So a woman only needs to be a good housekeeper and breeder? — praxis

That kind of lady is a keeper.

axioms are questioned — stoicHoneyBadger

I think billions of people (especially us older ones who grew up before global warming became a global concern) are questioning all sorts of axioms. We grew up in an robust expanding economy which was lifting all boats (1950s, 1960s) but which then plateaued (for most people). The last 40-odd years have been a time of very little wage growth and almost continual inflation. Prosperity has come to mean something different than it did in the 1960s. More axioms being questioned.

We grew up during a period when the weather was pretty much 'normal'. We have seen winters becoming milder, spring coming sooner, and summers beaming hotter. This is first hand experience. We have all seen a lot more severity in weather events. 4 months ago, there were a dozen tornadoes sighted; previously (over 130 years) zero tornadoes occurred in December.

Many people have gotten swamped by a tsunami of conflicting information and wild claims about everything from globe warming to who won the 2020 election. Once upon a time there were 3 TV networks and the newspaper (which were effective money-making operations). Now, there are hundreds of news and opinion channels, very little of it vetted by competent editors. It's no wonder that people are so misinformed that they are "not even wrong".

No, the 5 stages of grieving are not relevant. It's more a process of recalibrating as new and multiply validated information comes in,

If you are that old, maybe you'de recall the new ice age scare of the 70s?

Yes. I don't remember what mechanism was proposed to bring about an ice age. Nuclear winter, however, was deemed more likely in the 1980s. It was a not-altogether-irrational fear. Were several thousand nuclear bombs to destroy many cities in Europe and North America, the resulting blasts and fire storms would throw up enough ash, dust, and smoke to deflect enough sunlight to bring about -- not an ice age - but a long nuclear winter, lasting years. Food production in much o the world would become impossible. Maybe we would not survive, owing to starvation, if we survived the nuclear blasts.

Big volcanic eruptions have chilled the earth in the past, some fairly recently. In 1816 Mount Tambora blew up, lifting a massive dust cloud into the upper atmosphere, chilling the world's climate for a fairly short period of time (see The Year without Summer).

The crisis of global warming is far better supported by science and ordinary observation than the somewhat far-fetched ice age of the 1970s.

BTW, don't rest too easily. There are enough nuclear bombs and still enough delivery systems around to bring about a nuclear winter. The Union of Concerned Atomic Scientists thinks that we are as close to doomsday now as we have been since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the USSR started setting up nuclear weapons in Cuba.

Let me guess, you're in some sort of a lesbian dance therapy studies at USLA? ) — stoicHoneyBadger

Being a man, I doubt that they would even let me sign up for anything like that, even if such a thing does exist.

I believe you are suffering from Ideophobia, Gnosiophobia, Gynephobia, Gelotophobia, Epistemophobia, Centophobia, Atychiphobia, Allodoxaphobia, and the fear of looking like an idiot.

Either put up some sort of evidence that your method of dragging up kids is the best or just shut up and go away.
Seriously, no one has any good vibes about the bullshit you are blathering about andsome are beginning to look at you as though you are not quite all there.

Don't bother replying, I have had enough of your crap already.

Regards.

Being a man, I doubt that they would even let me sign up for anything like that, even if such a thing does exist. — Sir2u

What do you mean being a man, can't you identify as whomever you want? :D

Nuclear winter, however, was deemed more likely in the 1980s. — Bitter Crank

You can google it up, there was a scare of a new ice age coming ( not nuclear winder )

That’s your argument against climate change?

There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–100%) say humans are causing climate change.

In the 70s, the scientific papers which considered climate trends of the 21st century, less than 10% were inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.



Time to reevaluate your axioms, dude.

There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–100%) say humans are causing climate change. — praxis

1. why do we believe that warming is bad? where would you like to spend your holidays, in Florida or Alaska?

2. 97% of Muslims believe that there is no other Gob, but Allah. Does it make it true?

