Aren't the Netherlands already under water? — frank

Yes, the Dutch have had to deal with water for centuries. I live by the coast myself, so when the deluge comes I'll be the first to know about it. :lol:

I'm sure the insurance companies must be worried sick about those supposed two milimeters of sea level rise per year. With such numbers we may as well assume the foetal position and wait for the water to take us.

That bastion of integrity and wisdom.

So you don't believe you have any ability as an educated layperson to critically assess the plausibility of scientific claims? — Janus

I have some ability of course. I live by the sea, and empirically I observe none of the supposedly world-shattering trends that people talk about. So I'm having to take someone else's word for it that there is in fact something going on.

So, for you it's all a matter of trust or lack of it, not a matter of exercising your critical intelligence? — Janus

Ultimately I'm just taking scientists at their word, so yes trust is important. And over the last decade or so my trust in academia has eroded a great deal, with Covid being the nail on that coffin.

I just take note of typical grifty tactics, like narrative shifting, and as the list grows my trust shrinks.

Stupid? For noticing the narrative shift and wondering where it came from? Maybe you should cramp a little harder. :lol:

Lol. — Mikie

Lol.

Did anyone ever wonder why they changed their brand from "global warming" to "climate change"?

those evil damn Westerners — Mar 3, 2023

For sure the people in Washington are evil, and the people in Brussels are ignorant. But my intention was never to exonerate Russia, rather to make clear that the West is just as bad as they, and that all this narrative spin is just window dressing for a cynical game that is about power and nothing else.

That's how the US sells all the coup d'etats it organises, and there have been many, and pretty much none of them have turned out well. There's not much else left for me to say about it. I simply don't buy that argument.

You're blaming Biden for Russia invading Ukraine and Ukraine not willing to give away some of their territory in exchange for "peace"? — Michael

I view US as being principally responsible, and Biden has been on that portfolio since the start of the conflict. Nuland, Blinken and Sullivan have all been involved in various capacities and advisory roles to Biden, Nuland of course being especially notorious.

So in short, yes. I view Biden and gang as bearing principal responsibility for the outbreak of the conflict. Russia bears responsibility for its own decisions.

Since the outbreak the administration has consistently doubled down on stupid, mostly predicated on the erroneous idea that developed during 2022 that Ukraine was winning the war.

What about domestic? I suspect that's what Americans care most about. — Michael

I'm a European. I don't know enough about American domestic politics to judge how well he's doing there.

In terms of foreign policy the Biden administration has been a disaster.

Ukraine was their project, and it has been a hopeless mess. From cynically pushing Russia (probably in the belief that Putin was bluffing), to a strategy of wishful thinking that not only failed to hurt Russia but in fact spectatularly backfired, and continuing by burning all bridges by boycotting diplomacy, only to then make a 180 and subsequently failing to push Zelensky into negotiations.

The fact that many states refused to side with the West basically lost the United States the Persian Gulf, where, to add insult to injury, China brokered a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi-Arabia, and now there's Israel where again the Biden administration doesn't seem to realize it is playing a losing hand and goes with the true and tried "When in doubt, express unconditional support for Israel" strategy.

In terms of foreign relations, the US lost on all fronts under Biden. It's been one tragic clownshow.


The proof is in the pudding, as they say. :lol: But I gave you the means to educate yourself, and don't pretend I didn't produce arguments.

Of course it is. You don't like the fact that I criticize Biden without trying to defend Trump, so you're trying to find a way to lump me into the Trump camp anyway by calling me "Trumpian". It's childish and transparent.

A covert conspiracy for Ukraine to become a modern democracy, eh? — jorndoe

You use the term 'covert conspiracy' presumably to ridicule the idea, however the US has been on a constant tour to do exactly that: toppling regimes, and even legitimate governments, in pursuit of its own interest, leaving utter chaos in its wake.

If the idea sounds ridiculous to you, it must be because you don't know your own country's history very well.

Are you aware that this is a standard Trumpian rhetorical tactic, claiming that everyone knows or everyone says or everyone thinks? — Fooloso4

I'm not claming such things. I just don't think it's a serious argument.

Also, I think your attempt at likening me to Trump is really immature. :brow:

Putin couldn't countenance a pro-West Ukraine. — Relativist

Of course. And that's why they brought it up repeatedly in search for a solution. They were ignored.

Putin's invasion wasn't inevitable at all. All it would have taken was for the West to take Russia's security concerns seriously. At least enter into serious dialogue. None of that ever happened. They pushed the Russians, probably because they thought Russia was weak and Putin was bluffing. It turns out they weren't.

Ukraine is primarily the West's fault. Had Ukraine remained committed to neutrality, and had the US not sought to change Ukraine's neutral status, the entire conflict could have been avoided.

