For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Davies and MacRae wrote: Anti-woke campaigners use platforms that also espouse the benefits of global warming and fossil fuel production, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is not just a threat to what anti-woke campaigners claim to be protecting (‘western civilisation’) but the whole of humanity and our ecosystem.
This article explains how, via a denial of structural racism, this community has ended up telling itself that academics identifying artefacts looted from colonies on display in stately homes are ‘extremists’, while a sustained year-on-year series of record-breaking temperatures in the UK and across the globe is just normal weather. We begin this explanation by describing how this pseudo-religious frame has become the latest attempt to intellectualise a moral panic about perceived leftwing cultural hegemony.
I hate the idea that all these beliefs are supposed to be a package deal. Either you believe in global warming and every other "woke" position, or you deny global warming and every other woke position.
Totally agree -everyone wants to be part of a movement - then if there are some elements that they might object to, instead of thinking as an individual, they appear to align their agreements to remain part of said movement.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 12:18 pmI hate the idea that all these beliefs are supposed to be a package deal. Either you believe in global warming and every other "woke" position, or you deny global warming and every other woke position.
How about, some things are true and some things are false, and whether they're associated with "woke" beliefs or not is an entire distraction?
This "looting" of artefacts - mostly blamed on the British over history - where the objects were studied extensively then put into Museums for all to see. Those artefacts "stolen" would have been lost to the sands of time had the scientific intellectuals of Britian had not seen value in them, beyond the people of the lands they apparently stole them from. So much Aust. Aboriginal stuff that would no longer exist - simply because the natives saw their stuff as westerners might see a paper bag they got their McDonalds in. So much "stolen artefacts" have been SAVED by the British where Muslims would have desecrated destroyed them.mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 11:30 am A fascinating and insightful examination of the “anti-woke” brigade:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... articles.1
Davies and MacRae wrote: Anti-woke campaigners use platforms that also espouse the benefits of global warming and fossil fuel production, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is not just a threat to what anti-woke campaigners claim to be protecting (‘western civilisation’) but the whole of humanity and our ecosystem.
This article explains how, via a denial of structural racism, this community has ended up telling itself that academics identifying artefacts looted from colonies on display in stately homes are ‘extremists’, while a sustained year-on-year series of record-breaking temperatures in the UK and across the globe is just normal weather. We begin this explanation by describing how this pseudo-religious frame has become the latest attempt to intellectualise a moral panic about perceived leftwing cultural hegemony.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 12:18 pmI hate the idea that all these beliefs are supposed to be a package deal. Either you believe in global warming and every other "woke" position, or you deny global warming and every other woke position.
How about, some things are true and some things are false, and whether they're associated with "woke" beliefs or not is an entire distraction?
Actually, there are huge "Woke virtue-points" for believing in two things related to global warming...one is that it's man-caused, and the other is that we, rich Westerners, can save the planet from it. All Wokies are big virtue signallers about saving the world from evil carbon emissions and CO2, and making "a sustainable future."accelafine wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 1:11 am 'Global warming' has nothing to do with 'woke'. There are no virtue-signalling morality credits for accepting scientific facts.
But secondly, and more importantly, there are only to words with which any serious conversation about man-caused global warming can begin, and Wokies never use them: those words are "China" and "India."CO2 IS a major concern. We are releasing huge quantities that have been stored underground from over a 350 million years ago ALL within the space of a couple of hundred years. Climate scientists are fully aware that this is a man made cause of climate change. A major problem of the warming effect is that frozen tundra throughout Siberia is now releasing mega tons of methane (One of the worst of contributors to CO2 - from CH4)Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 4:38 amActually, there are huge "Woke virtue-points" for believing in two things related to global warming...one is that it's man-caused, and the other is that we, rich Westerners, can save the planet from it. All Wokies are big virtue signallers about saving the world from evil carbon emissions and CO2, and making "a sustainable future."accelafine wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 1:11 am 'Global warming' has nothing to do with 'woke'. There are no virtue-signalling morality credits for accepting scientific facts.
In point of fact, we (and scientists) don't yet know how much of global warming is man-caused, or quite how.
Nothing to do with what I wrote.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 4:38 amActually, there are huge "Woke virtue-points" for believing in two things related to global warming...one is that it's man-caused, and the other is that we, rich Westerners, can save the planet from it. All Wokies are big virtue signallers about saving the world from evil carbon emissions and CO2, and making "a sustainable future."accelafine wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 1:11 am 'Global warming' has nothing to do with 'woke'. There are no virtue-signalling morality credits for accepting scientific facts.
In point of fact, we (and scientists) don't yet know how much of global warming is man-caused, or quite how. Climates are extremely complex phenomena, and the global climate is far more complex than any ten or fifty local climates. We can barely tell the weather two or three days ahead: how are we going to predict what the climate will do in 50 or a hundred years, and not on any local but on a world scale?