Why do we believe that too high a blood glucose level is bad? Because it negatively affects our health.

Rather than deny warming or claiming that it’s not bad, it would be honest if you would simply admit that you don’t care because it is unlikely to affect you personally. Can you do that?

Rather than deny warming or claiming that it’s not bad, it would be honest if you would simply admit that you don’t care because it is unlikely to affect you personally. Can you do that? — praxis

No, because saw enough times when ideologically motivated "experts" would come to delusional conclusions that would make much more harm than good. Take the covid lockdowns, for example. Equal amount of people died in countries with lockdowns and without. Only the first messed up their economy in addition. ;)
Same with this climate lunacy, how can a 1 or 2 or even 5 degrees have a negative impact? Like not it's 10 degrees outside, do you say that the sky will fall if it would be 11? Don't you think that you replaced any common sense you might have had with believing the "experts" ?

Same with this climate lunacy, how can a 1 or 2 or even 5 degrees have a negative impact? — stoicHoneyBadger

To be charitable, maybe you are confused by the difference between "weather" and "climate". Weather is what happens, and what changes every day. Climate is what has happened over the last 10 years, last century, last 1000 years, last 10,000 years.

In weather, a 10 degree difference doesn't matter. Warming up a planet's climate (the heat gain over the whole planet averaged out) 1 degree C (or 2 degrees F) is a huge event. It's a huge event because the 1 degree difference won't be averaged out; it will be experienced as extremes.

I don't need to look it up--I remember it. The business about an ice age in the 1970s was nothing like a scientific consensus. 99% of the population was not worried about it. A coming ice age was a blip. Nuclear winter was a bigger deal because that was something that stupid humans could actually bring about, and the feared nuclear winter wouldn't start until after the even more feared massive destruction of nuclear war.

You seem to be impervious to reasonable scientific arguments. Maybe you are lonely and have found that imperviousness gets you more attention than perceiving reason. I don't know what your problem is, but you seem to be affected by what the Jesuits call "invincible stupidity".

Jesuits call "invincible stupidity". — Bitter Crank

I would say the same about you. ) you just blindly trust the so called 'climate scientists', and don't even understand that they do not use the scientific method, non of their claims are verifiable or falsifiable.

They are just making observations, spicing them with assumptions and coming up with catastrophic conclusions, which gullible people believe, despite them being wrong multiple times. Remember how entire nations were supposed to be under water by 2000? Now, 20 years later, name me a single nation that has sunk.

If you take climate as an average of 30 years of weather, than all this 'climate change' is JUST ONE POINT on the graph. Besides, we don't have very accurate information from the time before records were taken, like before end of the 1800s. We have the ice core data, but to what degree they were smoothed out?...

Your Weltanschauung is perhaps not the same as mine.

What is going to happen in the future? Nobody knows for sure, because very unexpected things can happen. I'm old; I won't be here much longer. You are much younger; you will probably live to see how all this develops well past mid-century. I wish you, your son, the younger generation, and the next generations all the best luck you all can have.

My advice: Make your own observations. Splice them together and interpret them as best you can. Pay attention to news from around the world. Whatever is going to happen has long since been set in motion, and it will, in all likelihood, happen.

Enjoy your life today because the troubles of tomorrow will be difficult enough to manage.

Good luck.

Thank you. I did the best observations and interpretations I could and came to a conclusion that this 'climate scare', putting it mildly, does not have any real scientific backing ( i.e. the scientific method was not used here ), rather sort of a religion, cult or pseudoscience.

Anyway, since I am in eastern Europe, events in Ukraine seem much, much more important nowadays.

I did the best observations and interpretations I could and came to a conclusion that this 'climate scare', putting it mildly, does not have any real scientific backing ( i.e. the scientific method was not used here ), rather sort of a religion, cult or pseudoscience. — stoicHoneyBadger

You haven't shown any reasonable interpretations in this topic. The '70s ice age scare' is hardly a good reason to dismiss evidence for climate change, for instance.

