Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

This isn't far off what a lot of climate alarmists actually think, they are so unhinged.

View attachment 165784

Well thanks again for that Sean. As usual a deliberately misdirected quote out of a very thoughtful philosophical discussion. It was originally used by the climate denying community in 2012 who were outraged beyond belief that anyone could want to take action against their systematic efforts to undermine the science and consequences around human caused global warming.

I totally get this thread and this forum doesn't do nuance. Nonetheless like Mick I would encourage people to read the whole story behind this "proposal". It is exceptionally thoughtful. By the way the writer Richard Parncutt does not support the death penalty. Indeed. The story itself was an effort to stop the death penalty around the world.

What was he on about in 2012 ? What does he think now ? Why was he being so provocative ?

Well worth a long read and think.

The death penalty and global warming

The death penalty is never justified. It's barbaric. If we want to stop people killing each other, we have to stop participating in the killing.

That should be obvious. On the assumption that it is, this page is about something else. It's about the right to life of every conscious human on the planet, including those who will die prematurely as a result of global warming caused by carbon emissions. It's about "Thou shalt not kill": what that phrase means, and how we can stop people from killing each other in the modern world.

The death-penalty scandal

In 2012, I published a proposal that, if agreed internationally, could have saved the lives of all prisoners awaiting execution on all death rows, everywhere. If we include secret executions in China, that's thousands of people, every year. At the same time, my proposal might have mitigated future anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to the extent that hundreds of millions of lives would be saved in the future.

My text created an international scandal. Vehement public objections came from the entire political spectrum, from far left to far right. My green friends were remarkably silent.

The right to life: Influential climate deniers versus children of the Global South

www.parncutt.org

.....

 

[basilio]

Hung, drawn and quartered would be justified by Professor Karl's standard.

Indeed . Why would you think anything less..

Professor Karls idea was limiting the imposition of a death sentence to people who were responsible for the deaths at least 1 million people. So well worth actually reading the "idea".

 

[mullokintyre]

Well thanks again for that Sean. As usual a deliberately misdirected quote out of a very thoughtful philosophical discussion. It was originally used by the climate denying community in 2012 who were outraged beyond belief that anyone could want to take action against their systematic efforts to undermine the science and consequences around human caused global warming.

I totally get this thread and this forum doesn't do nuance. Nonetheless like Mick I would encourage people to read the whole story behind this "proposal". It is exceptionally thoughtful. By the way the writer Richard Parncutt does not support the death penalty. Indeed. The story itself was an effort to stop the death penalty around the world.

What was he on about in 2012 ? What does he think now ? Why was he being so provocative ?

Well worth a long read and think.

The death penalty and global warming

The death penalty is never justified. It's barbaric. If we want to stop people killing each other, we have to stop participating in the killing.

That should be obvious. On the assumption that it is, this page is about something else. It's about the right to life of every conscious human on the planet, including those who will die prematurely as a result of global warming caused by carbon emissions. It's about "Thou shalt not kill": what that phrase means, and how we can stop people from killing each other in the modern world.

The death-penalty scandal

In 2012, I published a proposal that, if agreed internationally, could have saved the lives of all prisoners awaiting execution on all death rows, everywhere. If we include secret executions in China, that's thousands of people, every year. At the same time, my proposal might have mitigated future anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to the extent that hundreds of millions of lives would be saved in the future.

My text created an international scandal. Vehement public objections came from the entire political spectrum, from far left to far right. My green friends were remarkably silent.

The right to life: Influential climate deniers versus children of the Global South

www.parncutt.org

.....

Get Real Baz, there is nothing thoughtful about the crap he writes.
Trying to defend someone who wants the death penalty for people with whom he disagrees just shows your inability to separate science from lunacy.
Mick

 

[basilio]

Get Real Baz, there is nothing thoughtful about the crap he writes.
Trying to defend someone who wants the death penalty for people with whom he disagrees just shows your inability to separate science from lunacy.
Mick

You clearly didn't read or perhaps understated the article Mick.
When you have come back and say something.

