For the last 40 years we have been told that the world will end in 10 years. — Agree to Disagree

scaremongering — Agree to Disagree

But which kills more, heat or cold? — Agree to Disagree

And the climate denial just keeps on coming.

shellacking next year — Quixodian

Let’s hope.

Understanding climate denial used to seem easy: It was all about greed. Delve into the background of a researcher challenging the scientific consensus, a think tank trying to block climate action or a politician pronouncing climate change a hoax and you would almost always find major financial backing from the fossil fuel industry.

Those were simpler, more innocent times, and I miss them.

True, greed is still a major factor in anti-environmentalism. But climate denial has also become a front in the culture wars, with right-wingers rejecting the science in part because they dislike science in general and opposing action against emissions out of visceral opposition to anything liberals support.

And this cultural dimension of climate arguments has emerged at the worst possible moment — a moment when both the extreme danger from unchecked emissions and the path toward slashing those emissions are clearer than ever.

[…]

Back in 2009, when Democrats tried but failed to take significant climate action, their policy proposals consisted mainly of sticks — limits on emissions in the form of permits that businesses could buy and sell. In 2022, when the Biden administration finally succeeded in passing a major climate bill, it consisted almost entirely of carrots — tax credits and subsidies for green energy. Yet thanks to the revolution in renewable technology, energy experts believe that this all-gain-no-pain approach will have major effects in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But not if Republicans can help it. The Heritage Foundation is spearheading an effort called Project 2025 that will probably define the agenda if a Republican wins the White House next year. As The Times reports, it calls for “dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels.”

What’s behind this destructive effort? Well, Project 2025 appears to have been largely devised by the usual suspects — fossil-fueled think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute that have been crusading against climate science and climate action for many years.

But the political force of this drive, and the likelihood that there will be no significant dissent from within the G.O.P. if Republicans do take the White House, has a lot to do with the way science in general and climate science in particular have become a front in the culture war.

Paul Krugman (I gifted a free article.)

I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means. — ChatteringMonkey

Like with most climate deniers, this will slowly become more apparent.

But I appreciate you taking over the annoying job of explaining things. I think I’m tapped out.

Lest we get too caught up in the complete nonsense being spewed by climate deniers on this page, I want to remind everyone of the facts (mentioned before and completely ignored, incidentally):

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



We haven’t gone over 300 ppm in 800 THOUSAND years. Hence the rapid rise in temperatures.

If we really don’t yet understand why that’s a bad thing— for everyone — then fortunately there’s Google.

Alarmists want you to believe that any temperature increase anywhere is bad. But there are many places in the world where a small temperature increase would be good. — Agree to Disagree

“Alarmists.” :lol:

If the earth was abnormally cold in the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial times) then the temperature recovering to normal (i.e. global warming) is probably a good thing. — Agree to Disagree

I’m glad to see the fully-fledged denier in you coming out. My senses still serve me well I see.

Even after all the politician-like statements about how you “of course” don’t deny climate change. The climate ALWAYS changes blah blah blah.

First nothing can be done because it’s cold in Russia.

Then scientists around the world are misleading people by focusing on anomalies and averages, rather than the “actual” temperatures that you alone have put nicely in a graph.

Then “what about the little ice age?”

Now: maybe a warming planet is a good thing?

So very predictable. Anyone who can’t see this is a complete imbecile.

Global warming is slow and small compared to seasonal warming. — Agree to Disagree

Wow.

Yeah, you’re right— I guess you’re really on to something! Keep up the great work.

- global average temperature has increased rapidly
- global CO2 emissions has increased rapidly since the Industrial Revolution

As CO2 increases, temperature increases. Hence why the average goes up. An average means there will be some areas that are still cold, even very cold (like Russia, Greenland, Canada, the Antarctic, parts of Alaska, parts of Argentina, etc.).

