They use words like "grifter" without identifying any actual case, cast doubt on the sanity of their interlocutors, make vague accusations of religiosity with no foundation, and then come up with Dr John Christy for fucks sake, ex missionary turned climate denier, supported by big oil, Trump's darling, and present him as legitimate mainstream science. — unenlightened

This is what I mean. Otherwise normal adults regress to the intellectual level of maybe an 8 or 9v year old when they hit this topic. And it’s an easy one to look at, because the evidence is overwhelming (and why the consensus is so high).

So it’s fun to see. You get either complete ignorance or conspiracy theories (also just ignorance) repeated from conservative circles — ie talking heads who are themselves parroting talking points from fossil industry lawyers and think tanks.

So it’s a hoax, a grift, an agenda, a scam, a religion. Climate scientists are alarmists, dogmatists, zealots. Funny so much quasi-religious accusations get thrown about when so much of this comes from evangelicals, who themselves are largely young-earth creationists.

Words don’t influence people— people influence people. Through words. But only in some cases— like when it’s convenient to our political ideology.

Donald Trump knew there would be violence— and rallied his followers for it, knowing full well he could claim plausible deniability while he drove back to the White House.

Kudos to @Michael for continually exposing to any viewing bystander just how ridiculous our resident Trump cultist’s views are.

The United Nations said in 1989 that the Earth would be underwater if we did not stop climate change by 2000 — Lionino

No they didn’t.

Also relevant — Lionino

No, it isn’t. Read up on both the article and the goofy Roy Spencer. Both guys are long known climate deniers.

Can’t denialists peddle anything new? Jeesh.

Gaza Deaths Surpass Any Arab Loss in Wars With Israel in Past 40 Years

The death toll reported in Gaza has reached roughly 20,000, according to officials in the territory, the heaviest loss on the Arab side in any war with Israel since the 1982 Lebanon invasion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/gaza-death-toll-palestinians.html

A massacre of innocent people and large scale collective punishment, all unfolding right in front of us.

Let’s hope the Arab countries don’t start bombing innocent Israelis for the actions of their government. Even though that would be just, according to genocide apologists on the philosophy forum. (As long as the 20,000 were claimed to be killed by accident — or with good intentions, of course.)

I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.

Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.

— Some Hamas-like extremist. Oh wait, no…the Israeli defense minister.

This thread is about climate change. Move along.

July 2023 Is Hottest Month Ever Recorded on Earth

Also worth repeating:

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:

Several times in Earth's history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks. In each case, more than half of plant and animal species became extinct. New species came into being over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But these are time scales and generations that we cannot imagine.

— James Hansen, climate scientist grifter

I'm just finding it really interesting trying to connect the non-existent dots you're connecting here. — AmadeusD

Doomsday prophecies — Tzeentch

It is too late. You must go into the cage and eat the bugs to save the planet. — Lionino

the world is ending — Tzeentch

Again…You ok?

Whatever— I don’t really care. Be well.

I gave you the quote, and an independent response to it. — AmadeusD

And apparently didn't even read it. Try doing so.

no one is doing that. — AmadeusD

...

Doomsday prophecies — Tzeentch

It is too late. You must go into the cage and eat the bugs to save the planet. — Lionino

the world is ending — Tzeentch

Are you ok?

Please, please try not to make things up that other people think or say to argue with. — AmadeusD

...

His position (and others like him) seems to be that the facts of the matter infer that denying the impending end of the world can only be the result of ignorance (or, i guess, more importantly to them, inaction) — AmadeusD

But please, do go on lecturing others about how to communicate, and about "bad faith."

:yawn:

Imagine the level of a mind that hears “the world is facing an existential threat,” is given the overwhelming evidence, and chooses to ignore all of it in favor of screaming endlessly about how “existential” is technically the wrong word.

Just more denialism, in the end. They call it “delayism” now— but it’s all just denialism to me.

—

Just to take it out of the realm of chit-chat, where any imbecile can participate:



That should be concerning.

This is, in no sense whatsoever, a strawman. — AmadeusD

It is— and it’s been used for a long time. Hence why the term climate “alarmism” was invented and repeated ad nauseam within the conservative media bubble. Glad I used the example of AOC — I see you got sucked into that as well.

It’s such a stupid point that I barely give it attention anymore. I treat it the same way I would read the buffoons (forgive the accuracy) who claim nuclear war wouldn’t count as “existential” because people could potentially survive in some underground bunker. Nah, I’ll keep using “existential threat.” But thanks anyway.