 

[Sean K]

Well thanks again for that Sean. As usual a deliberately misdirected quote out of a very thoughtful philosophical discussion. It was originally used by the climate denying community in 2012 who were outraged beyond belief that anyone could want to take action against their systematic efforts to undermine the science and consequences around human caused global warming.

I totally get this thread and this forum doesn't do nuance. Nonetheless like Mick I would encourage people to read the whole story behind this "proposal". It is exceptionally thoughtful. By the way the writer Richard Parncutt does not support the death penalty. Indeed. The story itself was an effort to stop the death penalty around the world.

What was he on about in 2012 ? What does he think now ? Why was he being so provocative ?

Well worth a long read and think.

The death penalty and global warming

The death penalty is never justified. It's barbaric. If we want to stop people killing each other, we have to stop participating in the killing.

That should be obvious. On the assumption that it is, this page is about something else. It's about the right to life of every conscious human on the planet, including those who will die prematurely as a result of global warming caused by carbon emissions. It's about "Thou shalt not kill": what that phrase means, and how we can stop people from killing each other in the modern world.

The death-penalty scandal

In 2012, I published a proposal that, if agreed internationally, could have saved the lives of all prisoners awaiting execution on all death rows, everywhere. If we include secret executions in China, that's thousands of people, every year. At the same time, my proposal might have mitigated future anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to the extent that hundreds of millions of lives would be saved in the future.

My text created an international scandal. Vehement public objections came from the entire political spectrum, from far left to far right. My green friends were remarkably silent.

The right to life: Influential climate deniers versus children of the Global South

www.parncutt.org

.....

You can interpret his article as you like but you conveniently left out much of the nuance and this bit:

The idea was this: The death penalty could be limited by global agreement to people who cause a million deaths (or at least: a very large number). That would be a step toward ending the death penalty universally. It would also turn a handful of highly influential climate deniers into death-penalty candidates.

Needless to say, the global climate denial community was not impressed. But I was merely presenting a logical argument, in the style of a philosopher. I was merely clarifying the unprecedented magnitude of the crime of influential climate denial. Ten years later, the magnitude of that crime is still being ignored, and the right to life of a billion children is still being trashed.

His point is that climate change is going to cause mass deaths and therefore the execution of deniers (invoking Holocaust deniers as usual) is justified to save millions.

He's a nutcase.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm not sure if our current water management plans are sufficient to drought proof the country and support our rapidly growing population.

My real point's about the politics.

Just an observation but those who object to desalination plants or dams being built are, broadly, the same people screaming most loudly about climate change.

There's a contradiction there.

 

[basilio]

His point is that climate change is going to cause mass deaths and therefore the execution of deniers (invoking Holocaust deniers as usual) is justified to save millions.

Wrong.. Totally. Let's check out what his argument is about understanding what the consequences of global heating will be. He wasn't proposing the execution of deniers. But he was highlighting the fact that global warming deniers were responsible for undermining the action required to tackle human CO2 emissions.

Why did I do it?
It was clear in 2012, and it is still clear today, that hundreds of millions of people will die in the future from AGW. Possibly, billions. It was also clear, and remains so, that influential climate deniers were indirectly causing those future deaths by promoting fossil fuels and blocking climate action.

As if that was not shocking enough, almost no-one in the world was talking about this connection. A group of people was (and still is) causing hundreds of millions of future deaths by spreading misinformation. People were (and still are) talking about the misinformation, but no-one was mentioning that the misinformation was causing enormous numbers of human deaths. That the deniers were causing the future premature deaths of enormous numbers of future people.

How does one respond to such an urgent situation? I decided on a new strategy: to speak the language of the deniers, many of whom support the death penalty (along with a shopping list of other conservative desiderata such as no abortion, low taxes, market deregulation and so on). I would do that with the obvious intention of defending the right to life of countless millions of people. As a last resort in a desperate situation, I would threaten the influential deniers with death (not from me, but from their governments) unless they changed their evil ways. As a threat, the idea made perfect sense, and the text repeatedly made it clear that it was only a threat. What else could it be?

