Why I now reject climate politics nearly entirely

[ralfy]

On 8/21/2019 at 5:16 AM, fides' Jack said:

This is not at all comprehensive on even my own thoughts on the matter, but I've been wanting to write this for a while.  And since Phatmass is so amesome for letting people speak their minds...

When I first heard about "global warming" growing up, I was a skeptic.  In my teens a graph came out that showed the average global temperature had increased by .2 degrees during the hundred years prior to that.  I remember specific arguments I had with even family members who said you can't argue with statistics...

Fast forward a number of years, into my college life, and my mind changed.  I was still skeptical about certain aspects of it, as-in, I recognized there was a problem and that we should do something, but researching any of the proposed solutions showed pretty quickly they couldn't possibly succeed.  But we should still try to do our part, right?

I've been reading into this on my own time as I could while juggling full-time career, full-time school (for a long time) and a full-time family.  I'm convinced now that not only is it all a giant scam, but it's actually satanic in origin.

Here's the main premise of the argument:

1. Climate change is occurring (I agree with this)
2. It's largely man-made (I agree we've affected it to an extent, but all the most credible evidence suggests that it's an extremely small extent)
3. It's going to cause all sorts of other bad things (I definitely disagree with this one)

First, what is the point of all this, anyway?  It's one of 2 things (or perhaps both) - saving lives or saving the planet.  My goal is to show how both of these are lies.

What is the main cause of concern?  Pollution in the form of carbon dioxide.  

To this I just ask the simple question: why is carbon dioxide bad?  I think it's actually good, for these reasons:

• Sea level rise
  • This could be caused by melting ice at the polar caps, and melting glaciers elsewhere.  I agree it's a valid concern for people on the coasts - which is a huge number of people.  However:
    • Studies have shown that the ice at the North cap is slowly losing mass while the ice at the southern cap is gaining mass...  which itself is interesting.  There is a big difference between the northern ice cap and the southern ice cap: the northern cap is floating (North of Greenland), whereas the southern cap is actually a continent.  This is very important to note because if floating ice melts, it doesn't add to the water level, or subtract from it.  This is a fact about ice that not many people realize.
    • If all the ice on Greenland melts, or all the ice in Antarctica, sea levels could rise slightly and affect people living on the coasts.
      • If this were to happen, the temperature at the poles would have to rise a lot faster than they are now, and even if they did, it would happen so gradually that no loss of life would even happen, anyway.  People would be evacuated to new cities farther inland years before it would reach the point of being dangerous to human life.
• Plant life
  • Well, we know plant life would be WAY better off if the global temperature were a number of degrees warmer and the CO2 level in the atmosphere was many times higher than it is - that's just basic understanding of plants.  They breathe, and eat, carbon dioxide.  The more there is, the better for them.  Farmers actually sometimes increase CO2 in enclosed spaces when growing plants for this very reason.
• Animal life
  • There's evidence to suggest that increased carbon dioxide is good for animal life, too.  The biggest concern is breathing too much of it, but it would have to be hundreds of times more abundant before this even becomes a concern (for human life).  For many animal species, introducing increased carbon dioxide into their natural environments shows increased health and body size.  Perhaps they get more nutrients from the healthier plants... Hard to say at this point why this is.
  • Some animal species have had to migrate north or south as local weather temperatures go up or down to stay comfortable.  But we know this would be happening regardless.  Climate is still going to change even if we aren't here, and animals will always migrate as a response to that.
• Extreme weather
  • This is when severe weather happens more frequently, but nearly all indicators show that this type of thing is down, not up.
    • Droughts - lowest they've ever been
    • Floods - declining for the last 70 years
    • Tornadoes - EF3 and higher have been steadily declining since at least 1970
    • Hurricanes - decreasing since at least the late 1970s - also studies show that cooler temperatures (not warmer) result in more frequent and stronger hurricanes

Truthfully, there are solid counter-arguments to everything the main-stream media has been telling people for decades.  These are all scientific arguments.  I haven't cited any sources, just because they're too many and I didn't want to sift through them.  If you disagree with a specific point above, look into it.  Maybe you'll be surprised, or maybe you can point me to something showing I'm wrong...

However, these lies aren't even my biggest problems with the climate hysteria.  A much bigger problem is the lie about scientific consensus.  It's been oft-repeated that 97% of scientists agree...  Well, this number was reached when some government people (surely they don't have their own agenda, right??) took a sample of fewer than 80 scientists' opinions on the matter (out of the 10,000 they had available), and then said they reached a consensus they didn't.  Those scientists really only agreed on 2 very basic points: 1) that climate is changing (which is self-evident), and 2) that humans were responsible for some part of it.  They don't say how much (though very many agree with what I've already stated, that's it's very little), and they also don't even agree that it's even a bad thing.  