If you don't know this then you don't know much about climate-change/global-warming. — Agree to Disagree

They’re all based on averages. Even anomalies, which you seem to barely understand, are based on averages. You cited an average yourself — for the month of January.

The global average temperature in the 20th century was 57 degrees F. There’s nothing “not actual” about that.

Also, having a huge collection of data points around the world is pointless. You take averages— long term and short term averages— to understand changes (whether positive or negative, which are deviations [“anomalies”] from a certain period’s average). Otherwise it’s simply pointless to look at a globe and say “hey, look at all the blue spots in January!”

Try learning something about climate change. Start by reading the link you cite. It doesn’t seem like you have.

Best to laugh and walk away. — Banno

You’re more restrained than I am. This is a particularly important issue for me — which also makes it difficult to discuss with people who so arrogantly display their ignorance.

Your response shows that you don't really know much about climate-change/global-warming. — Agree to Disagree

Yet, a few sentences later:

Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies. — Agree to Disagree

Care to give any examples whatsoever?

Anyway, this is yet another denialist claim— i.e., the climate scientists aren’t being truthful with the public or giving the whole story. Usually it’s confined to the liberal media, not scientists themselves— but you take it a step further.

Anyway, you’re wrong. What you’re referring to is talk about average global temperatures. Anomalies are certainly seen on this level, yes. Which is why year after year breaks records (of measurements that began in the late 19th century).

You’re just confused about “anomalies”, apparently thinking scientists only report on the specific areas that are breaking heat records (which also explains your odd obsession with the “coldness” of Russia). This doesn’t even make sense, though, when you contrast it with “actual” temperatures: even high temperatures that break records (“anomalies”) are “actual”: they’re as real as any other temperature.

The real contrast to “actual” would be “speculative” in some sense, or perhaps somehow based on modeling (opposed to “real” thermometer readings).

So nothing you’re saying makes sense.

Here are the facts:

- global average temperature has increased rapidly
- global CO2 emissions has increased rapidly since the Industrial Revolution

As CO2 increases, temperature increases. Hence why the average goes up. An average means there will be some areas that are still cold, even very cold (like Russia, Greenland, Canada, the Antarctic, parts of Alaska, parts of Argentina, etc.).

But they have chosen to "hide" the actual temperatures from the public. — Agree to Disagree

Again— this is a climate denial argument. Somehow climate change isn’t “scary” (and perhaps not even real) because scientists are withholding information or are deliberately scaring the public.

What examples do you have? What could you possibly mean by “actual” temperatures? The temperature today in New Hampshire was a high of 79 and a low of 54. Which one is “actual”? If the average temperature today was 65, is that not real?

Look at all of the purple and blue color in the Northern Hemisphere. Purple represents actual temperatures less than zero degrees Celsius. Literally freezing cold. — Agree to Disagree

Yes…and?? What is your point? And are these averages for January? Are averages “actual” temperatures? If so, then that’s exactly what climate scientists talk about — which you claimed they don’t. They report on average global temperatures for each year — which is what you hear about in the news.

Yes, it's cold in winter. :roll: — Banno

I’m glad I’m not the only one who recognizes how ridiculous this is.

For example, Russia with +7.5 degrees Celsius of global warming will still have an average high temperature of the hottest month lower than America's with no global warming. — Agree to Disagree

So you’ve gathered data and put it into a graph — which thousands of climate scientists have also done — and then conclude with, once again, talking about how Russia is cold.

And this is supposed to disprove my quote statements above— which I stand by wholeheartedly. Hilarious.

It’s cold some places, it’s hotter other places. No kidding. Do you have a point to make or are you now just talking into the ether?

Yeah man, I was just satirizing.

I believe that these roadblocks won't be overcome. — Agree to Disagree

Right, you’re here to say “it can’t happen.” Just like those who said we’d never solve the ozone hole problem. Just a wave of the hand. Don’t have to learn anything or know anything, just point and say “way too hard— won’t happen.” Yeah, I suppose if everyone had attitudes like yours, it’d be a guarantee that nothing will happen.