Are you blaming the entire current administration? — Fooloso4

Yea, that's beyond obvious. I don't know how anyone can seriously deny US involvement in the Maidan coup and the dumpster fire that it turned into today. I attribute primary (though not all) responsibility to the US, and the people in the US that orchestrated it are sitting in the White House right now.

Are you not familiar with the Nuland-Pyatt phonecall?

For extra reference, from 2015, by the way:

You can look it up; Biden, Nuland, Sullivan, Blinken, they all were.

The Maidan conflict predates Trump and cannot be blamed on Biden. — Fooloso4

Biden was VP during the Maidan, and Ukraine was his portfolio. Of course he was involved. The entire current administration was involved in the Maidan. Ukraine is their project, and it crashed and burned in a most spectacular fashion, sadly taking Ukraine itself along with it.

What I'm trying to make clear is that Biden has been a disaster in his own right. — Tzeentch

Except you haven't. — Fooloso4

You don't think the Biden administration has been an unmitigated disaster? Ok.

I suppose it will forever remain a mystery to you then why people vote Trump.

What makes you think Putin would have hesitated to attack Ukraine if Trump were still in office? Trump's isolationism, and criticism of NATO, would have been the best possible situation for Putin. — Relativist

I don't think the Russians wanted to invade Ukraine at all. They did so because they felt they had no other option. If the US hadn't pressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine, this war could have been avoided entirely.

In that case, if you cannot rule out Putin attacking if Trump was president, the connection with Biden is tenuous.

He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict ...

What seeds of conflict did he sow? — Fooloso4

Again, since 2009 onward all the people I've named from the Biden administration including Biden himself have been deeply involved in project Ukraine.

That project sought the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO, and zero attention was paid to Russia's many objections, who spoke about red lines, fundamental security threats, etc.

Perhaps they thought the Russians were bluffing, but they knowingly invited conflict by ignoring them.

The involvement of these people is that they are acting within their official capacities as government officials in the Biden administrations. Of course they are involved! As would members of a Trump administration, unless you think Trump's "solution" would be to turn his back and ignore what is going on. — Fooloso4

Perhaps that is true, but I'm not aware of any members of the Trump administration handing out cookies on the Maidan.

To many people's dismay, Putin and Trump kinda liked each other. Regardless of what one thinks of that, it didn't appear to me that the issue was being pressed under Trump.

I'm open to being corrected. I'm not here to defend Trump. What I'm trying to make clear is that Biden has been a disaster in his own right.

So, Hamas and Israel have agreed to a cease fire and the US has blocked it? — Fooloso4

No, the US blocked UN Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire, and expressed its unconditional support for Israel.

Again, I view the US as complicit in the war crimes Israel is committing.

His strategy vis-á-vis NATO was probably to pressure the Europeans to stop freeloading. I don't think he would actually leave. And honestly in terms of European freeloading behavior he has a point.

The US is going to have (basically is already having) a huge problem keeping all its interests afloat now that shit is hitting the fan. If Europe with a combined GDP roughly equal to the US can't even maintain a credible deterrent towards Russia, which has 1/10th that GDP, something is wrong.

2) he's going to withdraw form NATO and basically join BRIC. No, it doesn't make much sense, but such is life. :grin: — frank

That does sound a bit far-fetched.

Are you claiming that this would not have happened if Trump was in office? — Fooloso4

Obviously that would be way too strong of a claim. I think there's a non-trivial chance that it wouldn't have happened under Trump, but the question is whether Trump would be able to go against the neocon establishment ("the Blob") - something Obama was unable to do (despite wanting and trying to do so).

As for Biden, he is the Blob.

Are you going to blame Biden for Putin's invasion of Cimea in 2014? — Fooloso4

Biden is obviously not responsible for Putin's decisions, but in a way, yes. He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict, together with Nuland, Sullivan, Blinken - the whole gang. Ukraine was their project, they pushed Russia and refused dialogue, and they turned it into a complete and utter disaster.

In response to the question of evidence for your post hoc claim "crystal clear" won't cut it. — Fooloso4

Evidence? :brow:

The involvement of all of the people I've named is not controversial or even secret.

If there is a cease fire will you give Biden credit or is he only responsible when it comes to placing blame? — Fooloso4

The US has blocked a cease fire several times already. Of course Biden would deserve no credit for it. As far as I am concerned, the US is complicit in the war crimes Israel is committing as we speak.

Why is that ironic? — Fooloso4

Because the article linked was talking about how the Russians might attack if Trump gets elected. The Russians in fact attacked when Biden came into office, likely due to his long-lasting involvement in Ukraine.

And his involvement is not any kind of secret. He was in charge of the Ukraine portfolio as VP under Obama, from the period 2009-present (now as president, obviously), including when the 2014 coup happened. Nuland was famously handing out cookies on the Maidan, caught on tape designing the post-coup government, etc. Sullivan and Blinken have also been deeply involved in Ukraine.

The links between the Biden administration and Russia's invasion are crystal clear.

