Science meets political spin & popular culture: who has seen "Don't look up!"?

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but the Magellan cloud does not fit under prophecy.

Because it's not a fearful sight in your eyes?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Until then, it's not a "fearful sight"?

Clearly not - and it's not clear that it would be a fearful sight 50 million years from now.

If your prophecy is just that the end of the world will be catastrophic, it's hardly prophetic...

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could say it but more inaccuracies on your behalf.

How would you prove that claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it's not a fearful sight in your eyes?

Not at all. Why should it be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I remember being told around 1993 back when I was in gradeschool how my state was going to be underwater within 7 years if we did not take ‘action’ i.e. fearmonger and bilk taxpayers. That was back when they called this propaganda ‘global warming’. Twenty seven years have passed since then, the name has undergone 2 changes, I know of, first ‘climate change’ and that wasn’t scaring enough people so they upgraded it to ‘climate crisis’..still high and dry. And the goalposts on wheels keep scooting back. And the wealthy politicians and celebrities who peddle this propaganda are still purchasing multimillion dollar seaside mansions down here LOL.

So your teacher did not follow the sciences. That was not predicted by any climate scientist. What your teacher followed were those that did not understand the science of AGW. AGW is a slow process. It is measurable and we are right on track for the moderate claims. If one goes by the extreme claims of change or no change you are all but guaranteed to be wrong.

And why complain about name changes? They are merely getting more accurate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Clearly not - and it's not clear that it would be a fearful sight 50 million years from now.

If your prophecy is just that the end of the world will be catastrophic, it's hardly prophetic...

Well, as I said, I wonder what other exciting news science has for us this year?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, as I said, I wonder what other exciting news science has for us this year?

Don't tell me your prophet doesn't know

 

[Captain Ahab]

No peer-reviewed climate paper ever said that.

Sure - let's throw out the REAL science every time some teacher in a classroom gets something wrong.



Dude - you missed one. While the papers always came from climate scientists - the popular media used to call it Global Warming. You missed the usual alt-right conspiracy theory about changing the name from that to 'climate change' because (according to deniers) the warming 'never happened.' Um, wrong and wrong. The warming IS still happening, I'm fine to refer to it as Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Crisis or even Global Weirding - and the original popular press name change from Global Warming to Climate Change was actually done by George W Bush's administration to soften the scary term Global Warming to just "climate change". (There are documentaries on this.)




From your incorrect teacher and / or some reporter losing their mind temporarily. But unless you can show it from the peer-reviewed papers - I'd reconsider going down this line because it's completely incorrect.



Well - if you're going to dictate what is and is not acceptable use of the profits of a free market system - why not join us, Comrade? Because I accept peer-reviewed SCIENCE - and you obviously think I'm a Communist for doing so - but you're also now mandating how someone who accepts SCIENCE should spend their money - why not just buy a Communist Manifesto and join us brother?

You’re way too emotional over this. That’s another thing that is off-putting about this global warming, err I mean climate change, oops, check that, climate crisis mantra. Too much emotion involved. Maybe I ‘missed the usual alt-right conspiracy theory’ because in fact I do not subscribe to ‘alt right conspiracy theory’. Just because I do not slavishly adhere to the world’s mantras without question doesn’t make me an ‘alt-right conspiracy theorist’. I don’t subscribe to any political ideology. They’re all failures. But I do subscribe to this:


2 Chronicles 7:14


If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.


Sorry, not sorry, ‘peer-reviewed’ ‘science’ isn’t my god. ‘Peer reviewed’ ‘science’ also seems to suggest that a man who likes to wear dresses can transform into a woman. Seems the ‘peer reviewed’ science suggests God makes mistakes. So I couldn’t care less about the claims of ‘peer-reviewed’ science.


How am I trying to dictate anything? How does not unquestioningly obeying the world’s mantras equate to my trying to ‘dictate’ anything? That would be the climate crisis bunch that wants to dictate, not me. They’re the ones attempting to impose their ways on others. Using shaming, guilt-tripping, fearmongering, an obey or else mentality, and false prophecies..all the makings of a cult. But of course, my teacher was incorrect. As was the speaker she brought in. So were the ‘teaching’ materials she used. And whatever source she got her ‘information’ from, and the sources they got their ‘information’ from too. Decades have passed since then, and the goalpost on wheels have been pushed back from the field all the way into the nosebleed section in the upper deck.