We know that Oil companies and oil exporting countries have been spending a great deal of effort and money undermining any suggestion that there is a climate crisis. — unenlightened

Exxon’s own scientists knew what was happening in the late 70s, and as has now been exhaustively documented, this was deliberately minimized and the scientists fired in favor of hiring the same “merchants of doubt” that tobacco companies used to sow doubt about smoking and lung cancer.

Massive propaganda from the fossil fuel industry for decades. But it’s the climate scientists that are the “grifters.” And graphs are “esotheric knowledge.”

I guess the latest tactic of climate denialists is to build a new strawman: “Well we agree on the facts, but we just don’t believe the WORLD WILL END.” You saw a lot of this on Fox News a few years back claiming that AOC et al. were saying “we have 12 years before the world explodes.” Just more nonsense.

Same things being used here. It’s the only way people with no understanding of an issue can avoid any real substance (or work) and still feel like they’re contributing to the conversation somehow. The thread has been great in this respect — it’s like an intellectual fly trap. Makes it much easier to ignore various posters on every other topic once they show their hand on this one.

Remember the calls for reducing nuclear weapons? Yeah — a grift. Because nuclear war never happened— and besides, it wouldn’t have been the END OF THE WORLD. A few people would probably survive. Check and mate.

Way to project your ignorance. Well done. Please go on telling everyone about the “climate grift.”

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

Ah, so a guy on the internet saying something you don’t like makes for climate science being a “grift.” Got it.

I don’t like a lot of what Richard Dawkins says, or how he says it. Zoology is a grift.

More “esotheric” knowledge (you know, a graph):



It takes a lot of work, and years of libertarian “thinking,” to look at something like this and conclude “it smells of grift to 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

The climate grift — Tzeentch

:lol: Case in point.

We already see effects scientists predicted, such as the loss of sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, sea level rise, and more intense heat waves.

Scientists predict global temperature increases from human-made greenhouse gases will continue. Severe weather damage will also increase and intensify.

Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century. What's the big deal?

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900.1 The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.

The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.

"The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Future effects of global climate change in the United States:

Here are some of the expected effects of global climate change on the United States, according to the Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports.

U.S. Sea Level Likely to Rise 1 to 6.6 Feet by 2100
Global sea level has risen about 8 inches (0.2 meters) since reliable record-keeping began in 1880. By 2100, scientists project that it will rise at least another foot (0.3 meters), but possibly as high as 6.6 feet (2 meters) in a high-emissions scenario. Sea level is rising because of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.

Hurricanes Will Become Stronger and More Intense
Scientists project that hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates will increase as the climate continues to warm.

More Droughts and Heat Waves

Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves (periods of abnormally hot weather lasting days to weeks) are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense and less frequent.

Longer Wildfire Season

Warming temperatures have extended and intensified wildfire season in the West, where long-term drought in the region has heightened the risk of fires. Scientists estimate that human-caused climate change has already doubled the area of forest burned in recent decades. By around 2050, the amount of land consumed by wildfires in Western states is projected to further increase by two to six times. Even in traditionally rainy regions like the Southeast, wildfires are projected to increase by about 30%.

Changes in Precipitation Patterns

Climate change is having an uneven effect on precipitation (rain and snow) in the United States, with some locations experiencing increased precipitation and flooding, while others suffer from drought. On average, more winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century.

Frost-Free Season (and Growing Season) will Lengthen

The length of the frost-free season, and the corresponding growing season, has been increasing since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States. Across the United States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen, which will affect ecosystems and agriculture.

Global Temperatures Will Continue to Rise

Summer of 2023 was Earth's hottest summer on record, 0.41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (0.23 degrees Celsius (C)) warmer than any other summer in NASA’s record and 2.1 degrees F (1.2 C) warmer than the average summer between 1951 and 1980.

Arctic Is Very Likely to Become Ice-Free

Sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean is expected to continue decreasing, and the Arctic Ocean will very likely become essentially ice-free in late summer if current projections hold. This change is expected to occur before mid-century.

—NASA

But don’t worry, you can still know all this and not care— because some dude read something about the fact/value dichotomy in freshman philosophy class. So no judgment allowed.

There is no morality involved in Mikie's defense of the science, he's merely saying if you wanna be a self deceiving buffoon and deny the science, go right ahead, but all it takes is a quick 5 second search to return loads of neutral non biased science in support of climate change. — Vaskane

:up: Glad someone understands. :wink:

Just more fluff and feelings. If you’re not interested in the science, your gripes about how someone else communicates is boring and irrelevant. Take it somewhere else.

