Facing the Reality of Climate Change

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,341
Will there be, “a new heaven, and a new earth” after this one is destroyed? Perhaps, but we cannot afford to rely on it. Really, it is a nice sort of idea, that everything will be renewed and made good by the end of society as we know it. But it is just an idea, a dream, a philosophical vision, blended with humanity’s senseless wish for the destruction of everyone who thinks differently to ourselves. But can we afford to be philosophical, given our actual situation as a humanity?

The sobering reality is that Climate Change threatens to cause vast destruction, an apocalyptic scenario, within a hundred years. Rather than hoping that following the destruction would be a beautiful new world, we should consider whether we leave this earth to the coming generations as a beautiful or horrifying place. We are living out of harmony with nature, due to the vast greed of some and the apathy or ignorance of many. Yet rather than confronting this, some create outlandish theories in an attempt to deny our living reality.

Anyone who has been alive a perhaps a bit more than twenty years will likely have noticed how the weather is changing. Warm sunny days in February, followed by April snows and a summer of grey rain. It seems a new temperature record is set practically every year, and nature seems unbalanced, unsettled, wildfires burn out of control. We go on as normal, convinced by the strange nuclear faith of the boomer generation that the threat of apocalyptic destruction of the planet is just “business as usual”.

We are attacking nature, She is suffering. We cut down rainforests to plant soy to feed cattle, while spewing toxic fumes into the air. The electricity we rely on for our normal daily lives still often comes from fossil fuels, or nuclear energy with all the separate problems that entails. We pump the soil full of chemical pesticides, destroy animal life on a vast scale due to our addiction to eating flesh and animal products. A normal day, creating the greenhouse effect as is our habit, living with no concern for how much is destroyed our wake.

If we recognized that we need to live within the limitations of nature (something so obvious it could almost be called a priori) our lives would become more peaceful. Those who profit from the climate emergency may be skewing the story, but undeniably the weather is changing, it is visible and tangible in many countries. It is corporations who are profiting from it the most, and they are entirely self-centred, and only concerned about short or long term profits. So as public opinion leans towards sustainability, they put on an appearance of sustainability. This should not be confused with the foolish idea that climate change itself is an invented problem, only the product of an agenda. In fact, business considerations of monolithic corporate entities have more to do with any agenda that is being promoted than any speculative shadowy cabal.

Capitalism has always exploited crisis for its own ends (as Naomi Klein shows us in “The Shock Doctrine”). We have a choice to confront the climate emergency in co-operation, a spirit of non-sectarianism, brother and sisterhood. If we ignore it or choose not to, then the governments and corporations will deal with it in their own way, making human life even more painful than it is now. But, in confronting it, we can develop the inner capacities to overcome crisis in the proper way, leading to a higher level of human civilization.

Both our credulity and our scepticism are utilized by those forces seeking to advance their own agenda at the cost of us all. Confronting a problem in the wrong way may worsen it, but denying that a problem exists does nothing whatsoever to resolve it. We must learn to look through the lens of the Dialectic, comprehending that affirmation and denial are each sides of the same phenomenon. We must learn to act in such a way as to bring about universal human ends, rather than being preoccupied with our own problems, beliefs, and ideas.

Now is the moment for us all to come together. We cannot delay action, nor assume that without our own commitment the cause will triumph of itself. We must repair the situation, if we leave it to the forces of selfishness and greed then they will use it to bring about a real dystopia. We must learn to live in harmony with our Earth, a thing which should really be very simple to achieve, if only we begin working towards it.

A change in orientation is required, a turning away from theory toward practical action, from opinions toward concrete facts. An awakening to the spiritual reality in all things, a recognition of the life and beauty in nature, who we are harming due to the senselessness of our present civilization. The future is our own script to write, and we must not believe that it is predestined to be bad, for this is no more than a philosophical disguise for the worst kind of fatalism. Together we can work to heal the earth, to protect nature, and heal ourselves in the process.
 






Awoken2

Superstar
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
5,252
Have you not noticed how they are blaming YOU for climate change and not the fucking lunatic mass polluter corporations that willfully destroy our planet?

How dumb do people have to be to not realise this?

....watch the film Dark Waters and then try and understand how this world really works.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
3,825
Will there be, “a new heaven, and a new earth” after this one is destroyed? ..

Nope..:)
Rather, when we die our souls fly to a purely spiritual realm, regard it as the final stage of human evolution-
"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.. flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:42-50)

Several sci-fi shows and films have touched on the same theme such as this episode of TNG ('Transformations') where this bloke evolves into a spiritual being-

 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
3,825
There are billions of cars on the world's roads pumping out sh*t into the atmosphere, so should motorists feel a little bit guilty?

 






DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,559
climate change activism is for people who are ignorant about government geoengineering programs.
Would you say geoengineering is behind what some have called "global weirding" i.e. bizarre weather patterns?
 






polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
6,429
Would you say geoengineering is behind what some have called "global weirding" i.e. bizarre weather patterns?
its not limited to geoengineering-- the HAARP technology is turning the weather schizophrenic as well as the directed energy weapons.
as i have said before, nobody is pro-pollution, but to blame humans (and cow farts, etc.) for what we are meteorologically experiencing is a ridiculous cover story for just another NWO agenda.
 