Take the covid lockdowns, for example. Equal amount of people died in countries with lockdowns and without. Only the first messed up their economy in addition. — stoicHoneyBadger

You mean like Sweden? Sweden fared worse than its nearest neighbors (Denmark, Norway, Finland), in both health and economically.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map_Total_Deaths_per_Capita.svg

It’s a map with numbers on it. Deaths per capita, going by the link title.

Yes. I do not see Sweden doing FAR WORSE.

What am I missing???

moronicHoneyBadger can’t even read a simple map correctly?

Hello?

Deaths per capita shown on the map:

Sweeden - 182
Denmark - 102
Finland - 60
Norway - 51

If my math is right, it looks like Sweeden fared worse.

I assume the reasoning behind comparing Sweeden to its nearest neighbors is that it would be the most 'apples to apples' comparison, that they would be most alike geographically, politically, culturally, and economically. I don't know how similar they are but these factors obviously need to be taken into account when comparing covid responses and death rates by nation.

Peru is a standout example. Strick covid response yet double the death rate of a nation like the US with similar strictness. Conversely, the map also shows very low death rates in some central African nations despite a light covid response. Why would Sweeden's death rate be so much higher than those nations?

How's about France, Space having higher? Germany just a bit lower. Poland through the roof...
As for Africa, old and frail people probably already died of other diseases.

I tried to explain that it doesn't make much sense to compare the nations without taking into account differences in geography, politics, culture, economy, etc. Without looking into the details of it, it seems reasonable to assume that out of all other nations, Sweden is most comparable to Norway, Findland, and Denmark, but I don't know how true that is.

What do you mean being a man, can't you identify as whomever you want? :D — stoicHoneyBadger

Are you really not smart enough to understand what I said. Men cannot be lesbians. Identifying as a lesbian could not make me one.

Jeez, do you need help. :smirk:

Thinking about it, it seems I am a lesbian. Well, i mean i like women.

Lesbian -A female homosexual
Or a woman that likes other women.

Do you know that you are not a women, or have you not figured it out yet.

I seriously doubt that you did much thinking about it, or maybe you thinking capacity is very low.


Your poor kids, I feel so sorry for them.

I'd rather feel sorry for kids, whos parents are thinking up new ideas about gender fludity and such. :)

I'd rather feel sorry for kids, whos parents are thinking up new ideas about gender fludity and such. :) — stoicHoneyBadger

Holy shit, I sort of agree with you about that. But I have never met anyone that has tried to talk their kids into being bi-sexual or gay.

Where do you think the parents got the ideas from? Most parents are not really happy bout their kids being "different".
Could it be that the kids come up with the ideas?
Could it be that these concepts about gender have always been there and no one has ever talked about them, sort of like hiding in a closet type of thing?

But that still does not make it right for you to push your ideas down your kid's throats. Let them figure out what they want to be and how they want to live their lives. Just because you were force to each a lot of shit does not mean it is OK for you to do the same to them.

Where do you think the parents got the ideas from? Most parents are not really happy bout their kids being "different".
Could it be that the kids come up with the ideas?
Could it be that these concepts about gender have always been there and no one has ever talked about them, sort of like hiding in a closet type of thing? — Sir2u

I'd say it seems that some teachers, social media, even Disney are more than happy to indoctrinate children into this ideology.

But that still does not make it right for you to push your ideas down your kid's throats. Let them figure out what they want to be and how they want to live their lives. Just because you were force to each a lot of shit does not mean it is OK for you to do the same to them. — Sir2u

I actually was raised in a very hands-off way, which I believe was a mistake.
I am not saying that parents would force their unfulfilled dreams onto their kids, especially if the kids hate it. Yet in the same time kids don't have the mental capacity to figure everything out on their own, so their parents experience might come handy.