Since that number came out, things have changed quite a lot.  Now there is no real science here.  Sure, you have a lot of scientists working on it, but there is no room for criticism.  Any professor who shows any kind of out-of-the-box thinking on this matter is immediately targeted, and his career (and often whole life) destroyed.  This is my 2nd biggest peeve with the whole mess.  You can't have scientific credibility if dissenters are silenced.  And just about every single dissenter on this matter is.  It's become a witch-hunt.

Another giant problem is that it's so largely political that we now know for sure that a lot of statistics regarding weather and temperature from years past have actually been wholly fabricated.  They've been caught red-handed.  Climate-gate happened in 2009, but for some reason because they explained away one person's activities in 1 school, the media dismissed it as a non-issue.  The investigation into that was a joke.  Be that as it may, I would feel much better about the stats if they weren't owned by government pawns.  The most outspoken people about fixing climate change are high-up members of the government or professors in state-sponsored schools...  If the government, which lies about everything, had less to do with it, I could believe it more easily.

But still, there's another problem, which in my opinion, is even more problematic.  Many high-profile individuals (including celebrities and politicians) have likened their work saving the earth to a form of religion.  They see (and have publicly and explicitly stated) that mother earth is some kind of goddess, and many people literally pray to mother earth to help stop climate change.  This is very obviously mortally sinful and blasphemous and idolatrous.  The more that comes out, the more we see this kind of thing is at the heart of stopping climate change.  It seems evident to me now that it's been at the heart of it this whole time.  

I can get behind trying to change things - even if there is no obvious gain for anyone or anything.  I will absolutely NOT be a party to idolatry.  I hereby reject ALL of the climate change programs, if that is at its core.  I would rather the entire planet, and all the inhabitants of it, die horribly gruesome deaths, than be a party to the satanic culture behind it.  Many people will find this melodramatic.  I don't think it is.

I recommend the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change" that covers some of these issues much better than I ever could, and actually gives sources.

Both the NAS and Berkeley Earth (which is funded by skeptics) have already come up with conclusions about AGW. Meanwhile, the U.S. military, the Pentagon, various multinational banks, insurers, and other organizations and businesses have been releasing reports warning of its effects to personnel and clients, and have been preparing accordingly or advising readers to do such. They've even release reports on a resource crunch due to increasing demand for materials and energy worldwide coupled with diminishing returns for oil, minerals, etc.

Also, every point raised about CO2 is questionable because the world is not a laboratory but much more complex than that, which means that CO2 does not act as a main cause but has a forcing factor leading to over fifty positive feedback loops taking place.

Meanwhile, the global economy is mostly underdeveloped, with 71 pct of human beings earning less than $10 daily and many countries lacking infrastructure ranging from roads to hospitals to electric grids to irrigation systems. That means more fossil fuels will actually be needed to meet basic needs of most people, and much more than what the 20 pct can conserve if they cut down resource use by 50 pct or more.

 

[fides' Jack]

It's demonic.

[ArciMoto]

On 1/12/2021 at 10:31 PM, fides' Jack said:

It's demonic.

huh,... demonic?!

or perhaps its a reminder (from god) that there are consequences for actions taken

ps happy earth day "2021"

https://www.earthday.org/earth-day-2021/

[fides' Jack]

31 minutes ago, ArciMoto said:

huh,... demonic?!

or perhaps its a reminder (from god) that there are consequences for actions taken

Yes, demonic.  Absolutely demonic.  God cares more about a single soul than about all of the pollution in the entire world.

We've made a false god out of "mother earth".  

We should take care of our souls before we focus on taking care of nature.  Of course the two are not mutually exclusive, but it does mean that our focus should not be on the environment.

[hakutaku]

On 3/31/2021 at 7:40 PM, fides' Jack said:

Yes, demonic.  Absolutely demonic.

So why haven't you had it exorcised yet?

[fides' Jack]

6 hours ago, hakutaku said:

So why haven't you had it exorcised yet?

Exorcised what?

[hakutaku]

On 4/2/2021 at 8:06 PM, fides' Jack said:

Exorcised what?

The demons.

[fides' Jack]

On 4/4/2021 at 9:57 AM, hakutaku said:

The demons.

Out of what, exactly?

Well, it doesn't really matter, even though your question makes no sense.

