climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[wedge]

Kind of amusing to watch Marlborough argue with himself like Smeagol.

[marlboroughman]

Kind of amusing to watch Marlborough argue with himself like Smeagol.

Me and silent majority

[Pemba]

Trump supporting MAGAt kiteboarders, I never realized such people existed...

What that has to do with green fraud? We are winning by the way.

Well done !
Another proud day for mama M. I guess.

[prop_joe]

And history will similarly view people who support Trump now in the same way we regard the 13.5 million Germans who voted for bad person Party candidate Adolf Hitler in 1932.

Cool... what about the climate thing, how does that work out for everyone?

[Toby]

Anyone still on topic or just election debate?

[unclebill]

Toby. I hope you don't close this thread. Even though it has gone off topic, the comments coming from some posters help to explain why there is such a wide range of opinion ranging from fanatical religious belief with predictions of the "end" to outright denial. I believe it is far better to know how people really feel about the topic. Speaking for myself, I would rather know that I am being compared to a Hitler supporter than not know someone feels that way.

[palmbeacher]

The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this. But climate deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.

The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.

A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.

The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.

The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the free-market creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.

[Havre]

Why do you keep on with this palmbeacher? It has nothing to do with the topic and says more about you than the people you are describing.

[palmbeacher]

Why do you keep on with this palmbeacher? It has nothing to do with the topic and says more about you than the people you are describing.

Plenty of egomaniacs in the thread debating the fundamentals of science, so I don’t see why this is off topic?

[Havre]

Why do you keep on with this palmbeacher? It has nothing to do with the topic and says more about you than the people you are describing.

Plenty of egomaniacs in the thread debating the fundamentals of science, so I don’t see why this is off topic?

That is not a discussion about how the fundamentals of science is understood (and I'm not defending all the other posts in this thread on that) - it is just a statement disclosing your personal biases.

And why would you lower yourself to be discussing at the same level as these egomaniacs?

If you had made in concrete in the context of this thread, then I could have understood, as it stands and with these general comments you are coming with it has no value.

What is your end goal here? To angrily tell everyone that disagree with you that they are idiots? Isn't that what Twitter is for?

If the science is clear. Why do you want to interfere with people that do not see it the same way unless you are here trying to make them/us understand? How would you make them/us understand? By telling us how ignorant and stupid we are (in four different ways)? Or by trying to explain the science? Or in this case analyse the biases them/we might have (which would have been fair if it was specific and not just general).