If this ‘global warming’ ‘climate change’ ‘climate crisis’ or whatever is such a huge threat, these people who push that mantra need to lead by example and practice what they preach, reduce their own carbon footprints..which I do not see happening. Then maybe I will take their claims serious. But when hollywood virtue signalers are flying around on private jets to attend climate change meetings, and hand wringing sanctimonious politicians are buying seaside mansions, yet have the nerve to attempt to shame ordinary everyday people who create only a fraction of the carbon footprint they do for eating meat which God provided, their claims sort of lose credibility with me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re way too emotional over this. That’s another thing that is off-putting about this global warming, err I mean climate change, oops, check that, climate crisis mantra. Too much emotion involved. Maybe I ‘missed the usual alt-right conspiracy theory’ because in fact I do not subscribe to ‘alt right conspiracy theory’. Just because I do not slavishly adhere to the world’s mantras without question doesn’t make me an ‘alt-right conspiracy theorist’. I don’t subscribe to any political ideology. They’re all failures. But I do subscribe to this:


2 Chronicles 7:14


If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.


Sorry, not sorry, ‘peer-reviewed’ ‘science’ isn’t my god. ‘Peer reviewed’ ‘science’ also seems to suggest that a man who likes to wear dresses can transform into a woman. Seems the ‘peer reviewed’ science suggests God makes mistakes. So I couldn’t care less about the claims of ‘peer-reviewed’ science.


How am I trying to dictate anything? How does not unquestioningly obeying the world’s mantras equate to my trying to ‘dictate’ anything? That would be the climate crisis bunch that wants to dictate, not me. They’re the ones attempting to impose their ways on others. Using shaming, guilt-tripping, fearmongering, an obey or else mentality, and false prophecies..all the makings of a cult. But of course, my teacher was incorrect. As was the speaker she brought in. So were the ‘teaching’ materials she used. And whatever source she got her ‘information’ from, and the sources they got their ‘information’ from too. Decades have passed since then, and the goalpost on wheels have been pushed back from the field all the way into the nosebleed section in the upper deck.


If this ‘global warming’ ‘climate change’ ‘climate crisis’ or whatever is such a huge threat, these people who push that mantra need to lead by example and practice what they preach, reduce their own carbon footprints..which I do not see happening. Then maybe I will take their claims serious. But when hollywood virtue signalers are flying around on private jets to attend climate change meetings, and hand wringing sanctimonious politicians are buying seaside mansions, yet have the nerve to attempt to shame ordinary everyday people who create only a fraction of the carbon footprint they do for eating meat which God provided, their claims sort of lose credibility with me.

What makes you think that the people that understand AGW are not practicing what they preach? You do not see them. You do not hear them. I can understand that some will accept it but not follow it as well as they should.

But you should be trying to find out if it is real. You should at least try to learn the basics. And I can guarantee that you can understand the basics of if you try.

Let's start with the Greenhouse Effect. I am sure that you have heard of that. But you probably do not understand how it works. There is nothing controversial about it at all. Would you care to begin a journey?

 

[sjastro]

What makes you think that the people that understand AGW are not practicing what they preach? You do not see them. You do not hear them. I can understand that some will accept it but not follow it as well as they should.

You need to take into account the psychology behind this.
Individuals who do not comprehend the science of AGW but disagree with it need a pretext.
What better way is to vilify those who understand the science as being hypocrites for not practicing what they preach.
This is how anti-intellectualism operates by pigeon holing individuals, "these people", as having some negative characteristic so they can be clearly defined as the "enemy".

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I thought President Orlean she was more a parody of President Trump.

Nut the title, "Don't look up" and as a response to the slogan "Just look up" was pretty sly.

I was referring to that one moment when she referred to her husband and there was a momentary flash of bill clinton from the 1990s. So I took it to mean even if Hilary got elected, it would have been some of the same just expressed differently.

