American election.

[Gary Childress]

Oh and Trump going back to coal? Why aren't you outraged at that?

Why do you keep going back to him? I'm not an American, remember? I don't owe anybody to belong to either party -- in fact, I can't...they won't have me.

As for DT, you got rid of him, remember? You now have the Bidens. JB's promised to eliminate fracking, and to implement elements of the Green New Deal at least.

Why aren't you happy?

Still can't bring yourself to criticize Trump, eh. You can criticize "environmentalism" but you can't criticize a man who is actively trying to destroy us all with the most polluting measures imaginable. Unbelievable. I guess God will let all types into heaven, except for "unbelievers".

[Immanuel Can]

Still can't bring yourself to criticize Trump, eh.

'Bring myself"? Don't need to. He's not an issue to me. His sins, such as he has, are his; and Joe Biden's are his. Pointing any of them out doesn't in any way help us with the other case. We've established that already, Gary. Have you forgotten that you already recognized the truth of that?

Meanwhile, while are you still obsessing on Trump? He's no longer in charge, as you yourself insist. He's in the rearview mirror. Straight ahead, you've got Biden and the "Progressive" Left in charge now. So if there is an environmental problem, it's now theirs. So what are they going to do, that's going to solve our energy and environmental problems? We''ll see, I suppose. I'm not optimistic, though.

[Gary Childress]

Still can't bring yourself to criticize Trump, eh.

'Bring myself"? Don't need to. He's not an issue to me. His sins, such as he has, are his; and Joe Biden's are his. Pointing any of them out doesn't in any way help us with the other case. We've established that already, Gary. Have you forgotten that you already recognized the truth of that?

Meanwhile, while are you still obsessing on Trump? He's no longer in charge, as you yourself insist. He's in the rearview mirror. Straight ahead, you've got Biden and the "Progressive" Left in charge now. So if there is an environmental problem, it's now theirs. So what are they going to do, that's going to solve our energy and environmental problems? We''ll see, I suppose. I'm not optimistic, though.

But you were optimistic with Trump in the lead?

[Gary Childress]

Come on, Mannie, let's hear it. You've stated that you believe in protecting the environment, so let's hear, "thank goodness for the environment that Trump is out of office." I mean, you don't want to be a fake environmentalist like all those others you criticize, do you? Surely Trump is worthy of your scorn for bringing coal back online?

[tillingborn]

Well, there are two possibilities: either the do know that they are damaging the environment, or they don't know it. So they could be acting in bad faith, or just in ignorance. Not being in their brains, I couldn't say which it is. But I'd be very surprised if they all are ignorant of the facts. They certainly claim to spend enough time looking at them.

As with journalists, no doubt some 'environmentalists' are honest and some exploit people's goodwill.
You make a clear distinction between people such as yourself, who "want environmental management to succeed", a position to which I, and I suspect at least some people who would call themselves Environmentalists can readily subscribe, and adherents to some "Environmentalism", who at best are childlike in their idealism or malevolent actors to be resisted. Apart from Greta Thunberg, who are these people?

[Immanuel Can]

But you were optimistic with Trump in the lead?

Let me try to explain again, very carefully, so you'll understand, Gary.

I don't owe it to anybody to have an opinion about any American politician. I may have one if I choose, but I don't owe it to take a stand on one or the other of the two candidates you have. And I'm not crazy enough to think that the name on the oval office means that guy's in charge. I choose to approve or disapprove of politicians on the policies they actually hold.

It's going to make you crazy when I say this, and I know it: but there are some policies that took place under the last administration that were unquestionably good. There are some of which I was not so approving, but that's okay: the last admin was no threat to me. None of their policies were going to make my life harder or worse. Some were a significant betterment for the world generally. The pulling out of foreign wars, for example, or the peace accords in the Middle East...well, how could you possibly criticize either? But those policies that didn't make my life better didn't make it any worse.

Jordan Peterson has pointed out that the best one can actually expect from a politician is to do the minimum amount of damage. That sounds cynical, maybe: but it's entirely true, as well. Politicians rarely make things better. Often, they meddle with matters in which they have little competence, and create problems. The likelihood of a politician creating a disaster is much higher than that of ameliorating a situation. The best politicians are those who do the least damage. And Trump did none to me.