Ironically, Putin attacked Ukraine when Biden became president, most likely due to Biden's long standing involvement in Ukraine. His entire administration consists of Ukraine hawks. NATO expansion into Ukraine is their project.

Then there's Biden's cart blanche to Netanyahu, the loss of the Persian Gulf, etc.

Despite its many faults, the Trump administration really did a much better job at foreign politics.


The idea that Russia will attack Europe is extremely silly for several reasons. The Germans are probably afraid Trump will be elected president because Trump realized the Europeans are in a shitty bargaining position and started to press them. He was exactly right about that. That was actually a good move on Trump's part.

It's not hard to see why a lot of people support Trump. The Biden administration has been an absolute dumpster fire. If Biden is the lesser of those two evils, it's only by a small margin. I don't know much about American domestic politics, but in terms of foreign policy the Biden administration did way worse.

It's the classic Giant Douche vs. a Turd Sandwich. Both options are awful. The other side isn't a bunch of deplorables because they differ in taste of awful.

So calling people grifters is not taking the moral high ground? — unenlightened

No, not really. Recognizing something is as a grift has nothing to do with morality.

None of that has anything to do with what I said, though.

That would be a stronger argument if it were not the sceptics that framed it that way. — unenlightened

I don't think that's an accurate way of describing the skepticism expressed in this thread at all.

This isn't a question about caring for others at all.

Attempts to frame it as such is simply a transparent attempt at claiming a moral high ground by smearing the other side as being selfish and immoral. It's intellectual poverty.

That much is evident, the dumb cattle would rather not have kids and buy electric cars (which make no difference) while millionaires stay and will stay on their private jets burning diesel. But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. — Lionino

My thoughts exactly. :pray:

“The huge human cost of the climate crisis is being ignored. We hear of disaster relief, but the long-term costs are not being addressed. We must provide lasting support for people impacted by climate change,” said Ian Fry, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change.

In his report to the Council, the Special Rapporteur outlined a six-point plan to address the human rights aspects of the problem.

Communities in vulnerable situations, including indigenous peoples, peasants, migrants, children, women, persons with disabilities and people living in small island developing States and least developed countries, are disproportionately at risk from adverse impacts of climate change, the UN expert said.

He also highlighted the many non-economic losses stemming from climate change and its consequences. “For instance, in countries where I have worked and visited in the Pacific for the last 20 years, people are witnessing the graves of their loved ones being washed out into the sea,” the expert said.

Fry noted that the key element of his plan would be to investigate the plight of people displaced by the impacts of climate change. The expert said that of 59.1 million people internally displaced in 2021 across the world, most were displaced by climate-related disasters. He noted that the number was far higher than displacement due to armed conflict.

How does this not sound extremely grifty?

People have had to deal with the effects of all kinds of change for as long as humanity has existed, but now there are people in need for "long-lasting support" and this bozo needs your money.

Subsidizing people for living in unsustainable conditions is a terrible idea, and I have no doubt a large part of that money would disappear into the pockets of, you guessed it, grifters.

If two centimeters of sea-level rise means you and your family are washed away, maybe think about moving. In fact, maybe you should have thought about moving yesterday. But even so, those two centimeters will take a couple decades - there's still time!

Treating people like children and helpless victims; it's a funny tendency within modern societies and apparently also in supranational organisations. Maybe a form of subconscious savior complex?

Personally, I'm a bit more cynical, as you might have guessed. This is grifty language, used to manipulate and guilt-trip people, which sadly is all too common in these forms of charity.

The only one screaming endlessly here is you, ...

"They" the media? choose a child because that makes it more believable? — unenlightened

Yes. Why would a climate apocalypse unfolding before our very eyes need to be "made more believable"?

Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. The choice of a child was deliberate, because people don't like to criticize children. And grifters don't like criticism.

Further, fearmongering and targeting children is a deliberate and grifty tactic.

Not the end of the world, just the end of your world. — unenlightened

I think you know little of my world, but don't you think this is a bit ironic considering the tone you've chosen?

It's psychobabble Jim, not pseudo-religious hooey, [...] — unenlightened

Gotcha.

[...] and definitely not grift. — unenlightened

No, I wasn't calling you a grifter. But if you're genuinely under the impression the world is about to end, you've fallen victim to a grift.

Well, another element of the climate grift was how they chose a child, Greta, as their spokesperson. That's a pretty classic example of grift.

Cramped reactions like these only suggest the aforementioned intellectual foetal position to me, to be honest.

I wasn't referring to any quotes from NASA. I was referring to the very thing you linked me.

There is a an important psychological aspect to climate change, that it demands a huge transformation in ones fundamental understanding of oneself, of humanity, of society and economics, and a change of direction away from endless growth that threatens ones' identity like no other issue. Denial is commonplace, and particularly denial that anything is happening that will radically change the way of life of the human world. — unenlightened

If this isn't pseudo-religious hooey, I don't know what is.