Everyone now and then, maybe once or twice a year I head over the home of skeptics, Climate Change Dispatch, a place to rock and roll on climate debate…if you wish that kinda pain. There you will find a taste of idiocy that will startle you as you will see complete lies, blatant stupidity, zeal gone crazy, fucked u…wait a minute…they say that same thing about me…yeah, ME! )humm
Yeah that’s right, they do say those very same things about me. And I gotta ask myself, why the fuck is that? How can this be? If I say they’re stupid, and they say I’m stupid, then that can’t be unless we are all stupid…
Yeah see I could get stuck in that rotation for an eternity and I’m tellin’ ya, I ain’t gonna do it. At some point with the wheel you gotta say to yourself you’re the one who’s spinning it.
Well, I did a little experiment on this the last couple days over there at Climate Change Dispatch (CCD) that demonstrates this dynamic. I didn’t intend to do it when I went there at first; the experiment came up while engaged with my fellow anger idiots. Admittedly, that place ain’t exactly a representation of the population when it comes to talking about anger issues and how they bring us to fighting, but it sure can make how it works quite clear. Sometimes it takes looking at the extreme side of a thing to see where the thing itself originates. To the point: the fighting is the thing we desire and the reason is only the vehicle. In the case of climate debate, it’s no different, in fact, 99.9% of engaged climate debate/confrontation immediately results in anger and sets off the addiction to anger that we all have. I mean god damn, am I saying anything anybody don’t know here? It’s pretty obvious. And of course very obvious when it happen among radicals, and especially when it’s radicals from both sides debating…whoa! But like I said, it really clears up reality on what it is we do with each other, and that is fight.
You say, “Well hey buddy I don’t live in the radical world, I don’t do that.” No, no, we all do it, some just more than others and with more drastic results, but we all do it at some level, it’s a base addiction. In fact, I’d believe that anger, and particularly expressing anger, is the basis for all addictions. You could say that anger is the God and ruler of all addictions.
Before I ever got into the climate change issue, I was into an issue that is still very relevant to me today and that is sociopolitical polarization. Man, it’s the motherfucker of the motherfuckers. Anyway, for a very long time now I’ve been trying to understand why and what causes sociopolitical polarization, and in the last couple years I think I am finally getting close to understanding it. I have many times gone to people online in forums, on face book, comment sections, wherever, and I try to get their opinions on “why and what causes sociopolitical polarization”. This is what I just did at CCD, and then the resulting experiment which I’ll get into later.
OK, in the case of climate change I get the same basic answer from both sides which is that the issue has been politicized and confiscated by the far left and right in order to meet their respective agendas…yeah, uh hah.
In find that answer sounding good, and it certainly is true that it happens as I can attest to it cuz I do it. I mean my ultimate hopes for the world is that we get rid of materialism and become farmers and I use climate change to make that argument. So yeah political confiscation sounds good but it just don’t seem to cover it, the god damn thing is too automatic. Sociopolitical polarization is everywhere and in involved in every major issue, as soon as you believe a thing, some fucker’s gonna believe the opposite. Why? Cuz that fucker has a need to get angry and express it and he’s addicted to that need; end of story.
Yeah I could call it instinct, a natural part of human nature, but nah, it’s addiction and we all got it. Some chronic, some barely there with it, but it’s there. And now it’s something we can’t live with, it’s become a serious thing and it’s gotta go or were gonna be dead by it. All addictions lead to disaster, and here we go to ours as a collective…well, that’s another article. Let’s stick with this at the personal level, and really, there is no difference in the experience at the collective level, it’s the same the thing the individual experiences, which is fighting and anger.
OK, I think I may have just conducted an experiment that might just prove this theory, at least a little. Here’s what I presented to the group at CCD when I first got there. Note that I’d previously introduced myself and this was the second encounter:
Well, we’ve had fun here before, is Gator still about?
And hey, I come in peace.:)
I just like to hear all sides from time to time, to be honest, it’s more of a socio/cultural reason that I come here. Mostly my interest is to find out why there is such polarization on not just climate change, but just about every dang issue that means anything. Anyways, that’s what I’m here about, ignore me if you wish, or please give me your thoughts, on for instance why does one set of people, you here, think that the ice is fine, while another set, like me, think it’s going to hell? How do these extremes in thought happen? I’d like anyone’s opinion. I’m not here to argue climate change, I’m here to find out why we are so different. Aren’t you all curious about that?