I very much doubt he does — Baden

It’s probably Bill’s worst editorial he’s done in years. I was cringing at certain points. No historical knowledge whatsoever, just slogans. That this is being dragged out as an example of “good points” shows exactly the kind of lazy thinking behind most posts. So be it.

But yeah — not even worth 8 minutes.

:up: :up:

Hamas decapitates babies: outrage.

Israel decapitates thousands of babies: self defense.

You see, it’s all about HOW you kill children. Israel kills far more, but they do it the right way — and for noble reasons. Unlike those animals who kill less children, but do so the wrong way.

If a bombing campaign is to be undertaken, civilians will die. — BitconnectCarlos

That's not necessarily true.

Some methods result in more civilian deaths than others, but none result in zero. — BitconnectCarlos

Plenty result in zero. True, you can't drop a nuclear bomb on a city and have no civilian deaths -- but that's a reason for not doing it.

I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back — AmadeusD

Morality is based on action. It's actions that matter, it's actions that can be judged. Whatever a person may believe is relevant, but in this case only to the extent that it leads to action or inaction.

I have no issue with action being taken to combat climate change anyway — AmadeusD

i have no intuition that we need to, or should, do much about it. — AmadeusD

So you have no "intuition" that we should do anything about it (we should), or need to (we do), but yet have no problem if we do. You're fine either way. Cool. Pointless, but cool.

In this case, there is.
— Mikie

There, unequivocally, is not. — AmadeusD

There is, and I've done so. Correctly. That you're struggling with it doesn't change that.

You not understanding my moral/emotional reaction is absolutely no matter for this conflict of moral position. You don't understand my mental state here, and can't conceive of it without inferring psychopathy. — AmadeusD

There's nothing to understand. Either you care about the well being of others, or you don't. If you don't, you're a psychopath -- although there are other terms for it too (I mentioned nihilism). But that's not you, I don't think -- you're clearly just ignorant. In the case of climate change, a lot of people are apathetic because of the time scales involved -- they don't know much about it, it seems distant, it seems abstract, etc. I consider all of that a kind of ignorance. Which is probably excusing them, given how dire the situation has become.

That's factually inaccurate, as I am neither a psychopath nor do I have a strong stance in caring about climate change. Sorry. The facts are stacked against you conclusively on this. — AmadeusD

Which is why I've said repeatedly that you're ignorant. That's not accusing you of psychopathy. You want to insist that it's psychopathy, and then try to weasel out of it through undergraduate moral philosophy, in an attempt to avoid the work of learning about climate change and its consequences.

So let's talk about the consequences of climate change, shall we? Perhaps that's the best route. Let's look at the effects of ice caps melting or sea level rise or Amazon rainforest destruction or tipping points. All of it is easy to dismiss or ignore, so one can continue one's apathy, but once seen and understood it'll change your perspective I think. It changed mine -- as did learning about nuclear weapons. It's worth learning about, for no other reason then it's an existential threat.

Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns.
— Mikie

Hmm, again, that's just your position. — AmadeusD

:lol:

This is why most people shouldn't "study" philosophy.

No, it's not my "position" that a person who cares about others wouldn't want to do nothing as others burn. That's logic.

No nihilism required. — AmadeusD

Antinatalism is nihilism, through and through. Well disguised, I grant you.

In any case, to use this as justification for doing nothing while others burn is pretty ridiculous.

The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis. — AmadeusD

Actually it's very much correlative. See my point earlier about people struggling with climate change because of its abstractness and apparent distance. But we're all culpable, especially those of us living in wealthy countries.

Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology.
— Mikie

It isn't, So there we are — AmadeusD

It is. Which is why you want to avoid the drowning child example. I suppose letting her drown instead of acting isn't psychopathy or ignorance but...what, antinatalism?

In the case of climate disaster, we either see what's happening and, if we care about people, both care about and act accordingly -- or we don't see what's happening, or at least don't fully understand the consequences of inaction. It's not more complicated than that. You may very well have some psychological disorder, but based on what you've said so far I think it's much more clear you're just ignorant.

Answer me this: What do you think will happen if we do nothing about rising emissions? If we allow emissions to rise unabated, burning as much coal, oil, and gas as we want? Do you think it'll have any impact at all? For better or worse? And why do you believe it?

Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.
— Mikie

That is exactly what you are doing. — AmadeusD

No, it's what you want me to be doing because you don't know anything about the science. Hence you have to continually pull the discussion into feelings and intuitions, where you have a shot at bullshitting your way through. I'm not interested in that. The facts are pretty clear, and they're worth learning about:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

But Mikie, what of the thousands of German and Japanese children who died in WWII bombing campaigns? A horrible crime, right? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes indeed.

Clearly the allies should have never used air power. — BitconnectCarlos

By all means use air power. Just don't use air power to kill innocent women or children. German, Japanese, or otherwise.

Best to be pacifists and let the Germans have their way. I'm no child killer. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not a pacifist.

So Hamas had every right to deliberately kill innocent people on October 7th, since the innocents' government maintains concentration camps and conducts terrorist campaigns? Yeah, I don't accept that. Innocent people shouldn't be killed -- even if Hamas can give a better reason than Likud can.

“Poisoning the blood.”

Yeah, nothing racist here guys. Just more liberal media putting Hitler’s rhetoric into his mouth.

Oh wait…he actually said that.

the truth — Merkwurdichliebe

Lol. Please, keep them coming. This is great.

Morals just differ... — AmadeusD

True. Some people don’t care about others. Some want to murder and rape, etc. Clearly true.

There's no logical reason to infer a fault in a disagreement about value. — AmadeusD

In this case, there is. Again, assuming the person isn’t one who cares nothing about others. Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns. They simply don’t know how serious the matter is— hence, ignorance.

I’m ignorant of plenty of things, and my ignorance has caused harm I’m sure. That’s on me. But had I known differently, I wouldn’t have said or done what I did. Why? Because I really do care about other people. My remarks online, for example, may be far more hurtful than I realize. But don’t really know, and when my temper gets the better of me, I’m not considering that possibility anyway. If I were to fully know just how harmful they could be, however, I almost certainly wouldn’t say them.

You get the idea.

Obviously, two people trying to share in differing values is (almost) always pointless! That's fair enough. It's the personalised attack thats irking. — AmadeusD

Calling someone a buffoon for their dangerous ignorance is more irksome to you than the ignorance itself? Ok! That’s not always true with me.

I am neither a psychopath, nor do i care much about hte results of patent anthropocentric climate change. Both of those thing are true. — AmadeusD

So you’re not interested in what happens to the human species? I really do find that abnormal, yes. Maybe not psychopathy— maybe just nihilism.

And further, you cannot infer different from my moral reaction. — AmadeusD

I absolutely can. If someone sits by while someone drowns, then says “I don’t care what happens, and there’s nothing you can infer from this because it’s all subjective, feeling-based moral intuitions that are completely outside the purview of fact or objectivity” — yeah, there’s a name for such a person.

Seems like you want to somehow absolve your own ignorance and apathy by removing it from any scrutiny— as if morals are simply “I like Mozart, you like Beethoven”. I’m not that interested in discussing moral relativism. We’re dealing with a real problem in the real world— not an academic debate on ethics. Global warming is a threat to humanity and if we don’t do something about it it will inflict real pain on real people, both present and future generations. Your simply “not caring” about that is your business. Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology. Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.

What other value system has delivered such widespread prosperity and quality of life? — Merkwurdichliebe

:lol:

An oldie but goodie.

I am just concerned for any moral proclamations that assert one must have got something wrong. — AmadeusD

Well, isn’t that better than assuming they’re psychopaths? I don’t think that’s better really. So I assume it’s ignorance.

I'm unsure calling someone buffoon for not caring the way you do is anything other than that.. — AmadeusD

But again, if you look at that interaction, you’d see I’m not really doing that — I’m calling him a buffoon because he was aggressively ignorant and spread genuinely dangerous nonsense and refused to learn anything about the subject to boot. He didn’t simply say “I don’t really care about the topic of climate change or doing anything about it.”

It seems that for you, if I do not share your moral reaction, I necessarily must either have access to different information (i.e wrong/incomplete by your lights) or a defective understanding/interpretation. That is just simply void of any validity whatsoever, in any sense. — AmadeusD

True, you could have an accurate account, knowing full well what’s in store for humanity if we do nothing, and simply don’t care — in which case, you’re not ignorant, you’re just a psychopath. But I prefer my approach of assuming you aren’t, but rather haven’t fully grasped the consequences of 3 or 4 degrees of warming. That’s not at all invalid— in fact I think it’s a fair approach on my part.