Apheirox

Rookie
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
87
We cannot "face the reality of climate change" while a group of satanic psychopaths are in control. The battle to go about changing anything for the better has to start with removing them (easier said than done).
 






shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,341
I think the geoengineering thing is a pretty far-fetched explanation. This whole thing of denying it is just a dialectical operation to stop people from rallying around a cause which would cause big changes to structures of power. It would require a huge conspiracy not just of elites and their lackeys, but of a lot of independent scientific researchers - science may not be able to explain everything, but when it comes to something empirical like this, it works.

The Kogi Indians say that the oil is "the mother's blood". Doesn't it make sense that extracting and burning the blood of Mother Earth would cause changes in the weather?
 






Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,159
I'll place this article here if anyone's interested in reading it:

"Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.
The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age."

(source)

And this video too:

How to Win Climate Change Debate Every Time (Global Warming Explained)
 






polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
6,429
It would require a huge conspiracy not just of elites and their lackeys, but of a lot of independent scientific researchers - science may not be able to explain everything, but when it comes to something empirical like this, it works.
kind of like... 9/11 or the AIDS and covid hoax? you know that real scientific research is bought and paid for.
true independent researchers are the ones who know the truth, never get publicized by the media, and are marginalized or ostracized from their positions.
take a look at tony hellers site if youre interested: https://realclimatescience.com/climate-scientists-rewriting-the-past/


The Kogi Indians say that the oil is "the mother's blood". Doesn't it make sense that extracting and burning the blood of Mother Earth would cause changes in the weather?
oil is a renewable resource. its not a ''fossil fuel". the oil is created by bacteria. look deeper into this.
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,934
Climate change activism is incredibly important. To think otherwise is the equivalent of losing the plot completely.

I don't see what's bad about trying to preserve the Earth in its natural state, reducing poison in the environment, and striving for more efficient energy infrastructure. More importantly, half of the climate change debate in the public sphere amounts to people chasing around red herrings.

If you don't know what a red herring is, it means people are wrapping themselves up with information that's completely irrelevant. In other words, you're acting like the culture wars dog. Do you want to be a dog or a human? It's a simple question.

Nobody has to prove that poison is bad. /End debate
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
3,825
I wonder if climate activists have given up their cars? If they haven't they might be viewed as being a bit hypocritical..;)

 






shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,341
I wonder if climate activists have given up their cars? If they haven't they might be viewed as being a bit hypocritical..;)

Well it's the corporations who are doing most of the polluting. I'd say that before giving up a car, which is unfortunately quite necessary for life at the present time, we should stop eating meat, which is really very easy. All animal products in fact, though I say this with some hypocrisy as i'm not quite there yet.

Making ordinary people carry the burden of something they didn't create isn't correct. That's not to say we don't need to individually take action, just that we shouldn't feel too much guilt about the small amount of emissions we individually produce. Check out this article: Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says.

kind of like... 9/11 or the AIDS and covid hoax? you know that real scientific research is bought and paid for.
true independent researchers are the ones who know the truth, never get publicized by the media, and are marginalized or ostracized from their positions.
take a look at tony hellers site if youre interested: https://realclimatescience.com/climate-scientists-rewriting-the-past/

oil is a renewable resource. its not a ''fossil fuel". the oil is created by bacteria. look deeper into this.
I don't think it's that clear cut. Obviously there are scientists working for corporations, but there are also many working for universities and other more independent bodies. Their conclusions are likely to be quite logical, discounting them is just a way of keeping your eyes closed, perhaps subconsciously to have the "street cred" of a "real conspiracy theorist".

What you say about oil is... well, exactly what the oil companies want you to think, right?
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
3,825
Well it's the corporations who are doing most of the polluting. I'd say that before giving up a car, which is unfortunately quite necessary for life at the present time, we should stop eating meat..

I've never owned, wanted or needed a car so my conscience is quite clear, and as for giving up meat, I enjoy a nice juicy steak and always will..:)
(How the hell is not eating meat supposed to help the planet anyway??)
Our bodies were designed to need meat, so perhaps it's a plot by "the dark powers" (see my sig) to make us give it up and become weak in body and mind and easily controllable?

 






polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
6,429
What you say about oil is... well, exactly what the oil companies want you to think, right?
its no different than the diamond industry keeps a tight lid on the diamond pricing. if we knew how abundant diamonds were, the price would crash.
if the oil companies wanted us to think that there were vast quantities of oil, it would be all over the media and the scare of peak oil would never be circulating. it should also drive the oil prices down.

check it out:

this one is short:

theres another short clip of a scientist who discovers that he can make oil in a lab. he published the paper, expecting it to be shocking news to learn that it has been ignored (i cant find it).

corbetts take:
 






polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
6,429
(How the hell is not eating meat supposed to help the planet anyway??)
Our bodies were designed to need meat, so perhaps it's a plot by "the dark powers" (see my sig) to make us give it up and become weak in body and mind and easily controllable?
how can you comment if you dont know the opposing argument?

'they' say raising cattle for beef uses vasts quantities of water and land/grass/space. the land energy/cost input required to raise a food crop is far, far more efficient than using the same land to raise a pound of beef. what 'they' dont understand is that livestock and cattle are an essential part of regenerating the topsoil when done in a natural, organic way (paddock rotation, grass fed animals, etc.). their argument does apply, but only for factory farms.

our long intestines are not designed for eating lots of meat where the digested foodstuff will go rancid and become caked up on the intestinal wall. this is debatable and we are going off topic again, but one doesnt necessarily need to specifically eat animal flesh for their source of protein-- cheese, butter, or raw milk will do fine.
 






Top