Fortunately, even those who are pessimistic stress the importance of action. I value their onions; I don’t value yours. And for a simple reason: you haven’t shown even an 8th grade understanding of climate science.

Anyway— yes, time will tell.

No one can incite a riot. It’s just words. How can words be crimes?

Why should the Russians cooperate with you? — Agree to Disagree

So the Russians won’t cooperate because it’s cold in Russia. Which is like arguing that the Cook Island don’t care about nuclear proliferation, since they have may survive a nuclear war.

What a low opinion you have of Russian people. In fact, polling shows majorities consider climate change a threat and want to do something about it— despite massive propaganda from this Petrol State.

The Russian government also signed the Paris Accords. The elite pay lip service to climate change but have so far done very little— not a surprise, given their economy.

These counties might say that they will cooperate, but how hard will they really try? — Agree to Disagree

Many are trying much harder than us, in fact. With the exception of Canada, I think, all of them have lower per capita emissions than we do. So they’re trying harder and contributing less at the same time.

The issue, as I said at the beginning, is political will. Other countries have much stronger action plans on climate change. The dopey US, with one major party full of climate deniers, has only tepidly entered the fight with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which incentivizes EVs, heat pumps, induction stoves, solar panels, etc. — all of which are important technologies. It seems a decent signal to the rest of the world.

There are real roadblocks. Nothing you mentioned, of course, because you don’t know what you’re talking about — but problems like building transmission lines, dealing with permitting and NIMBYism, plugging old oil wells, sealing the leakage of methane from natural gas wells, countering misperceptions about nuclear power, etc., are all real problems. But they’re not impossible. As the climate keeps beating down on more and more people, you’ll start seeing more changes. It’s whether or not there’s enough time— that’s the only question.

To come here with one argument: “throw a solution at me and I’ll make up a reason why it won’t happen,” is really strange. Guess you figured it would make you look interesting in some way. The reality is quite the opposite.

You call me a denier whenever you disagree with me. You say that my ideas are nonsense whenever you don't want to discuss them. I have refrained from labelling you because I want to have a genuine discussion about climate-change/global-warming. It is you who is stopping us having a good faith discussion. — Agree to Disagree

No, it's you. I gave you a long, detailed post explaining what climate change is. You respond with irrelevancies like "It's cold in Moscow."

If that's truly where your head is at -- to the point where you can't even see how stupid and irrelevant that statement was -- I'm not interested. You're not directing where the conversation goes, and I won't be dragged into a discourse on nonsense.

If you have something to say about climate change, or anything substantive about my post, by all means go for it. If there's some semblance of a point to be made by stating that one region of the world is cold, make it. Otherwise you're wasting my time and everyone else's.

(To those following along, notice how we've already strayed from anything to do with science, where some work actually needs to be done to follow along, into the subjective, flimsy world of "you're mean to me; I'm misunderstood; you call me names; you're not addressing my red herrings")

It seems that if 2) and 3) are true, then you are sure of at least some of the limits of science. — PhilosophyRunner

We can be unsure about what’s true and not true, yes? It doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as truth.

And the same question for the other things you called pseudoscience. There is some reason you call these pseudoscience, something that distinguishes them as not science. What is it? — PhilosophyRunner

Well, we can start with the fact that there’s no credible evidence whatsoever for their claims or their beliefs. There’s very little evidence that manipulating vertebrae has any significant health benefits (beyond placebo), for instance. There’s no evidence that the positions of the planets have any demonstrable effect on human beings. And so forth.

But there are psychological reasons too. It’s usually easy to identify when a person wants to believe something— for understandable reasons. Whether because it’s comforting or there’s financial incentive or whatever. So motivation is a factor. Motivated reasoning.

