The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[Ahmed]

The question of "arguments" that would settle a debate or get everyone to agree evades the frame of reference, assuming that everyone is the same. However, this is by no means the case and a perfectly valid argument in one framework has no relevance in another ... Hence the interest in positioning this preliminary framework, knowing that relativism is to be excluded ...

So whoever claims that "nature is shit"cannot get along with another who understands that we are part of this nature, willingly or unwillingly, and that this distinction made between nature and culture is already problematic ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

So whoever claims that "nature is shit"cannot get along with another who understands that we are part of this nature, willingly or unwillingly, and that this distinction made between nature and culture is already problematic ...

Indeed, and all the less since the patient proudly adds, speaking of humanity (that) "She will adapt, and even create new animals if necessary" ...

[Exnihiloest]

 
An enlightening text:

"Conspiracy theories are above all a discourse of revenge on elites or dominants"
[]
"They are a anti-system speech"
[]
"People who belong to discriminated minorities also adhere more easily to conspiracy theories, as well as those who feel let down by the system, who think that their life has no meaning and have a pessimistic judgment on the world"
https://spokus.eu/pascal-wagner-egger-p ... mplotisme/

When you read the green people or green sympathizers here, the "anti-system discourse" is everywhere: the fault of the rulers, the GAFAS, the industrialists, big pharma, the farmers ... and the "pessimistic judgment on the world" is everywhere too! Everything that man does would be catastrophic for nature and future generations. Their theses are clearly conspiratorial: climate apocalypse, mass extinction, depletion of resources ...

The issues raised by environmentalists, when not purely fictitious, are crafted from real environmental concerns but blown up and exacerbated to such an extent that they have become conspiracy theories.

I only see one science capable of solving environmental problems: psychiatry.
For ecological problems: simple common sense.

[sen-no-sen]

A "luminous" text:

This week, the rumor is about a very widespread conspiracy theory ... It brings together all those who dispute global warming.

In Australia, an adviser to the Prime Minister wrote a mind-boggling column in a national daily. He explains, in the most serious way, that global warming is "an invention defended by the United Nations, to create a new world order" ...

No scientific argument is put forward to defend his theory.

On the contrary, he is content to assert that all studies by climatologists which prove a link between greenhouse gases and global warming would be false ...
There is also the discourse of climate skeptics, supported by lobbies.

The big oil groups tried for a long time to make believe that climatologists were wrong.

They had no desire to question an economy based on fossil fuels.

Since then, things have changed. So much so that today, even the official speech of a company like Total no longer contradicts the speech of climatologists.
What motives drive the Australian advisor?

This consultant specializing in economics no doubt believes that he is defending his country.

Australia is indeed one of the countries which emits the most greenhouse gases in the world. Its industry is heavily dependent on its coal exports to China.
Faced with such conspiratorial discourse, what should be done? To be silent or to respond?

Rather than silence, according to Sylvestre Huet, we need pedagogy and more pedagogy ...

The situation is complex, all the more so as conspiracy theorists sometimes have enormous means to produce real super documentary productions, to relay their theses and they are very widely distributed on the internet where they are accessible to anyone.

https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/un-monde-de-rumeurs/un-monde-de-rumeurs-15-mai-2015

[Ahmed]

For lack of substantive arguments, it is tempting to fall into the psychologizing approach. Rather than treating his opponents as fools, it is indeed more skillful to devalue them on this level.
Note, as we have seen Sen-no-sen how easy it is to return the compliment ...

[Exnihiloest]

For lack of substantive arguments, it is tempting to fall into the psychologizing approach. Rather than treating your opponents as fools, it is indeed more skillful to devalue them on this level ...

I gave the facts to support it.
This is what distinguishes me from the "imbeciles" of which you speak, who accuse me for free of being at the service of industry when I defend the consumer society.

[Exnihiloest]

A "luminous" text:

This week, the rumor is about a very widespread conspiracy theory ... It brings together all those who dispute global warming....

The "psychology" of subscribers to conspiracy theories, even if I have underlined it among the ecologists, it is secondary.

What is interesting is the methodology for identifying a conspiracy theory as such. It is not because a thesis is that of institutions that it is correct. To believe in the obviousness of conspiracy theories, as long as we keep an analytical minimum, is illusory.

This identification can be all the more difficult to make as a "conspiracy" is not necessarily a secret plan implemented by gray eminences with a single goal, but the result of multiple causes inciting actors to converge towards a single goal. common thesis although their goals and motivations are diverse.
This is the case of anthropogenic warming, taken as a pretext against the consumer society by many ecologists, and fueled by scientists who derive their advancement and subsidies by preaching the coming apocalypse, knowing that they will not be not contradicted since the IPCC does not function as a scientific institution (there is no filter by independent peers), but as a political institution.

[Janic]

exnull

I gave the facts to support it.
That is what me distinguish from the "imbeciles" you speak of, who accuse me for free of being at the service of industry when I defend the consumer society.

and therefore the fool who starts again! You defend the consumer society while ecology defends the consumer. [*] (even clumsily a few times) However, without a consumer, there is no consumption and education begins with how to consume and not consume in order to consume!
So gradually, consumers are learning to consume differently and that's good for them and too bad for the companies based on it.

[*] Do you know how to tell the difference? NO, of course!

[Ahmed]

One of the interesting things about conspiracy theories (in the sense of global conspiracy) is that they represent a false interpretation of a reality that remains unthinkable (in the sense of not explicitly stated, by inability to do so). In other words, they reflect the idea that underlying forces work the world and its walk, but they make the mistake of attributing the authorship of these forces to human entities (sometimes extra-terrestrial!), whereas it is a question of fundamental determinisms which apply as well to inanimate things as to living things in all its forms, including humans. Certainly, a small number of humans are infinitely more powerful than multitudes, but they are nevertheless themselves determined "by their own domination", to use an expression of K. Marx which is very relevant.
It is at the intermediate level of culture (in the broadest sense) that these invisible determinisms are expressed in various ways.

[Exnihiloest]

... and therefore the fool who starts again! You defend the consumer society while ecology defends the consumer ...

It's wrong. Environmentalism does not defend the consumer, it prevents them from consuming.
As a consumer, I do not need anyone to defend me, and if necessary I will choose myself the one that I consider capable of doing it, surely not one of those hypocritical ecologists that you defend, who do not have one. Don't give a fuck what people want but only act according to their own interests, dogmas and beliefs.