophe all over, and your an alarmist if you think it’s a problem because hey, people thought the world would end in 2012. It’s a stupid argument for ignorant people.



Case in point.

See above.

You seem to think — Agree-to-Disagree

You seem incapable of understanding — Agree-to-Disagree

After making a fool of yourself repeatedly whenever you’ve made empirical claims, whether about temperature anomalies or land use for cattle, your perception of others’ abilities to think or understand is worthless.

Problem at the border. Yeah, sure. The numbers have increased, and there’s a traffic jam. The rest is conservative media frenzy and stupid political stunts by right-wing governors. They don’t want the problem solved— they just want to use it in an election year.

So, let’s call it what it really is: Racist fear mongers blaming a Democratic administration for an overblown problem.

I have researched global warming extensively. Here are a few of the many graphs that I have made. How many graphs like these have you made? — Agree-to-Disagree

And this is the level of discourse climate deniers engage in, folks.

And for the record, I’ve made many graphs in my life. Congratulations on figuring out how Google Charts works, and to your series of useless graphs.

If you and others really have nothing to offer this thread but nonsense like this and slogans from Tucker Carlson, why not simply find another hobby?

more mature and have more life experience — Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah, like you for example. Plenty of age and life experience. And yet you’re one of the most ignorant about climate change on this thread and have made no efforts to learn about it, apparently contented with your own unique denialism.

Talk about crappy role modeling. If you’re any kind of representation, it’s no wonder kids have no respect. Ignorance and denial isn’t respectable.

The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people. —

Sorry, but I just have to highlight how incredibly ignorant, judgmental, and immoral this comment is as well. Now that’s in keeping from a posturing, sanctimonious hypocrite who feels entitled to lecture everyone about their appearance while their own approach is being rude, shallow, contemptuous, and instigating — so no surprise there.

But it’s also a common line on conservative propaganda outlets — one of their many ways to undermine the consensus and overwhelming evidence, delay political and social action, and foster hostility (we see this especially in the vitriol aimed at Greta Thunberg) within the environmental movement. How sad.

Also better to be honest and moral instead of dangerously, irresponsibly ignorant. To each his own though.

We've tried the friendly educational method for decades. They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are. — Christoffer

Yes.

If only Malcolm X had been nicer. If he really cared, he wouldn’t have been so cynical and hurt so many peoples delicate feelings— those poor victims.

Martin Luther King — same deal. But a little nicer. Less offensive to privileged white people. But oh yeah, he was despised and killed anyway.

It’s almost as if focusing on tone and niceness and feelings and moral “objectivity” is just another way of avoiding facts, problems, and solutions.

Anyway — yes, please excuse me if I have zero tolerance for ignorance and propaganda on this issue anymore. If you’ve not taken the maybe 4-5 hours it takes to familiarize yourself with the issue beyond the slogans, then you can indeed fuck off. Especially when you come with anything other than a willingness to learn. This is science, not psychotherapy.

One’s failure to understand such an important issue is, at this point, inexcusable and immoral. If that attitude is too harsh for some — too bad.

you're the one — baker

Okay! Bye.

All those idiots protesting and pushing for nuclear disarmament for all those decades, screaming about how a nuclear war would be the “end of humanity.” Did it happen?? No! Just more doomerism/alarmism.

ng, I am not a denier of anthropogenic climate change — Lionino

Of course not. You are just asking legitimate questions about the science and trotting out fashionable lines from climate “skeptics.” Carry on.



Yes, and it’s great to have humanitarians like you to swoop in with your Dr. Phil analyses on hurt feelings. If only we could all model your approach: smug, condescending, self-righteous blowhardery.

Incidentally, sarcastic comments like yours are also “really really” helpful. Way to lead by example. Good work.

Just ignore the deniers. Leave them to their slogans. “The climate is always changing!” Cool—bye!

It has been changing since the Earth came to be. — Lionino

Thanks for proving my point.

@Ege You’ll see that this tired, stupid line is the current go-to among the climate denial crowd.

You’ll find a few climate deniers on here you exist merely to voice their uninformed “skepticism” about this topic. Ignore them.

Nuclear weapons and climate change are existential problems. The publishers of the Doomsday Clock have an informative website about exactly your concerns: https://thebulletin.org/

Interesting. Well in that case, double-fuck them too.

I know that the greenhouse effect was understood back in the late 19th century, so if we take that as a starting point, it rivals tobacco.

There were plenty of people worried about the bad effects of smoking around the 1900s but there wasn't any statistical proof. That came in the 1940s which led to more propaganda. — Benkei

I thought it was the 60s. But I won’t Wikipedia it— I’ll take your word for it.

Isn’t Hunter’s laptop relevant? — praxis

It’s only biased when it’s the bad team.

You can find know-nothing imbeciles making statements on a topic they refuse to learn about (too hard) all the time. Easy to feel superior to them.

Take quantum physics. “All nonsense — it’s just a result of groupthink.” Boom, I’m smart and my opinion is just as valid as anyone’s.

Saw that. I knew that they were well aware in the late 70s…but the 50s? Incredible.

Just shows how much better their propaganda and influence has been compared to big tobacco. Tobacco delayed a backlash for 30 years. Big oil is literally destroying the world, and yet they’ve denied and delayed for 70 years. Have to hand it to them.

Probably why most people shouldn’t read Neitzsche.