This next administration...not only are they not likely to "do no harm," they look poised to do a great deal of harm. They look ready to interfere in absolutely everything, and maybe even to utterly change the construction of the United States itself. They are sponsored by globalists and foreign powers, and they are themselves interventionists. They are also being manipulated by global media oligarchs whom I believe have very controlling and personal ambitions, ambitions that do not stop with the nation state. The Progressivists who sponsor much of the new administration seem to put personal rights and freedoms behind collectivistic "social engineering" in priority, and they are willing to subvert the entire political process to do it. And they are the kind of people who want crowds to kneel in the streets and proclaim their crimes against the revolution, and knuckle under rhetoric that is both racist and revisionist. And they want to export their revolution to me.

Thus, when I look at the US today, I no longer like my chances of being left alone, and of not being harmed. I also see dark clouds on the horizon for the prospects of ordinary Americans; and I happen to like ordinary Americans, and genuinely to wish America well.

So while I feel no need to have an opinion about DT, I have a very clear apprehension of trouble coming from the other side. You can't get me to kneel in the street and raise a fist against Trump, if only because that administration has done nothing against me. But I don't trust the next one, and neither should you. On that, I will volunteer my opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, there are two possibilities: either the do know that they are damaging the environment, or they don't know it. So they could be acting in bad faith, or just in ignorance. Not being in their brains, I couldn't say which it is. But I'd be very surprised if they all are ignorant of the facts. They certainly claim to spend enough time looking at them.

As with journalists, no doubt some 'environmentalists' are honest and some exploit people's goodwill.

You asked for a specific example. I gave you an excellent one. You ignored it.

[tillingborn]

You asked for a specific example. I gave you an excellent one. You ignored it.

What I said was:

It would be fair to describe "Environmentalism" as irrational if you could demonstrate that environmentalists promote strategies or technologies they know to be harmful to the environment. Do you mean to imply that 'Environmentalists' act in bad faith?

Thank you for the example, which I considered, but it isn't clear that any of the actors behaved irrationally. Who in your view are the 'Environmentalists' acting in bad faith?

[Gary Childress]

But you were optimistic with Trump in the lead?

Let me try to explain again, very carefully, so you'll understand, Gary.

I don't owe it to anybody to have an opinion about any American politician. I may have one if I choose, but I don't owe it to take a stand on one or the other of the two candidates you have. And I'm not crazy enough to think that the name on the oval office means that guy's in charge. I choose to approve or disapprove of politicians on the policies they actually hold.

It's going to make you crazy when I say this, and I know it: but there are some policies that took place under the last administration that were unquestionably good. There are some of which I was not so approving, but that's okay: the last admin was no threat to me. None of their policies were going to make my life harder or worse. Some were a significant betterment for the world generally. The pulling out of foreign wars, for example, or the peace accords in the Middle East...well, how could you possibly criticize either? But those policies that didn't make my life better didn't make it any worse.

Jordan Peterson has pointed out that the best one can actually expect from a politician is to do the minimum amount of damage. That sounds cynical, maybe: but it's entirely true, as well. Politicians rarely make things better. Often, they meddle with matters in which they have little competence, and create problems. The likelihood of a politician creating a disaster is much higher than that of ameliorating a situation. The best politicians are those who do the least damage. And Trump did none to me.

This next administration...not only are they not likely to "do no harm," they look poised to do a great deal of harm. They look ready to interfere in absolutely everything, and maybe even to utterly change the construction of the United States itself. They are sponsored by globalists and foreign powers, and they are themselves interventionists. They are also being manipulated by global media oligarchs whom I believe have very controlling and personal ambitions, ambitions that do not stop with the nation state. The Progressivists who sponsor much of the new administration seem to put personal rights and freedoms behind collectivistic "social engineering" in priority, and they are willing to subvert the entire political process to do it. And they are the kind of people who want crowds to kneel in the streets and proclaim their crimes against the revolution, and knuckle under rhetoric that is both racist and revisionist. And they want to export their revolution to me.