But there’s also all kinds of biases and pitfalls that lead people astray— and you don’t even have to examine the evidence to know it’s complete nonsense. Claims about 9/11 and the moon landing are some obvious ones. Take a lot of people in, because they’re presented very smartly, by design. But upon inspection — assuming we need to bother to get that far — they reveal themselves as the half-truths and cherry-picked conglomerate of bullshit that they are.

This unverified-but-not-unverifiable direction of research begs for abuse by pseudo-scientific interests. — Pantagruel

Exactly, which is why there’s so much woo-woo that uses quantum mechanics as an example to justify it. Another one: “energy.” More New Age-y stuff. They really have no understanding of any of it, they simply use it to create fictions — like science fiction writers. Crichton did something similar with Jurassic Park … a lot of fun, but complete nonsense.

But isn't this what keeps philosophy alive as an independent discipline? Without that, doesn't it become just a theme? — Pantagruel

Yes it is what helps it remain a discipline — a specific profession and subject of study in schools, and so on. So be it. It’s a convenience.

But was Aristotle a philosopher? Sure. Also a political scientist, botanist, zoologist, etc. I think the professionalization of academia and the economic changes of specialized “jobs” has been internalized by nearly everyone, to the point where general inquiry and thoughtfulness is compartmentalized unnecessarily. It becomes part of an identity, as well. “I’m a philosopher…I’m a biologist…” In university websites, you see publications and “research interests.”

The most interesting people I’ve encountered pretty much ignore all of that— they’re interested in everything and want to learn. Chomsky, a personal favorite, is usually hard to peg: historian? Certainly — with no degree in history. Linguist…philosopher…political theorist…social critic. Yes. What about Kant? Scientist? Sure.

The point being: the names are fine for ordinary life and convenience. But we shouldn’t take them too seriously. Nearly everyone has the potential to “do” philosophy. It’s just a particular kind of thinking, in my view. Always relevant.

This may serve as a good starting point to understand the demarcation of science - what makes one theory science and another pseudo-science? Is it in the method used? — PhilosophyRunner

I don’t think sweeping, abstract claims can be made. You have to look at specific, real world examples. So, are horoscopes pseudoscience? Yes. Is chiropractic a pseudoscience? It depends - but mostly, yes. Is creation “Science” pseudoscience? Yes. And so on. You can demonstrate each fairly easily.

Do you care that the people who live in Russia are too cold? — Agree to Disagree

So much for a good faith discussion about climate change.

As with most climate deniers, the conversation has to devolve into nonsense.

The science is never settled. — Agree to Disagree

It is settled. In any meaningful sense whatsoever, it’s settled. It’s as settled as the earth being spherical.

Notice how the “science is never settled” trope gets used selectively. Especially when one knows next to nothing about the topic. Quantum mechanics? Science isn’t settled. Electromagnetism? Science isn’t settled. “Science is never settled!” They become armchair philosophers of science.

Easy, tired slogans.

I’ll simplify it further:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Burning fossil fuels increases CO2.
3. With increased CO2 comes an increase in global temperatures— as seen in the graphs from my post above.

That’s settled.

I am not sure whether CO2 is responsible for 100% of the temperature increase. — Agree to Disagree

No one has ever claimed — certainly not climate scientists — that CO2 is “100% responsible”. This is a ludicrous statement.

Right…that’s where this is going: it’s something other than CO2. But they can’t say it outright.

You seem to care about Foote's experiment because you used it to show that the glass container with more CO2 heated up the fastest. — Agree to Disagree

I pointed it out as a historical fact, which anyone can reproduce. You can do it yourself. You can control for anything you want — put more or less water vapor, throw in methane, anything. The particular experiment from the 1800s isn’t important beyond that. Who cares?

To save you from wasting more of your time, and my time, I will tell you what I believe. I believe:
- that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
- that humans are responsible for most of the increase in CO2 level above about 280 ppm
- that a lot of the increase in CO2 levels is due to the use of fossil fuels
- that the average temperature of the Earth has warmed by around 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times

Does that make me a "denier" ? — Agree to Disagree

Not in the Bjorn Lomborg sense, I suppose.