I have not had anything exorcised.  I have no authority over anything that needs exorcising.  So it's not up to me.  Still, I can play the part of the crazy person on the corner holding the sign saying, "Repent!  The end is imminent!"  And indeed it is.  And those who fall for this false environmentalism will not see the truth in time to save their souls.

[hakutaku]

29 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I have no authority over anything that needs exorcising.  So it's not up to me.

So which authorities have you contacted to convince of the necessity of an exorcism?

[hakutaku]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

Out of what, exactly?

Oh!  You're right!  The demons aren't actually influencing any person, place, or thing related to climate change, so of course they can't be exorcised! 

Of course, that means climate change isn't demonic though...

Edited April 6, 2021 by hakutaku

[fides' Jack]

4 hours ago, hakutaku said:

The demons aren't actually influencing any person, place, or thing related to climate change, so of course they can't be exorcised! 

Unfortunately, demons are influencing all three related to the "climate change" hysteria, as well as just about every other thing going on in the world right now.  But I don't think you understand what exorcism is for...

[hakutaku]

9 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

But I don't think you understand what exorcism is for...

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05709a.htm

Quote

Exorcism is (1) the act of driving out, or warding off, demons, or evil spirits, from persons, places, or things, which are believed to be possessed or infested by them, or are liable to become victims or instruments of their malice;

Warding the demons away from those they are using as instruments of their malice is exactly what I am talking about.  What do you think exorcism is?

[fides' Jack]

Good to know that you know how to use google.

2 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Warding the demons away from those they are using as instruments of their malice is exactly what I am talking about.

Thanks for the clarification.  I'm sorry it took multiple attempts to get you to clarify what in the world you were talking about.

That's not what I'm talking about.

But since you're so urked by my comments on climate politics, and really on the entire current environmental movement being demonic, maybe I hit close to home.  It might be of benefit to you to seek an exorcism, yourself.

Just a thought.

If you are actually of good will, then I wish you peace.  Otherwise, get behind me.

[hakutaku]

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Unfortunately, demons are influencing all three [people, places, & things] related to the "climate change" hysteria,

3 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Warding the demons away from those they are using as instruments of their malice is exactly what I am talking about. 

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

That's not what I'm talking about.

How can demonic influence over persons, places, and things not be what you are talking about when you explicitly asserted it in the post I responded to?

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

Thanks for the clarification.  I'm sorry it took multiple attempts to get you to clarify what in the world you were talking about.

It still isn't clear to me what you were confused about.  You asserted demons are influencing people, places and things in the climate change movement.  I asked why you haven't performed an exorcism, and you reacted as if there were no persons places or things that could be exorcised.

Its almost as though you don't actually believe demons are responsible for environmentalism, but you want to call the members demons anyway.

Edited April 6, 2021 by hakutaku

[fides' Jack]

20 hours ago, hakutaku said:

How can demonic influence over persons, places, and things not be what you are talking about when you explicitly asserted it in the post I responded to?

It still isn't clear to me what you were confused about.  You asserted demons are influencing people, places and things in the climate change movement.  I asked why you haven't performed an exorcism, and you reacted as if there were no persons places or things that could be exorcised.

Its almost as though you don't actually believe demons are responsible for environmentalism, but you want to call the members demons anyway.

I said that demons are influencing all 3 [persons, places, and things] specifically because you claimed they aren't.  That argument was separate from what I was talking about.  

You still don't get it.

It's stupid to ask why I haven't performed an exorcism, because only those with authority (i.e. priests who have canonical jurisdiction) can perform exorcisms (which are not to be confused with prayers of deliverance, that even lay people can say).  I've never claimed to be a priest.  For you to ask that question is kind of assuming that I am one.  Which makes no sense.

Further: I have not called members of the environmentalist movement demons - for you to suggest that, is at the very least, deceitful.

Further: I do believe that demons are leading the current environmentalist movement.  But that's a huge generalization.  I get it, people these days can't deal with generalizations.  However, you can't exorcise a generalization.  I never said Bobby Sue was possessed or being otherwise influenced by demons.  The movement as a whole is, and almost certainly there are individuals within that movement that are actually, physically possessed, but since we're talking about a movement, an idea, then it's not something that can be exorcised.  And as I said, even if it were a specific person, place, or thing, I lack the authority to do so. 

Lastly: I didn't think this up on my own.  This is coming from much reading and listening to talks online by a great number of people, including multiple exorcists themselves.  So even if we were talking about something specific (which we aren't), it wouldn't even make sense for me to request an exorcism from someone who clearly is even more keenly aware of the demonic activity involved than I am, and who also lack the authority to perform exorcisms on those specific persons, places, or things, to begin with.