Why mention the death penalty at all? There is a good reason for that. Those of us who totally reject the death penalty are horrified when anyone proposes it for anyone. The death penalty is a form of premeditated murder. It may even be considered the worst kind of premeditated murder, given that the decision to kill is made not by just one person without any specific function, but by authority at the highest level of government -- often with the approval of a majority of citizens.

Climate denial is related to premeditated murder. The deniers do not intend to kill people in the same way that murderers do. But they know that their actions will cause large numbers of future premature deaths, and they proceed all the same. Their actions are premeditated in the sense that they have always been fully aware of the consequences of their actions, due to the clear predictions of climate science and the public accessibility of the findings for the past several decades.

We are talking about a kind of mass manslaughter. Something similar to genocide. In the past few decades, the activities of influential climate deniers have effectively put a billion children on climate death row. Mainly in the global South (but not only), children are waiting for the future climate disaster that will prematurely end their lives, whether it be due to fire, flood, famine, drought, storm, or heatwave, or some effect of climatic irregularities such as forced migration, conflict, or social or economic collapse.

There is another link between AGW and the death penalty. Responsibility for a decision to carry out the death penalty can be seen as shared among three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial (also called "separation of powers"). The legislature (often, the parliament) is the authority to make laws, and it sets out the kinds of crime for which the death penalty is possible or appropriate. The executive (or simply “the government”) enforces the law. The judiciary (the legal profession and the courts) interprets the law in specific cases. For the death penalty to happen, the three branches of government need to support each other in this process.

Similarly, governments and corporations have been collaborating for decades to promote the use of fossil fuels, while at the same time knowing that this “business as usual” would cause countless millions of deaths in the future. In that way, they have effectively decided together to kill countless millions of people. Of course, no-one ever said that. But the most influential participants in this process have known all along that their actions would eventually cause countless millions of premature deaths. Another interpretation is hardly possible, given that

• the climate science community has consistently and thoroughly informed governments and corporations about the future effects of AGW;

• death rates in connection with poverty (including hunger) would obviously increase as AGW increased, given what the climate science community was predicting (unprecedented droughts, floods, famines, heat waves, forest fires, sea-level rise and so on); and

• emissions reductions have repeatedly been negotiated in vain at the highest international levels – largely due impediments created by influential climate deniers, who in turn were often financially supported by fossil-fuel industries.

Killing is always horrifying, and premeditated killing is even more horrifying, as the example of the death penalty shows. The horror also depends on the number of people being killed: the more dead, the greater the horror. Putting all that together makes the repeated conscious failure of rich governments and corporations, working together, to take reasonable steps to mitigate AGW into one of the most horrifying crimes ever committed, if not the most horrifying. If people don't understand how horrifying that is, as they evidently did not in 2012, it is justified to introduce a comparison with the death penalty to drive the message home, in the hope that there will finally be serious attempts to reduce global emissions. Right now in 2022, we are still waiting for that.

 

[basilio]

The history of Global Heating Denial, Doubt and Delay

Big Oil vs the World tells the 40 year story of how the oil industry delayed action on climate change​

BBC three-part series features never-before-seen documents, exclusive interviews with industry players, and testimony from leading scientists, politicians and CEOs
Published: 5:30 pm, 21 July 2022
Updated: 5:30 pm, 21 July 2022

As the UK sees record-breaking temperatures and forest fires devastate major areas of Europe, climate change is dominating news headlines. Now, a new BBC series tells the story of how we got here, charting decades of failure to tackle climate change.

Part of the award-winning This World series, Big Oil vs the World is a fascinating look at how oil giants fuelled climate change denial, despite warnings from their own scientists of the risks carbon emissions posed to the planet.

Drawing on thousands of newly discovered documents, the series goes on to chart, in revelatory and forensic detail, how the oil industry then mounted a campaign to sow doubt about the science of climate change, the consequences of which we are living through today.