Thus, when I look at the US today, I no longer like my chances of being left alone, and of not being harmed. I also see dark clouds on the horizon for the prospects of ordinary Americans; and I happen to like ordinary Americans, and genuinely to wish America well.

So while I feel no need to have an opinion about DT, I have a very clear apprehension of trouble coming from the other side. You can't get me to kneel in the street and raise a fist against Trump, if only because that administration has done nothing against me. But I don't trust the next one, and neither should you. On that, I will volunteer my opinion.

If you live in Canada, then I take it you would have been OK with all the acid rain from the increased coal consumption? Just so long as those evil globalists like George Sorors (my guess) don't take over. They are with the Illuminati, after all, aren't they?

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you for the example, which I considered, but it isn't clear that any of the actors behaved irrationally.

I was very clear. Some are plausibly ignorant, and some are very likely acting in bad faith...assuming they know as much about the environment as they want you and me to believe they know. And if they know as much as they say they know, then they are acting in bad faith.

"Irrationally"? Hmmm. That's not a word I used. But it might be right, too. I suppose it's quite possible that some Environmentalists are so wound up with fear about the world ending soon that they will grasp any straw of hope, no matter how foolish and perfidious, and cling to it with irrational fervour. That's plausible too, especially with how hot and irrational the rhetoric surrounding Environmentalism is (think of "The Population Bomb" for example). So I have to accept your characterization. Irrationality is a third possible motive.

[Immanuel Can]

Just so long as those evil globalists like George Sorors (my guess) don't take over.

I didn't mention him, but watch your back on that one. He's certainly proved he's one of the international meddlers, and he's got a lot of assets to work with.

[Gary Childress]

Just so long as those evil globalists like George Sorors (my guess) don't take over.

I didn't mention him, but watch your back on that one. He's certainly proved he's one of the international meddlers, and he's got a lot of assets to work with.

In what way is Soros any worse than Trump? Trump literally took over the most powerful country on Earth and ran it like his own personal enterprise.

[Immanuel Can]

In what way is Soros any worse than Trump? Trump literally took over the most powerful country on Earth and ran it like his own personal enterprise.

Trump again.

What is it with you and that guy?

I told you, Gary, you don't get to make me kneel in the streets and raise a fist just because you want me to. I don't owe you that. And quite frankly, it would do you absolutely no good if I did it.

But Soros? Do I think he's worse than what you describe? Could be. I guess you'll find out.

[Gary Childress]

In what way is Soros any worse than Trump? Trump literally took over the most powerful country on Earth and ran it like his own personal enterprise.

Trump again.

What is it with you and that guy?

I told you, Gary, you don't get to make me kneel in the streets and raise a fist just because you want me to. I don't owe you that. And quite frankly, it would do you absolutely no good if I did it.

But Soros? Do I think he's worse than what you describe? Could be. I guess you'll find out.

What about him is worse than Trump? What has he done to deserve this reputation? Note: We're talking about Soros now.

[tillingborn]

Thank you for the example, which I considered, but it isn't clear that any of the actors behaved irrationally.

I was very clear. Some are plausibly ignorant, and some are very likely acting in bad faith...assuming they know as much about the environment as they want you and me to believe they know. And if they know as much as they say they know, then they are acting in bad faith.

Then you agree with this:

As with journalists, no doubt some 'environmentalists' are honest and some exploit people's goodwill.

"Irrationally"? Hmmm. That's not a word I used. But it might be right, too. I suppose it's quite possible that some Environmentalists are so wound up with fear about the world ending soon that they will grasp any straw of hope, no matter how foolish and perfidious, and cling to it with irrational fervour. That's plausible too, especially with how hot and irrational the rhetoric surrounding Environmentalism is (think of "The Population Bomb" for example). So I have to accept your characterization. Irrationality is a third possible motive.

It isn't my characterisation:

So I want environmental management to succeed...but Environmentalism is something quite different: it's a kind of irrational ideology. And you can see it's irrational, because it embraces "solutions" that are actually harmful to the environment, and declares them "green."

In other words, I don't believe in letting Environmentalism lead us into folly and destructive practices.

The point that interests me is that you apparently believe that "Environmentalism" is different to your own wish for "environmental management to succeed". I'm curious why you think this, and who the bad actors are.