My reply to a desperate statist

In the thread responding to this video (Climate I: Is The Debate Over?, by The Agenda with Steve Paikin)

a person named Erik Gloor, gave a disturbing reply:

@Ludwig van El I have no idea what you’re saying. There is no debate. Man-made climate change is real. Trust scientists at organizations like NASA. Trusting oil companies to tell you their products don’t harm the environment is like trusting tobacco companies that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Anything less is pure folly.

Trusting politicians to tell the truth and to serve the people, is like asking a volcano to keep hold your ice cream cone for you: you know it simply cannot work, nobody has a rich enough fantasy to imagine such contradictory concepts. You want scientific proof: the 2 Stans: show that people are incapable of handling power, neither exerted over them (they have the unfortunate tendency to follow orders) nor exerting power over others. This is also called (by Hobbes, iirc) homo homini lupus est: man is a wolf to his fellow man, therefore you do not give him power over you/his fellow man.

If you insist on thinking politicians are angels, then riddle me this: how come in Dutch politics, the parties that make most noise about CC have also been the ones that tried their hardest to keep traffic jams intact -> keeping CO2 emissions high, since 1966 (52 years by now!). That is treason! But, when I looked into suing them for treason over that, the only laws I found that related to treason, protected the government from the people! Comrade, can you believe that?

Angels also do not kill/torture people for, being born in another country(the #4thReich does so all the time, for most of the time since WW2 (heard of Guantanamo Bay?), oh, and the WMDs were also real, right? A politician said so, so it must be true.

How would you explain the warming pause? (rising CO2, steady temperature).

Especially shocking when you think: Hey, there were those Kyoto and Copenhagen etc. treaties. Surely, they must have reduced CO2 or at least stopped the rise, by now? Of course not, they did not serve to reduce CO2, but only to punish the people for the politician’s refusal to reduce emissions (recall Obama? “CC is real!” Yeah, said the dude of 7 wars in 8 years, 1 Nobel peace prize and 0 days of peace. Do you have any idea how much CO2 a squadron of F-22s emits? Plus the tanks etc…


How much of that change is (un)acceptable?

Of course, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. also gave an excellent testimony.

In this video, Dr. Roy Spencer poses an excellent question, which I’d like to expand upon: “How much of that change is due to humans?”

That is not the real question at stake in the AGW debate. This is:

How much of that change is acceptable?

there have been statements made that the climate ought to return to the level of the middle of the 18th century. That betrays an extremely Eugenic mentailty.

By which I mean that some people feel they have the right to determine the racial make-up of society, and force sterilisation to achieve some arbitrary standard:

What’s so special about the temperature in 1750?

Of course, the answer to that is that it is very hard to achieve, and will require lots of sacrifices of the population. (of the population, not by the population) so making people suffer, which is what politics appears to be all about.

Sorry for the paranoid comment there, but look at policies to increase CO2, in the hopes of causing catastrophic climate change, the politicians practice of punishing the people for their own sins;

and the continued terrorising of peoples on other continents, provoking counterterrorism and other conclusions withdraw from the mind.
If, over such a long period of time (100 years), the temperature has not budged more than half a percent, and politicians make this big a fuss about that, that just shows they suffer from an extreme case of eugenic mentality.

And if CO2 were to blame for that budge of 0.3° over a century, how much more CO2+time would be necessary to raise temprstire to where it becomes noticeable?

Opportunism (the outsider)

IMHO Hitler did not hate jews; they were no more than a simple tool to acquire power. Since all of politics revolves around setting people up against an outsider, (obvious examples: Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Arabs/muslims (the jews of our time) in order to rouse support for their politics (war) and put it in people’s minds that there is an enemy out there that only this politician can defend against.
Hitler simply had no qualms about sacrificing millions of jews/gypsies/inferior peoples (mentally handicapped) to his goal; achieving delicious power, dominion over wide swaths of Europe.

Balkanisation is the only way out

WW1 did not only cause WW2,but also both Gulf Wars (by breaking up the Ottoman empire into a.o. Turkey and Iraq) hence ISIS.

The splitting up of the middle east into countries designed on the map, by the west (UK & France) has caused such misery there, by forcing tribes that did not like each other into the same country. Now the seed of a solution present itself: Balkanisation (unpleasant but maybe necessary for the future) allow one big Islamic State to develop and then through internal strive to fall apart along more natural lines, which hopefully will result in a more enduring peace than now.

The only alternative is to use brute force à la #4thReich, time and again, causing incredible human suffering. (a leader one 1 tribe (Hussayn) must use horrible violence to oppress members of the other tribes, or he won’t stay in power.

Social contract & why statists had better shut up

Because we live in a certain geographical area, we have consented to the brutal rule of the dictator? (admittedly, not all rule is brutal – all the time -, but all rule is dictatorship)

Yes, the Social contract you implicitly signed by being born here, and not moving elsewhere, says so.

(Quote from inside the mind of a statist)
Actually, I have never signed any such agreement. Not even by voting, since my vote gets lost in all the millions of other votes, so I can’t really exert any influence. but I challenge anyone to prove I did vote at all (and for a particular candidate), since voting is anonymous.
Besides, as usual the junta from The Hague had to be the worst of the worst, rejecting the outcome of the elections and imposing the Soviet they had preplanned.
But it is a planetwide phenomenon, that the so-called socisl contract is declared null and void by the other signer: government.
Which does not represent my interests, rather violates them, sometimes for the monetary gain of others, other tims for their own sheer pleasure.

Frustrations (cont’d)

Part of the pile of frustrations people have with the enemy, is this:
When was it exactly that Obama proposed an interstate cycle-lane network? As part of his efforts to reduce CO2-emmissions. Or was it only ever his intention to punish the peope for travelling by car instead of by bicycle?
(it would seem that the latter is the case)

All of modern politics is socialism – hence bad

It is not just laughable that, more than one century since the Russian revolution, there are still people calling themselves socialists, (it is also frightening; the naive explanation may be that history repeats itself; another explanation would be that those people are fully aware of the historical record and thus have malicious intent)
but even so-called capitalism is socialism, namely market-socialism. Classical socialism (state-ownership of the Means-Of-Production) might not the exact kind of socialism that contemporary socialists strive for anymore (control over the MOP has been subsumed in/expanded to the desire for total ownership of the total citizen-experience (existence); aka totalitarianism), but even the self-styled “right” (in so far as a not-left exists) is utterly socialist;
A “Socialist” is some politician who pretends to be (representative of) all of society.
“Socialism” means the transfer of power from the citizen to the state.
“Capitalism”, which is the label politicians apply to market-socialism, is the transfer of all market power from the citizen to the state, meaning citizens are merely passengers on the train of commercial affairs. Without “capitapism” tere would also be no lobbyists, able to keep the citizens away from what they want; the agro-lobby helps keep people overweight by shoving a bunch of carbs into their gobs.