Part One: Denial

Based on a year of investigative research, part one of the series: Denial tells the story of what the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change more than four decades ago, unveiling a complex campaign of media spin and political lobbying to spread scepticism on climate change.

Part Two: Doubt

Part two, Doubt, charts how the oil industry’s campaign to block action against climate change continued into the new millennium, even as the science grew more certain.

George W. Bush’s former environment chief Christine Todd Whitman explains how industry lobbyists and Vice President Dick Cheney persuaded Bush to reverse his campaign promise to cut emissions.

Part Three: Delay

The third and final part of the series, Delay, follows the fossil fuel industry up to the present day, and examines recent efforts to hold Big Oil legally accountable for the climate crisis.

Delving into the world of fracking, revealing how big oil companies courted the Obama administration by presenting natural gas as an environmentally-friendly alternative to oil and coal.

Obama climate official Heather Zichal now acknowledges for the first time that the administration did not realise how the natural gas boom would only worsen the climate crisis. She says, “Did it turn out we had it wrong? Absolutely.”

Former ExxonMobil engineer, Dar Lon Chang, speaks for the first time on camera alleging that as the company increased its natural gas operations, it was not sufficiently monitoring methane leaks that were contributing to climate change.

“There wasn't much appetite for management to measure methane leakage because, if they found out there was a problem, they would have to do something about it,” he states.

Big Oil vs the World tells the 40 year story of how the oil industry delayed action on climate change

BBC three-part series features never-before-seen documents, exclusive interviews with industry players, and testimony from leading scientists, politicians and CEOs

www.bbc.com

 

[Dona Ferentes]

Not enough big bold font , bas. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[wayneL]

Not enough big bold font , bas. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

It's a Doomsday cult, just like so many religions.

Curiously, the deniers (by their very actions) are those with the largest carbon footprint, also the same people spreading the BS AGW alarmism, the same people preaching population reduction/eugenicism.

Perhaps it's those people who should be nervous at the site of the gallows?

 

[macca]

It's a Doomsday cult, just like so many religions.

Curiously, the deniers (by their very actions) are those with the largest carbon footprint, also the same people spreading the BS AGW alarmism, the same people preaching population reduction/eugenicism.

Perhaps it's those people who should be nervous at the site of the gallows?

NO OIL= no fertilizer = no crops= a lot of hungry vegans

 

[Dona Ferentes]

It's a Doomsday cult, just like so many religions.

Curiously, the deniers (by their very actions) are those with the largest carbon footprint, also the same people spreading the BS AGW alarmism, the same people preaching population reduction/eugenicism.

Perhaps it's those people who should be nervous at the site of the gallows?

Kool-aid ?

 

[Sean K]

Wrong.. Totally. Let's check out what his argument is about understanding what the consequences of global heating will be. He wasn't proposing the execution of deniers. But he was highlighting the fact that global warming deniers were responsible for undermining the action required to tackle human CO2 emissions.

Why did I do it?
It was clear in 2012, and it is still clear today, that hundreds of millions of people will die in the future from AGW. Possibly, billions. It was also clear, and remains so, that influential climate deniers were indirectly causing those future deaths by promoting fossil fuels and blocking climate action.

As if that was not shocking enough, almost no-one in the world was talking about this connection. A group of people was (and still is) causing hundreds of millions of future deaths by spreading misinformation. People were (and still are) talking about the misinformation, but no-one was mentioning that the misinformation was causing enormous numbers of human deaths. That the deniers were causing the future premature deaths of enormous numbers of future people.

How does one respond to such an urgent situation? I decided on a new strategy: to speak the language of the deniers, many of whom support the death penalty (along with a shopping list of other conservative desiderata such as no abortion, low taxes, market deregulation and so on). I would do that with the obvious intention of defending the right to life of countless millions of people. As a last resort in a desperate situation, I would threaten the influential deniers with death (not from me, but from their governments) unless they changed their evil ways. As a threat, the idea made perfect sense, and the text repeatedly made it clear that it was only a threat. What else could it be?