So you say all this and yet bring up things like Moscow and how cows are a major industry and thus we won’t solve the issue. Why?

I should give that a read — sounds interesting.

I also think that there is a scientific attitude, a characteristic way of approaching problems. — Quixodian

I agree with you. But I think a similar attitude can exist in philosophy, and that what we call science is an offshoot of this. The difference being that scientists’ ontology is naturalism.



Others seem to be understanding the OP just fine, so I’m not sure what more you’re looking for. Either science is unique in some way — as many claim, and which I myself believe — or it isn’t. If it is, what makes it unique? The scientific method? That’s also been claimed, and I don’t agree with it.

Scientific practice ideally consists in unbiased and (as much as is humanly possible) presuppositionless inquiry. — Janus

But it does presuppose naturalism, does it not?

I don’t know if it’s humanly possible, as you mentioned. It does seem like the best we have, but even the best makes some very basic assumptions.

In my view, it'd be hard to sincerely act as if anything goes. — plaque flag

I don’t mean to say that anything goes. I don’t believe that. I’m saying the idea of the scientific method is mostly wrong-headed. Unless of course we want to define it as something different from what is usually meant.

However this is itself a danger, because pseudo-science can also cloak itself in the garb of architectonic. Hence the confusion of the modern world. — Pantagruel

A very important point, yes.

Does everybody want climate-change/global-warming to be "solved" ? — Agree to Disagree

Anyone with an 6th grade understanding of climate change does, yes.

True, the fossil fuel industry and their propaganda cronies probably don’t— but I’m not interested in narcissistic greed.

Are the people who live in Moscow “suffering” from global-warming? — Agree to Disagree

Questions like this is why I say you’re an average climate denier, or at least parroting their greatest hits.

Do you really not understand how irrelevant this is? It’s the equivalent of bringing a snowball to the senate floor.

Questions about Eunice Foote's experiment: — Agree to Disagree

You can look up the details if you want to. But what is your point? Are you seriously doubting whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Are you seriously suggesting that the rise in temperature we see globally is due to water vapor (a common denialist claim)?

We can go into the weeds on the greenhouse effect and the physical properties of CO2 if you like. But as far as Foote’s specific experiment — who cares?

Depends on what you mean by philosophy, of course.

Is asking universal questions irrelevant, for example? I don’t think so. I think we need it more than ever.

How philosophy is thought of today, as one academic subject of many, taught by those with Ph.D.s, who mainly discuss the history of the great thinkers and great books…yeah, this professionalization is basically irrelevant today. May it die out sooner than later.

Calling me names seems to be your way of avoiding a real discussion of climate change. — Agree to Disagree

Okay— so here’s a primer on climate change. Since you claim to want a discussion, and aren’t here to troll, lets begin. Let me know where you get confused…

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/paleoCO2_2020dot_1400_2.jpg

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

There is nothing "average" about my views on climate change. — Agree to Disagree

No, there is. They fall right in the meaty part of the curve of climate denial. Fairly boring, actually.

If you think that worrying about cows producing methane is ludicrous then please tell the people who think that this is problem that they are being ridiculous. — Agree to Disagree

No, it’s a very real problem. Your characterization of the solution, and your dismissal, is ludicrous.

As well as looking at temperature anomalies I have also looked in detail at actual temperatures. — Agree to Disagree

Good, so you know very well that the temperature is increasing, and at a very alarming rate. I’m glad you can read a graph.

Do I sound like "just a fairly average climate denier" to you? — Agree to Disagree

Yep. And from the other ignorant things you’ve said so far, perhaps below average.

Trump's team is preparing to falsely claim that mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 — a legitimate count expected to favor Democrats — are evidence of election fraud.

And this article was published days before the election. I guess they’re psychics. Only explanation. Definitely not because any thinking person could see it beforehand.

he clearly had a plan ahead of time to declare victory regardless of the election results. — GRWelsh

Which is so obvious even a Trump supporter will deny it.