 

[eclipsenow]

I thought President Orlean she was more a parody of President Trump.

Nut the title, "Don't look up" and as a response to the slogan "Just look up" was pretty sly.

Definitely - especially with her son "Jason" saying, "Isn't she the [prettiest]* President around? If she wasn't my mother..."
*Changed for forum rules

 

[eclipsenow]

While we're talking about both climate change AND comet hits...

Newish science indicates the Dinosaur Killer probably hit the worst place on earth - and that almost anywhere else might NOT have made the world go completely dark for 2 years.

Sure the intitial blast is catastrophic. How much wildlife can survive the WHOLE surface of the earth being in Australian level mega-fires, all at once? Every patch of ground is on fire. Every city. Every bit of ocean has hot rock landing in it. There's nowhere to run. They reckon 75% of plants and animals died in the initial Chicxulub blast and global mega-fires. But if the light doesn't go out completely, and maybe it's just reduced somewhat in a nuclear winter, how many more species would survive if the planet isn't starved of photosynthesis?
What made the Dinosaur Killer so bad? In one word - sulfur. That's right - the same powder that we're considering using to slow climate change a bit. Sulfur was heavy in Chicxulub's geology. They reckon the sulfur-dust made it so much worse by shutting down photosynthesis - the very base of all food on earth - for 2 years. Dark for 2 years after dino-killing asteroid? | Earth | EarthSky
SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

(But it does make sense of the very end of the movie Greenland. When they came out of the government bunkers only 9 months later I was yelling at the TV "What? 9 months - try 2 years!" But that comet hit deeper oceans without as much sulfur, it seems.)

 

[Captain Ahab]

You need to take into account the psychology behind this.
Individuals who do not comprehend the science of AGW but disagree with it need a pretext.
What better way is to vilify those who understand the science as being hypocrites for not practicing what they preach.
This is how anti-intellectualism operates by pigeon holing individuals, "these people", as having some negative characteristic so they can be clearly defined as the "enemy".

Are you not trying to ‘pigeon hole’ me yourself there? LOL, too funny.
More hypocrisy is definitely not going to help convert more people into your movement, there’s already far too much as it is.

I get it, though, really I do. I just need to accept whatever the authorized narrative is. Be impressed with all the scientific jargon. Ignore all the dozens of false prophecies. Disregard all the hypocrisy, and double standards. Place my trust in man, every one of which is a liar as it is written, the majority of which wouldn’t hesitate to mock my faith as ‘fairytales from the bronze age’, and have plenty tax dollars to shell out when the time comes. Fueling a private jet isn’t cheap. Neither is powering up a 20 room seaside mansion.

BTW, ‘psychology’ as it is practiced (keyword) today, is primarily based on the insane ramblings of a cocaine addled sexual pervert. But I suppose I’m to just take that all as fact too..cuz muh science tho.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you not trying to ‘pigeon hole’ me yourself there? LOL, too funny.
More hypocrisy is definitely not going to help convert more people into your movement, there’s already far too much as it is.

I get it, though, really I do. I just need to accept whatever the authorized narrative is. Be impressed with all the scientific jargon. Ignore all the dozens of false prophecies. Disregard all the hypocrisy, and double standards. Place my trust in man, every one of which is a liar as it is written, the majority of which wouldn’t hesitate to mock my faith as ‘fairytales from the bronze age’, and have plenty tax dollars to shell out when the time comes. Fueling a private jet isn’t cheap. Neither is powering up a 20 room seaside mansion.

BTW, ‘psychology’ as it is practiced (keyword) today, is primarily based on the insane ramblings of a cocaine addled sexual pervert. But I suppose I’m to just take that all as fact too..cuz muh science tho.

You could try to learn the basics of science. If you did that you would see that what is claimed is well supported. And you would be hard pressed to find "false prophesies" made by the actual experts. For example Al Gore is not an expert, even though he pushed the concept very strongly. He made quite a few prophecies and they pretty much failed. That does not mean that AGW is not a serious threat.

Like I said, you should start with the basics. Would you care to discuss the Greenhouse Effect?