Here is an example of the industry standard answer, depending on what side you’re on, though it don’t matter:
I think there are some major issues which need to be resolved. I am not a conspiracist theroy person but it appears to me that some wool is being pulled over our eyes and the climate debate is being politicised. It also appears to me that the whole debate has been elevated beyond the the realms of normal scientific challenge and that it is out of bounds to challenge findings about AGW although challenging findings process is the normal scientific process.
To give one example of how the whole debate has become distorted. The 97% consensus argument by Cook and Nuticcelli. They clearly claim it’s 97% of scientific papers but some scientists write a significant volume of papers so if the claim were to be how many scientist it would probably be around the 20% mark.
I get an uneasy feeling when so many scientists push their conclusions upon us without giving us the real opportunity to decide for ourselves. I think they’ve stolen the ball and are running away with it to play by themselves.
And here’s an answer from a radical, could be either side, content don’t matter, listen to the anger:
It’s incredibly simple. As we explained to you once already. They key to what your asking lies in what you state you do not want to talk about. The FACTS about climate change. IE: That every single CAGW model has failed.
The Co2 Warming “hypothesis” has been refuted by observations. The Scientific Method has no place for “opinion”, democracy or the delphi technique.
Only whether you “hypothesis” can be disproven when compared to experiment. “If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong!”
Every single CAGW model prediction has failed this test.
Your passive aggressive political science approach is tiresome and irrelevant.
Now, notice that he accused me of being passive aggressive, and guess what, I was. And of course, he was just plain aggressive, but both of us guilty of…anger. So what happens from there you can explore yourself in two separate articles at CCD, Flashback 2009: John Kerry’s Epic Fail On An Ice-Free Arctic By 2015, and Pope Ponders Paganism. I mean to tell ya, it goes nuts from there but you’ll see the anger for sure. As soon as they accused me of coming there in sheep’s clothing to convert them I got immediately pissed and started…fighting. They fought back and what is evident is a “fight”, but you know what, nothing more than that.
It was also at that moment I decided to do an experiment and that was to see how long this thing could go before they would leave me alone or ask me to leave. They never did, I could still be there playing the game with them and believe me it got nuts. All the way to one guy trying to dig up dirt on me, and did, and posted it! That’s pretty serious anger. But hey, not so long ago I may have done the same thing, so…
I hinted many times they could ask me to leave, but see, they were too addicted to the event to do that, the juice would be gone if they kicked me out; addiction not fed. I’ve admitted to myself my getting angry and participating in this, though very differently from them and for the experiment but still I was emotionally there as much as them. However I been working on this shit within myself pretty hard the last couple years and the worst thing you can do about anger addiction is deny it, it’ll boot you in the ass as it has me many times over. But as soon as you recognize it and admit you got it, you take a huge portion of its power away. These guys at CCD do this anger dance everyday, every day. I used to do that, now like I say I expose myself maybe twice a year to climate debate. The last few times I’ve come away learning something, which is always about anger, I never learn anything else in these scenarios, just about anger and its power.
These same fights go on everywhere, from congress to the old men at Monday morning McDonald’s. Like I said earlier, it’s another article and would show the implications of the anger at the larger levels or collective level, and so I won’t go into it here. However, I believe the conclusions about the collective experience are easily derived. But there’s something one must do in order to truly see where this thing is at today. First and foremost, you have to assume that you are just as screwy, just as fucked up, just as wrong as the guy you are accusing of the same things. I mean you gotta believe it too, you gotta really let go of your biases, and when you do that you will see most all of this debate ain’t much more than guys and gals sitting around having anger cocktails. Even though the issues involved could be life threatening. I’m trying to stop it myself and have quite a bit for myself, but at the collective level it’s so lethal I hope we see it soon. OK, that’s all I wanted to say.
5-18-15–This is an add in after further thought about something. Call it a conclusion. The lesson from this is there is no point in debating skeptics, not at this stage of the game anyway. If there are still people who think we’re dandy, well, they’ll have to be shown. It’s like same sex marriage, abortion, legalizing pot, whatever, it’s one of those things people have there minds made up on, again, at this stage of the game. I strongly suggest you not debate those kinda of people. I can only really say this to climate activist and be completely confident about its reality, but I also am sure it applies too many issues, I just wouldn’t know the degree, but with climate change? I’d say let the debate go and do what you can to save as many as you can. All’s one can do in regards to skeptics is refute their claims for the innocents sake, but do not discuss climate change with them or argue their claims, never, it’s too late for that.