Why mention the death penalty at all? There is a good reason for that. Those of us who totally reject the death penalty are horrified when anyone proposes it for anyone. The death penalty is a form of premeditated murder. It may even be considered the worst kind of premeditated murder, given that the decision to kill is made not by just one person without any specific function, but by authority at the highest level of government -- often with the approval of a majority of citizens.

Climate denial is related to premeditated murder. The deniers do not intend to kill people in the same way that murderers do. But they know that their actions will cause large numbers of future premature deaths, and they proceed all the same. Their actions are premeditated in the sense that they have always been fully aware of the consequences of their actions, due to the clear predictions of climate science and the public accessibility of the findings for the past several decades.

We are talking about a kind of mass manslaughter. Something similar to genocide. In the past few decades, the activities of influential climate deniers have effectively put a billion children on climate death row. Mainly in the global South (but not only), children are waiting for the future climate disaster that will prematurely end their lives, whether it be due to fire, flood, famine, drought, storm, or heatwave, or some effect of climatic irregularities such as forced migration, conflict, or social or economic collapse.

There is another link between AGW and the death penalty. Responsibility for a decision to carry out the death penalty can be seen as shared among three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial (also called "separation of powers"). The legislature (often, the parliament) is the authority to make laws, and it sets out the kinds of crime for which the death penalty is possible or appropriate. The executive (or simply “the government”) enforces the law. The judiciary (the legal profession and the courts) interprets the law in specific cases. For the death penalty to happen, the three branches of government need to support each other in this process.

Similarly, governments and corporations have been collaborating for decades to promote the use of fossil fuels, while at the same time knowing that this “business as usual” would cause countless millions of deaths in the future. In that way, they have effectively decided together to kill countless millions of people. Of course, no-one ever said that. But the most influential participants in this process have known all along that their actions would eventually cause countless millions of premature deaths. Another interpretation is hardly possible, given that

• the climate science community has consistently and thoroughly informed governments and corporations about the future effects of AGW;
• death rates in connection with poverty (including hunger) would obviously increase as AGW increased, given what the climate science community was predicting (unprecedented droughts, floods, famines, heat waves, forest fires, sea-level rise and so on); and
• emissions reductions have repeatedly been negotiated in vain at the highest international levels – largely due impediments created by influential climate deniers, who in turn were often financially supported by fossil-fuel industries.

Killing is always horrifying, and premeditated killing is even more horrifying, as the example of the death penalty shows. The horror also depends on the number of people being killed: the more dead, the greater the horror. Putting all that together makes the repeated conscious failure of rich governments and corporations, working together, to take reasonable steps to mitigate AGW into one of the most horrifying crimes ever committed, if not the most horrifying. If people don't understand how horrifying that is, as they evidently did not in 2012, it is justified to introduce a comparison with the death penalty to drive the message home, in the hope that there will finally be serious attempts to reduce global emissions. Right now in 2022, we are still waiting for that.

Nope, he even qualifies how many deaths a climate denier needs to have caused for the death penalty to be applied.

My proposal was to limit the death penalty to people who cause a million deaths, as a step toward ending it altogether.

You may be interpreting this proposal as a form of motivation for the big emitters to stop flying their private jets I guess? And, just who are these select climate deniers he wants to threaten with the gallows? Rowan Dean?

And as for 100s of millions of people being killed by CAGW, I don't think that's likely to happen. First of all, the prophecies of death and destruction have so far failed. More people die falling off their couch than from global warming. Long term, I think we will adapt. And the key to adaption will be a wealthy World with abundant and cheap 24/7 energy. If we do keep warming, the Global South, who don't have aircon, are going to spend their days sitting in caves to avoid the heat. Pretty much what they do today.

 

[moXJO]

Heard some wef clown carrying on about how "people didn't listen to covid or climate change, but they will listen to a water crisis".
It was an odd talk and looked bad (possibly) out of context.

But the next selling point will be a water crisis and associated fear that goes along with that. So start positioning.