 

[sjastro]

Are you not trying to ‘pigeon hole’ me yourself there? LOL, too funny.
More hypocrisy is definitely not going to help convert more people into your movement, there’s already far too much as it is.

I get it, though, really I do. I just need to accept whatever the authorized narrative is. Be impressed with all the scientific jargon. Ignore all the dozens of false prophecies. Disregard all the hypocrisy, and double standards. Place my trust in man, every one of which is a liar as it is written, the majority of which wouldn’t hesitate to mock my faith as ‘fairytales from the bronze age’, and have plenty tax dollars to shell out when the time comes. Fueling a private jet isn’t cheap. Neither is powering up a 20 room seaside mansion.

BTW, ‘psychology’ as it is practiced (keyword) today, is primarily based on the insane ramblings of a cocaine addled sexual pervert. But I suppose I’m to just take that all as fact too..cuz muh science tho.

I don't have to do any pigeon holing, you are doing an admirable job given the quality of your posts.
You are a billboard of anti-intellectualism at work.

I'll refer your comments about psychology back to my sister who has PhD in the field; I'm sure she will get a good laugh out of it.
Incidentally who do you think carries the more weight, a professional who applies her skills to help those in need, or the internet ramblings of an ignorant person who thinks psychology "is based on the insane ramblings of a cocaine addled sex pervert".

I rest my case.

 

[eclipsenow]

I don't have to do any pigeon holing, you are doing an admirable job given the quality of your posts.
You are a billboard of anti-intellectualism at work.

I'll refer your comments about psychology back to my sister who has PhD in the field; I'm sure she will get a good laugh out of it.
Incidentally who do you think carries the more weight, a professional who applies her skills to help those in need, or the internet ramblings of an ignorant person who thinks psychology "is based on the insane ramblings of a cocaine addled sex pervert".

I rest my case.

He's kind of half right. I did an Advanced Diploma in Social Sciences - and Freud was an interesting case running on some weird theories but also basically starting the whole discipline. But characterising the whole of Psychology by its earliest beginnings is like characterising the whole of modern chemistry by the alchemical understandings of the 1500's. It's just a strawman attack - as is the rest of Ahab's post against climate science.

So Ahab - are you a Communist? You seem to enjoy attacking the rich for enjoying the fruits of their labours in a free market. Tax the rich? Or - what is the young of today say? Oh yeah. "Eat the rich!" Sounds like you at the moment.

 

[sjastro]

He's kind of half right. I did an Advanced Diploma in Social Sciences - and Freud was an interesting case running on some weird theories but also basically starting the whole discipline. But characterising the whole of Psychology by its earliest beginnings is like characterising the whole of modern chemistry by the alchemical understandings of the 1500's. It's just a strawman attack - as is the rest of Ahab's post against climate science.

So Ahab - are you a Communist? You seem to enjoy attacking the rich for enjoying the fruits of their labours in a free market. Tax the rich? Or - what is the young of today say? Oh yeah. "Eat the rich!" Sounds like you at the moment.

Carl Jung who also played an important role in the development of psychoanalysis believed astrology played a part.
I'm definitely certain my sister doesn't cast horoscopes for patients in her work.

 

[eclipsenow]

You’re way too emotional over this.

Yet I'm the one quoting facts and figures and historical events - and you're the one misreading parts of Scripture to justify your position and making OUTLANDISH derogatory remarks against the scientific method in certain 'woke' areas you find objectionable.

CHRONICLES: You ripped 2 Chronicles 7 out of context. That was a specific promise to Israel at a specific time. But now that the kingdom of God (the church) is spreading throughout the world - it's not so easy to divide up 'my people' from everyone else. We're scattered. The analogy now is more like the Jews living in Babylon. They were to work hard for the wealth and benefit of the city - Babylon! (The traditional enemy of God's people.) But they were also to work hard to enjoy a prosperous return to the land when their exile was over. We're in a similar state. I hate to break it to you - but America is NOT protected by the Old Testament's covenant between God and Israel (and neither is the modern state of Israel - but that's another subject.)
Now we're more in 2 cities, the city of this world, and the world to come. (St Augustine - who no doubt had his quirks - was ground-breaking in this area of church and state relationships.)