I can look at nuclear weapons and go “eh, my intuitions tell me we don’t really need to do much about this,” but is that valuable in any way? Who cares about intuitions? We’re dealing with reality. What you appear to be saying is “I don’t think there will be many consequences to climate change— the facts are unsettled on that issue— and so I feel little moral impetus to do anything about it.” I’m saying you’re factually wrong, and that if you were better informed of the consequences you wouldn’t feel that way anymore— provided you’re relatively normal.

You've insulted someone for not sharing your moral intuitions. I don't think that's a helpful, or coherent position to take. — AmadeusD

First, I didn’t do that exactly. Second, why you’d dig up an interaction from two years ago in which you clearly have no context or connection is a little strange. But so be it— it’s true I’m not always nice.

One need not deny the facts to come to different conclusions — AmadeusD

You and him don’t deny the facts because you don’t know the facts, really. (Here I’m referring to what the consequences of warming are, which are well established — but even if they weren’t, I don’t see how anyone can justify not caring about the possibility. Ditto nuclear war.)

I suppose i'm trying to ascertain where your certitude that we should care comes from — AmadeusD

Well I do make the assumption that rational human beings care about themselves, their kids and grandkids, and generally the survival of the human species. I fully acknowledge there are some that don’t. But generally those people are labeled psychopaths and are relatively rare.

So it’s not that we “should” care — I assume it’s a given. I don’t say “you SHOULD care about your kids”, I assume it when talking to a parent. If someone were to ask, “Why are you so certain that I SHOULD care about my kids?” I wouldn’t really know how to respond pragmatically.

No trouble here. Thanks for the video! — AmadeusD

No problem- be well!

But i think jokes are fun. — AmadeusD

Sure — there is this guy on YouTube that’s very funny and tackles Climate change in an amusing way:

You are not addressing the point i've made in any way whatsoever. — AmadeusD

Okay— what was the point?

I simply don't care. — AmadeusD

Was this the point? In which case, why bother coming here and announcing it?

I’d like the human species to go on. You don’t care. Fine— but I can’t do much with that.

@AmadeusD

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://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

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 only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already 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.

I'm fully accepting of anthropocentric climate change (though, i certainly have quibbles around what exactly the implications are - and I don't think its reasonable to suggest that is settled) and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action. — AmadeusD

Then you’re simply not paying attention. And I mean that respectfully— we can’t all pay attention to everything. So in my own case, I look into it by reading what experts have to say— experts that don’t have motivation to exaggerate or deny the evidence. I’ve been doing so very carefully now for over a decade.

There’s simply too much information to summarize, and because I’ve done so several times I have little interest in doing so again, especially to silly comments like the one you quoted (as probably just “poking the bear” — why anyone would want to joke around about it, I don’t know). So what I do is ask that you check out what these sources have you say about the warming planet and what it means for biodiversity and human life.

We’re seeing the damages already. Depending on how things go — meaning how hot it gets — we face either a very changed but perhaps manageable world to a catastrophe that could make life either a living hell or wipe out human life completely.

It’s not about intuitions, it’s about facts. Fortunately, the facts are not disputed— nor is that we should do something about it. True, you may not care— fine. That doesn’t change what’s happening, nor what will happen (e.g., biodiversity loss, icecap melt, agricultural disruption, massive coastal flooding, deadly heat waves, famine, droughts, etc.) if it continues without efforts to decrease and eventually negate emissions.

I’ll repost a prior article of mine that outlines some of the evidence, below.

Yeah, I’d say the one who justifies collective punishment and shrugs off the deliberate murdering of thousands of babies with “Hey, they should’ve known better.”

But yeah, better to leave your racist rantings there. Not that you could do much worse, but that we don’t have to feel so nauseated by being reminded that members of this forum hold such disgusting, callous views.

:rofl:

According to you, the axis powers. I disagree, though.

Superior Western intellects are truly on display here, demonstrating just how superior they really are as they find ways to justify the killing of thousands of babies. To wonder why the rest of the world might not agree with this value judgement…

Hamas and the Palestinians should have thought about that when they went down this road. — RogueAI

Yes, the thousands of babies should have known better. Take your racist, genocide-justifying comments to where they’ll be more accepted. Perhaps 4Chan.

Netanyahu's Israel, as bad as it is, is vastly superior to Hamas — RogueAI

Because they kill a thousand times more babies— but with good western values.