So the whole discussion of exorcism makes no sense.  And that is why I was confused by you bringing it up.  

[hakutaku]

7 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I said that demons are influencing all 3 [persons, places, and things] specifically because you claimed they aren't. 

It's stupid to ask why I haven't performed an exorcism, because only those with authority (i.e. priests who have canonical jurisdiction) can perform exorcisms (which are not to be confused with prayers of deliverance, that even lay people can say).  I've never claimed to be a priest...it wouldn't even make sense for me to request an exorcism from someone who clearly is even more keenly aware of the demonic activity involved than I am, and who also lack the authority to perform exorcisms on those specific persons, places, or things, to begin with.

 

Oh! So is your claim that priests won't help you or are you just taking a deliberately stupid reading of my post?  Since you are clearly incapable of reading with common sense and ordinary charity I can be far more defensive in my writing if you like.  Since you believe there is in fact demonic influence, why haven't you had priests conduct exorcisms?  Indeed, why haven't your internet exorcists gotten in touch with the people in the right jurisdiction? 

Is there some ecclesiastical turf war going on, like local cops vs the FBI?  "Dang it, the demons ran and hid in Sheriff Bob's county, and he's not cooperated with us ever since that time we reported him for sleeping in his car.  We'll just have to wait until they leave."

Maybe it is the case that the environmentalists in your jurisdiction are alright, its those other ones that are really demonic?

It sounds much more likely that people selling their exorcist merch online have an incentive to say there are demons everywhere, just like how financial advisors predicted 7 out of the last 3 recessions.

7 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Further: I have not called members of the environmentalist movement demons - for you to suggest that, is at the very least, deceitful.

Further: I do believe that demons are leading the current environmentalist movement. 

I think these two sentences are beautifully juxtaposed.  "I haven't yet called any members demons, so let me fix that: the leaders are demons."

Of course I did not say that you called the members demons, I said that it was "almost as if you wanted to."  This was based on your saying that the "entire movement [is] demonic" (presumably including the members) and your allusion to "Get behind me [satan]" with respect to people arguing against you.  Indeed, in light of your most recent post, it appears I was entirely correct about your desire to call (at least some) members of the environmental movement demons.

It is no stretch of the imagination to say that this is your rhetorical strategy: claim the entire movement is demonic so that you can say "get behind me demon" any time you're at a rhetorical disadvantage.  It is a very convenient way to avoid actually arguing the facts of the matter, and has been employed many times in history (e.g. McCarthyism, literal witch hunts, etc).

Now, in your post you retreat to a bizarre position:

25 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

However, you can't exorcise a generalization.  I never said Bobby Sue was possessed or being otherwise influenced by demons.  The movement as a whole is, and almost certainly there are individuals within that movement that are actually, physically possessed, but since we're talking about a movement, an idea, then it's not something that can be exorcised.

Granting for a second the possibility of possessing a generalization: perhaps you missed the part where exorcisms can be used to ward off demons?  So if indeed the "generalization" is demonic, you can use exorcisms to keep it from influencing people or remove its influence from people, in any jurisdiction.

But back in the real world: a "generalization" is not something that can be exorcised because its not something that can be possessed in the first place.  If the demons are influencing the movement, it is only by influencing the movement's persons, places, or things. 

56 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Lastly: I didn't think this up on my own.  This is coming from much reading and listening to talks online by a great number of people, including multiple exorcists themselves.

Indeed, I challenge you to produce your anonymous internet exorcists who assert that the abstract generalization "the environmentalist movement" can be possessed.

[fides' Jack]

6 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Indeed, I challenge you to produce your anonymous internet exorcists who assert that the abstract generalization "the environmentalist movement" can be possessed.

I never said the environmentalist movement is possessed...

??...

...???

6 hours ago, hakutaku said:

I can be far more defensive in my writing if you like.

I don't care one way or the other.

6 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Of course I did not say that you called the members demons, I said that it was "almost as if you wanted to."

I looked at your post again.  I took that statement as a "you want to", not as a "almost as if you want to".  I'll admit to that error.

6 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Granting for a second the possibility of possessing a generalization: perhaps you missed the part where exorcisms can be used to ward off demons?

If there's a specific place, then yes, I will grant that's a possibility.  But an idea is not a person, place, or thing.

6 hours ago, hakutaku said:

So if indeed the "generalization" is demonic, you can use exorcisms to keep it from influencing people or remove its influence from people, in any jurisdiction.

No, and no.  A general thing can indeed be demonic or influenced by demons.  An idea, for example.  But the statement that you can use exorcisms on an idea is absurd.