 

[Sean K]

Heard some wef clown carrying on about how "people didn't listen to covid or climate change, but they will listen to a water crisis".
It was an odd talk and looked bad (possibly) out of context.

But the next selling point will be a water crisis and associated fear that goes along with that. So start positioning.

Haven't they already tried that scare? "Even the rain that falls won't fill our dams." Flimflammery, 2007.

 

[basilio]

Not enough big bold font , bas. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Really ? Et Tu Dona ?

 

[basilio]

Nope, he even qualifies how many deaths a climate denier needs to have caused for the death penalty to be applied.



You may be interpreting this proposal as a form of motivation for the big emitters to stop flying their private jets I guess? And, just who are these select climate deniers he wants to threaten with the gallows? Rowan Dean?

And as for 100s of millions of people being killed by CAGW, I don't think that's likely to happen. First of all, the prophecies of death and destruction have so far failed. More people die falling off their couch than from global warming. Long term, I think we will adapt. And the key to adaption will be a wealthy World with abundant and cheap 24/7 energy. If we do keep warming, the Global South, who don't have aircon, are going to spend their days sitting in caves to avoid the heat. Pretty much what they do today.

I suppose the Global South could just eat cake ?
"The prophecies of death and destruction have so far failed "

Sure Sean. Just as long as you don't count the catastrophic wildfires that have have happened across Australia, Europe, US, Canada and other locations. But you never counted those anyway did you ?

I notice you have now moved to adaption to global warming. So I suppose when inevitably the massive ice melts in the Arctic and Antarctic raise sea levels you will be comfortable picking up sticks and moving inland from the hundreds of flooded coastal cities. Perhaps you already have a little place lined up well above sea level.

Your welcome to a "wealthy world" Sean. How livable that will be for humanity and our current ecosystem will be the next question. But I suppose if you are "wealthy" enough you should be able to buy your way out ? Everyone else of course can start digging caves or learn to swim.

 

[Sean K]

I suppose the Global South could just eat cake ?
"The prophecies of death and destruction have so far failed "

Sure Sean. Just as long as you don't count the catastrophic wildfires that have have happened across Australia, Europe, US, Canada and other locations. But you never counted those anyway did you ?

I notice you have now moved to adaption to global warming. So I suppose when inevitably the massive ice melts in the Arctic and Antarctic raise sea levels you will be comfortable picking up sticks and moving inland from the hundreds of flooded coastal cities. Perhaps you already have a little place lined up well above sea level.

Your welcome to a "wealthy world" Sean. How livable that will be for humanity and our current ecosystem will be the next question. But I suppose if you are "wealthy" enough you should be able to buy your way out ? Everyone else of course can start digging caves or learn to swim.

440 people die in road accidents every day in India. How many people died in those fires? Anyhow, haven't you seen the century long records of wild fires? They're decreasing.

Adaption has always been part of the long term solution if it all unfolds as the alarmists predict. It's inevitable we'll have to do that isn't it if Asia keep developing through FF? You can't really think that the World is going to stop warming when Asia is spewing out so much CO2 unchecked well past all the tipping point dates you trust and believe in. You have seen the stats about Asia and CO2 emissions haven't you?

Yes, one of the adaption plans may be to be to move from the coast lines. So what? With sea levels rising a few mm each year there will be plenty of time for non-believers who bought on the beach (like Barack, Bill and Kevin et al) to move to higher ground. You talk about sea level rise as if one Friday afternoon all is fine and then over the weekend the ocean rises 100m. At last review it was still about 3mm per year.

 

[wayneL]

Teal voters:

https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/top-1-of-aussies-emit-more-than-5-countries/news-story/96e7370d8cb6ab8996f56e1e0510b920

 

[Sean K]

Teal voters:

https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/top-1-of-aussies-emit-more-than-5-countries/news-story/96e7370d8cb6ab8996f56e1e0510b920

Oxfam seem surprised that living in a developed country with running water, refrigerators and microwaves might take up a little bit more energy than living in a grass hut on the beach. Shock, horror!