AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Global Warming as Mass Neurosis
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
From the Wall Street Journal:

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis


A quote or two:
Quote:What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.

...

Global warming is sick-souled religion.


Whoa!

The only way Global Warming is happening is if you believe!




(Not sure which Forum this topic belongs in.)
I'm glad to see this in the WSJ. For a long time they have been a bit soft on AGW off the editorial page. Maybe some editor will wake up. Or, could Bret have been egged on by the new owner?
Well...

Of course you must believe in it to believe in it...

Or if you are just Neutral like me, you at least have to have a scientific approach...

/track_snake
track_snake Wrote:Well...

Of course you must believe in it to believe in it...

Or if you are just Neutral like me, you at least have to have a scientific approach...

/track_snake

So, if you believe the UN unquestionably, and you refuse to consider anything else, then you are neutral? This is interesting logic, that somehow does not pass the "smell" test with many, myself included. Wink1
track_snake Wrote:Of course you must believe in it to believe in it...

TS being silly again.

I believe 2 + 2 = 4. That is not the same as "I believe in God".

I believe you understand that, but just choose to be silly.

Quote:Or if you are just Neutral like me, you at least have to have a scientific approach...

If you have any sort of "scientific" approach, you will not "believe" the pseudo-science based AGW concept.

However, you do accept the AGW concept.

Therefore, I believe you are being silly once again.

:lol:
Track_snake is a desperate man.

He is clinging on the AGW bandwagon by using a new psychology crutch of being neutral.

Eventually he will have no choice and let reality creep in.
I have a slightly different take. the AGW debate is secondary. it is the belief in the bureaucracy that is first and foremost in T_S's mind. He has admitted that he too is a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats are a breed, in which they must be fruitful and multiply. The AGW debate is just a means of encouraging this.

Thus, he is a slave to the bureauracy, and anything that promotes it's existence and survival, is paramont. Once he realizes that the issue has no value to his kind, he will drop it like a hot potato. Until then, he will remain "neutral" about it's existence, not really caring one way or the other. It's all about survival. It's all about genetics. Bureaucrats are a species unto their own. Wink1
But I thought bureaucrats lack reality in their thinking.The reason why they can be so comically far off the mark?

Ohhh since Track has been using the "neutral" card lately.It would mean he is beginning to perceive reality that all the wailing about a run away warming trend is not happening.

S1
sunsettommy Wrote:But I thought bureaucrats lack reality in their thinking.The reason why they can be so comically far off the mark?

Ohhh since Track has been using the "neutral" card lately.It would mean he is beginning to perceive reality that all the wailing about a run away warming trend is not happening.

S1

Are you familiar with the advertisement on OverStocked.com. "It's all about the "O"? Well, with bureaucrats, "It's all about the "B". 8)
So,

AGW supporters have "B O"?

That's not nice!

:lol:
John L Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:Well...

Of course you must believe in it to believe in it...

Or if you are just Neutral like me, you at least have to have a scientific approach...

/track_snake

So, if you believe the UN unquestionably, and you refuse to consider anything else, then you are neutral? This is interesting logic, that somehow does not pass the "smell" test with many, myself included. Wink1
----------------------
Who said I just believe in what UN says?

You should know by now that I am a critic of the IPCC. Not in the sense that everything they say is false, but I am also weighing evidence from the IPCC against evidence from other sources.

Did you pass the smell test?

/track_snake
JohnWho Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:Of course you must believe in it to believe in it...

TS being silly again.

I believe 2 + 2 = 4. That is not the same as "I believe in God".

I believe you understand that, but just choose to be silly.

Quote:Or if you are just Neutral like me, you at least have to have a scientific approach...

If you have any sort of "scientific" approach, you will not "believe" the pseudo-science based AGW concept.

However, you do accept the AGW concept.

Therefore, I believe you are being silly once again.

:lol:
--------------
Who said I accept the AGW concept?

I am accepting some parts of it, but not everything. Because I stand for what is the Thruth and me and only me knows that...

/track_snake
sunsettommy Wrote:Track_snake is a desperate man.

He is clinging on the AGW bandwagon by using a new psychology crutch of being neutral.

Eventually he will have no choice and let reality creep in.
---------------------------
Hahaha...

Well...

As you know, I stand for reality...

I am not 'clinging to the AGW bandwagon' but I accept some parts of the AGW theory.