Another climate denial retort. What a shocker.

So I’m seeing now that you’re just a fairly average climate denier coming here to spread old, tired canards. Scroll up for responses.

Let me guess:

- The climate is always changing.

- Climate scientists the world over are involved in some kind of conspiracy involving controlling people for a New World Order.

- Climate change is happening, but it’s from natural variation, not CO2 buildup.

- Celebrities and scientists use planes/cars/anything involving fossil fuels— bam, climate change is refuted.

- CO2 is good for us.

Etc etc.

Look about right? Thought so.

Why not run along before embarrassing yourself further about a subject of which you’re completely ignorant? :up:

Democrats: It's raining.
Republicans: No it's not.
Media (without bothering to look out the window): There's a political dispute about whether or not it's raining.

Just saw this. Accurate.

“It was also very sad driving through Washington, D.C., and seeing the filth and the decay, and all of the broken buildings and walls and the graffiti. This is not the place that I left.”

Comedy gold.

Imagine a candidate losing an election, and claiming the loss was because of millions of votes from the Moon People.

Then everyone has to dissect whether or not there really are Moon People, whether the candidate “really” believes it, etc— and 50/60 million people end up believing it.

There’s just as much evidence for Moon People as there is for voter fraud or a stolen election.

All of these legal proceedings for the ramblings of a narcissistic man/child. It’s an incredible sight. And watching the supporters contort themselves into mental pretzels is astonishing.

I didn’t fail the test mom — the teacher is out to get me.

Trump supporter defense. Airtight.

That will be trivially easy. The election was legit. His own people told him that - Pence, Barr, Wray, Krebs, etc, etc. They will testify as such in court. And there are 1000s of election officials all across the country who have stated that the election was fair - I'm sure they would be willing to testify if called upon.

It's now been over 2 & 1/2 years and yet there is no evidence of any fraud that would have altered the outcome. All Trump's lawyers have is just hand waving. — EricH

And dozens of court cases, where the lawyers were laughed out of court. Also, look no further than Arizona -- where the Arizona senate-commissioned "Cyber Ninjas" conducted their 9 million dollar "audit" and found ugatz: https://www.americanoversight.org/records-reveal-high-cost-of-security-contractors-for-arizona-election-audit

Trump was saying the election was going to be stolen if he lost long before the election, and so any thinking person knew he was going to say it was stolen if he lost. I was calling it long beforehand -- as anyone would. It wasn't going to matter if it was the cleanest election in history -- which it turned out to be -- or if there were massive glitches.

(We knew, for example, that mail-in votes, which are counted later, would swing democratic because Trump was screaming about voter fraud and telling his followers to go in person. So his numbers spiked at the beginning, and gradually tapered off...which was expected--again-- by anyone with a thinking mind. He seized on this, of course, pretended he didn't know it, and made out like the election was someone being stolen from him.)

What's sad about all this is that we even have to talk about the predictable tantrum-ramblings of a man-child. It's so very obvious it's all bullshit -- it didn't need to go to the courts, or have million-dollar audits, or anything else. It was all fabricated, predictably, by a man who psychologically cannot lose. In his mind, he cannot be a loser. What did we think he would do, concede graciously?

If our country was rational, a person like this would be relegated to the fringes of society, easily ignored. But we have to go on about it because 30% of the country actually believes this stuff. Sad indeed.

political will to regulate industries, which are the material if not the final cause of climate change. Well that's exactly what I suggested people could be persuaded to do, essentially curtailing their own worst tendencies, indirectly. — Pantagruel

:up:

Sounded as if you were saying something along the carbon footprint line, which directs responsibility on the consumer a la the tobacco industry of yore. But if you weren’t saying that — my fault for misreading.



Yes. After COVID, I think people got a sense of just how quickly governments can move if they want to. Prior to that, at least in the states, the example was WWII — but that’s simply not as visceral (or remembered).