Basically 2 Chronicles is NOT America's 'get out of jail free' card. (Monopoly analogy.)
More, think along the lines of Romans 1 where the world is given over to the consequences of our evil desires. Does God step in and stop the laws of physics when a murder brandishes a weapon? Does he step in and stop earthquakes? Droughts and dustbowls? No! He is handing us over to the consequences of our actions. Even his people get caught up in all that. But we are to endure it with godliness and goodness and loving concern for minimising pain. Yet in Romans 13 we still have the government stopping anarchy, which seems to be the worst thing. Paul even calls the ROMAN EMPEROR "God's servant to do you good." Now if Paul can call the Roman Emperor that, then we can engage with our governments through the vastly different circumstances of a democracy and try to nudge them to do the right thing. Which is where I think I would vote for the government to nationalise energy and start rolling the reliable baseload nukes off the production line, if that was what it took to solve climate change.

PEER-REVIEW: This originates from the Christian's worldview that human knowledge is fallible and needs certain mechanisms to check it.

TRANSGENDER: Peer-reviewed science HAS shown gender dysphoria to be a thing - just as same sex attraction is also a thing. What to do about it if you're a Christian struggling with these things is NOT helped by someone like you coming along and ranting the way you have. Your misunderstandings about transgender are NOT a reason to write off the nearly 200 year old findings of atmospheric warming. Here is the Centre for Christian Living discussing and informed Christian approach to transgender issues. Gender dysphoria is real - and what to do about it as a Christian is complex and painful. These guys are reformed, evangelical, bible-believing Christians and I know some of them personally.
Podcast episode 033: The transgender tipping point with Rob Smith - Centre for Christian Living

DICTATE: you seem to value your own personal freedom above the rights of others to enjoy LIFE! Climate is deadly, and getting dealier every year. But just shouting "DICTATE!" doesn't make certain duty of care obligations go away. Shouldn't the government dictate that clean water come out of a tap? What about the air be clean and not poisonous - yet how many Americans die each year from fossil particulates?

HYPOCRISY: you're saying that climate activists cannot live in the modern world using modern energy or they're hypocrits. But how would I be having this conversation with you otherwise? Dude - to stretch the metaphor - the Titanic is sinking - but I'm still going to try and bash down the door (doing even more damage to an already damaged ship!) if it means I can speak to the Captain and save lives. Your attack on climate activists as hypocritical is just a nasty diversion and Strawman.

FALSE SEA-LEVEL RISE CLAIMS: I'm calling rubbish on that. You either misunderstood the timeframes your teacher presented, or your teacher caught wind of some bad reporting - NOT bad science! I'm so tired of this particular myth because the people asserting it have obviously never looked at the first IPPC report from 1990 - and just want to believe whatever it is they believe with no adult level investigation into the EVIDENCE! (But to be kind, your teacher may have been misinformed by an infamous Associated Press report - details here).

But first, see this The Guardian report from 2014!? What's the headline? How different the first IPPC claims are to 2014? No - quite the opposite - just that everything is getting so much CLOSER now thanks to government inaction. And what did they say about sea level rise 32 years ago?

That first report was based on findings that if CO2 levels in the atmosphere were to double, this would deliver a global temperature rise of between 1.5C and 5C, with sea levels rising by about one metre by the end of the 21st century. The world's polar regions would warm at double the rate.​

 

[essentialsaltes]

Enjoyed it. Not sure that it's all that on-target with respect to either Trump or climate change denial, but whatever.

Coincidentally, I recently read Karel Capek's War with the Newts, and I think it hits the nail on the head with respect to world inaction on climate change. And from 1936 even.

I did what I could; I warned them in time ... I preached, don't [enable the Newts by doing business with them], well -- you know what happened. They all had a thousand absolutely sound economical and political reasons why it's impossible. I'm not a politician or an economist; I can't change their opinions, can I? What is one to do? The earth will probably sink and drown; but at least it will be the result of generally acknowledged political and economic ideas, at least it will be accomplished with the help of the science, industry, and public opinion, with the application of all human ingenuity! No cosmic catastrophe, nothing but the state, official, economic, and other causes. Nothing can be done to prevent it.