No serious conversation about human contribution to global warming can begin with the words, "United Kingdom." That's less than 2% of any potential. No serious conversation can begin with the words "Canada" or "Australia," because they contribute even less, in carbon terms. Even a conversation beginning with "the United States" is not a serious conversation. All the carbon emissions that will allegedly power global warming are bound to come from two places: China and India. And if those two countries do not participate, then nothing anybody else does will matter -- especially if we throw in two other places: South America and Africa. Because the overwhelming preponderance of carbon emissions and pollution of other kinds are bound to come from these under-regulated, developing economies, as they go through their industrial revolutions. Any cutbacks in the developed world will be comparatively miniscule, and will be instantly eaten-up by the increased demand in China and India, which are absolutely committed to modernizing as fast as they possibly can.
But the only way to prevent China and India (and Africa and South America) from burning carbon-fuels is to keep them poor. And they won't do it. You and I wouldn't; and they won't. They'll insist on providing for themselves and their families, and making a better country for themselves, and a better future. And you won't stop them. You won't get them to lie down and die.
So the Wokies are spitting into a hurricane, on this one. There is zero chance they'll be able to change global warming, or do any of the things they promise, like creating carbon-neutral first-world economies, or preventing the poor from eating and aspiring to a better life. But boy, do they ever virtue signal about it. Just look at St. Greta of Climate Change.
The question, though, is not whether the globe is warming. The question is whether, and how much, it is due to human action, and whether it's possible for us to reverse it.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 6:51 amWe're almost in the middle of winter here in Adelaide and everyday for months it's been like an English summers day (when the Sun is out!)Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 4:38 amActually, there are huge "Woke virtue-points" for believing in two things related to global warming...one is that it's man-caused, and the other is that we, rich Westerners, can save the planet from it. All Wokies are big virtue signallers about saving the world from evil carbon emissions and CO2, and making "a sustainable future."accelafine wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 1:11 am 'Global warming' has nothing to do with 'woke'. There are no virtue-signalling morality credits for accepting scientific facts.
In point of fact, we (and scientists) don't yet know how much of global warming is man-caused, or quite how.
There's no easy solution, for sure. To make energy cheap, using current technologies, we also make it dirty in some way or other. To make it expensive, we disproportionately punish (and kill) the world's poor.I'd like to see Australia which is a large exporter of coal to India and China to basically stop doing it. Force them to use alternatives - NUCLEAR should be on the table of discussion, but this is where your WOKE greeny morons will refuse to even discuss - as if we haven't got the technology solved to work safely.
We really can't "force" China to do anything...and India is also a nuclear power. And poorer countries that need the money will surely step in to sell things like coal whenever a first-world country steps out. They'll do what they do. And the danger is that if we make half of the world's population desperate, we'll simply provoke war...or if we succeed, murder billions.Force India and China to find alternatives such as Nuclear for now - stop giving cheap coal and gas to them!
Well, there are big points in the Woke system of scoring for being 'virtuous' about global warming, according to the Woke narrative. So yes, it has a lot to do with that, and Greta's a great example of how silly the Wokies get about that subject.accelafine wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 7:47 amNothing to do with what I wrote.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 4:38 amActually, there are huge "Woke virtue-points" for believing in two things related to global warming...one is that it's man-caused, and the other is that we, rich Westerners, can save the planet from it. All Wokies are big virtue signallers about saving the world from evil carbon emissions and CO2, and making "a sustainable future..."accelafine wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 1:11 am 'Global warming' has nothing to do with 'woke'. There are no virtue-signalling morality credits for accepting scientific facts.
...So the Wokies are spitting into a hurricane, on this one. There is zero chance they'll be able to change global warming, or do any of the things they promise, like creating carbon-neutral first-world economies, or preventing the poor from eating and aspiring to a better life. But boy, do they ever virtue signal about it. Just look at St. Greta of Climate Change.
She is woke. Global warming is not.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 11:52 amWell, there are big points in the Woke system of scoring for being 'virtuous' about global warming, according to the Woke narrative. So yes, it has a lot to do with that, and Greta's a great example of how silly the Wokies get about that subject.accelafine wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 7:47 amNothing to do with what I wrote.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 4:38 am
Actually, there are huge "Woke virtue-points" for believing in two things related to global warming...one is that it's man-caused, and the other is that we, rich Westerners, can save the planet from it. All Wokies are big virtue signallers about saving the world from evil carbon emissions and CO2, and making "a sustainable future..."
...So the Wokies are spitting into a hurricane, on this one. There is zero chance they'll be able to change global warming, or do any of the things they promise, like creating carbon-neutral first-world economies, or preventing the poor from eating and aspiring to a better life. But boy, do they ever virtue signal about it. Just look at St. Greta of Climate Change.
The ostensible fuel for climate change is that combustibles release heat and energy, and the heat gets trapped in the atmosphere. Wokers say that If humans had not released the heat into the atmosphere with their petroleum needs, along with wood and bovine-paddy cooking fires, then the planet would be more “natural” for all non-human life, and therefore better.