/track_snake
John L Wrote:I have a slightly different take. the AGW debate is secondary. it is the belief in the bureaucracy that is first and foremost in T_S's mind. He has admitted that he too is a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats are a breed, in which they must be fruitful and multiply. The AGW debate is just a means of encouraging this.

Thus, he is a slave to the bureauracy, and anything that promotes it's existence and survival, is paramont. Once he realizes that the issue has no value to his kind, he will drop it like a hot potato. Until then, he will remain "neutral" about it's existence, not really caring one way or the other. It's all about survival. It's all about genetics. Bureaucrats are a species unto their own. Wink1
------------------------
Well...

As you know, being 'Neutral' always give you the possibility to change your mind afterwards if you should need that.

The AGW theory is largely true, but we have also many other phenomena that affects the climate.

Right now, we are definitely in a warming period. The just ended month of June showed temperatures much in excess of normal (baseline 1961-1990) in most parts of the world. With a few exceptions; Antarctica was 3-5 centigrades below normal, and large parts of India 2-4 centigrades below normal. But for 80% of the world, it was same business as usual; warmer than normal.

/track_snake
Oh Boy, tell me you are not a burearcrat!? Tell me you are capable of being flexible, or honest?! Tell us T_S IF, and I state IF you are intellectually capable of forgetting the bureaucratic dogma of using the 1961 to 1990 timeline, and IF, and I state IF, you are able to just look at the data for just the last eleven years, and IF, and I state IF, you take the time to look at the temp charts, and see below,

[Image: 2847302040037686397S600x600Q85.jpg]

would you think that we are definately in a flat period, and just might be on the front end of a slow cooling trend? Can you wrap your "burearcratic" mind around that alien concept?

Annnnd, if you knew that a cooler climate is a dryer climate, and you witnessed a chart, showing the humidity decreasing globally, since 1990, would you be swayed to think that this may be a forebearer to the future?

[Image: 2667637490037686397S600x600Q85.jpg]

And what if you saw the chart, showing a serious downturn of solar activity from 2005, compared to the earlier dates, would you still be apt to admit that something, other than AGW, just may be going on here?

Are you capable of forgetting that you are a bureaucrat, just this one hypothetical time? Are you?

[Image: 2390783250037686397S600x600Q85.jpg]
I gotta side with the author. This movement is a combination of all 3 issues he listed.

1)Redistribution of our wealth to the non industrialized via "carbon taxation",classic socialist ideas. I've about concluded this is the LEAST of the motivation,even though it is powerful.

2)Religion/psychological I put in 1 category because of the penance idea. Behind this movement is western GUILT,we do not DESERVE our society,so we must pay for it by doing various penances,voluntarily reduce our carbon footprint,etc. Especially considering lots of the momentum for the idea are atheists,I think that's funny,it's a new religion after all.

My view is the opposite,we have what we do as far as wealth and better governance relative to others based on God's Will for us. "God shed His Grace on Thee" is a largely bankrupt thought it appears with many,not with me. Heck,if I was an atheist I wouldn't buy into this new religion,I'd go about my life enjoying what I had earned fair and square and let the subjective nuts live in tents,though I don't see a lot of that yet.
track_snake Wrote:Who said I accept the AGW concept?

Uh, you:

track_snake Wrote:The AGW theory is largely true, ...

:lol:



Quote:Right now, we are definitely in a warming period. The just ended month of June showed temperatures much in excess of normal (baseline 1961-1990) in most parts of the world. With a few exceptions; Antarctica was 3-5 centigrades below normal, and large parts of India 2-4 centigrades below normal. But for 80% of the world, it was same business as usual; warmer than normal.

Uh, source link again?

"baseline 1961-1990" again?

Maybe you aren't being silly. Maybe you actually aren't capable of reason?

Heck, based on your two quotes, above, you don't even agree with yourself!

:lol:
Palladin Wrote:I gotta side with the author. This movement is a combination of all 3 issues he listed.

I gotta side with Palladin -

it certainly is a "movement" all right!

:lol:
I made up a seperate sub-title for a section of "The Psychology of Global Warming", so I could pigeon-hole it in the best location.

Now, if we could just build a large enough Ward 13 for all these Nuts, and kooks.
John L Wrote:Now, if we could just build a large enough Ward 13 for all these Nuts, and kooks.

Probably not - they have a consensus, don't you know!?

:lol:
Pages: 1 2