My statement regarding jurisdiction has to do with legitimate Church authority.  Not any priest or exorcist can exorcise any person, place, or thing.  It requires the approval of not only the local bishop, but the person who is to be exorcised, or the owner of the property to be exorcised.  In this case there is none.

6 hours ago, hakutaku said:

But back in the real world: a "generalization" is not something that can be exorcised because its not something that can be possessed in the first place.

Two things here: I'm not the one calling for an exorcism.  Also, I never said the movement was possessed.  You seem to think demonic means possessed.  It does not.

6 hours ago, hakutaku said:

It is no stretch of the imagination to say that this is your rhetorical strategy: claim the entire movement is demonic so that you can say "get behind me demon" any time you're at a rhetorical disadvantage.

Be at an advantage if you like.  I don't really care.  But you'll note I called it demonic before you tried to argue this point about exorcisms with me.  Indeed that's what started this argument.

6 hours ago, hakutaku said:

If the demons are influencing the movement, it is only by influencing the movement's persons, places, or things. 

Logically, I agree with this statement.  However, I can't point to any specific person, place or thing that is being influenced.  I can only say that there is some person, place or thing being influenced.  If you know who it is, let me know and I'll pass that information along.

Also, there are two very distinct things here, both of which I believe are true.  The movement itself is demonic, AND the idea behind the movement is demonic.

[hakutaku]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I never said the environmentalist movement is possessed...  You seem to think demonic means possessed.  It does not.

I mean, the church teaches that even in cases of possession a demon cannot take away someones free will, so in my mind there isn't a categorical distinction between possession and influence, just a difference in the degree of influence.

On the other hand, you seem to think demonic means "anything not explicitly about God."   

I see that your assertion here:

11 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I never said Bobby Sue was possessed or being otherwise influenced by demons.  The movement as a whole is, and...

could be read as "I never said Bobby Sue was (possessed or influenced by demons).  The movement as a whole is (possessed or influenced by demons)"

Whereas I read it as "(I never said Bobby Sue was possessed) [or even influenced!].  The movement as a whole is (possessed)"

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

However, I can't point to any specific person, place or thing that is being influenced.  I can only say that there is some person, place or thing being influenced. 

The real reason no one is calling for exorcisms of people places or things in the environmental movement is that no one, not you or your internet exorcists, really believes it is demonic.  If you really thought the people around you were in danger of being influenced by demonic ideas and movements, you would be asking for permission to perform exorcisms at the very least as a preventative measure.  No one has even done this bare minimum first step, despite your claims of literal demons leading the environmental movement. 

Its the same strategy employed back in 1919; when people didn't like black folks having jobs they asserted that the black community's discontent was due to malevolent communist propagandists.  Of course they couldn't point to any actual malevolent propagandists, they just believed the black communities concerns were illegitimate and needed a boogeyman to justify their beliefs.

 

[fides' Jack]

10 hours ago, hakutaku said:

On the other hand, you seem to think demonic means "anything not explicitly about God."   

Quite the contrary.  I believe that the environmentalist movement is explicitly about worship of satan and his minions.  It's quite clearly demonic.  Please don't tell me what I believe.

 

...  However, that being said, I'm done trying to argue with an atheist who clearly doesn't understand Church teaching on the matter.  There is a distinct, categorical different between all three forms of diabolic manipulation, which are oppression, obsession, and possession (we've been calling both of the former "influence", but there are multiple types of influence).  

But you win: I concede that I was wrong.  I do believe that the movement itself is demonic, but the reason why I haven't done anything about it is because I'm a bad Catholic.  I don't mean that sarcastically or anything like that, I mean it truly.  I'm a huge sinner, and I have a lot of my own sins and issues that I'm trying to overcome, and maybe it would behoove me to work that out before I start casting stones online.

I only offer 1 warning to any potential readers of this: don't fall into the evil of environmentalism.  Like so many other movements right now, it will only lead you away from God.  And I'm quite sure that environmentalism is going to be coming back with a much greater intensity and ferocity in the next few years, so this is important.

With that, you can have the last word.  I'm done arguing about it.

[hakutaku]

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

However, that being said, I'm done trying to argue with an atheist who clearly doesn't understand Church teaching on the matter.  There is a distinct, categorical different between all three forms of diabolic manipulation, which are oppression, obsession, and possession (we've been calling both of the former "influence", but there are multiple types of influence).  

There sure are, but none of those distinctions matter for our purposes.  All of them are addressed by exorcism, and none of them assert demons directly influence abstract generalizations.