Sort:  

Good stuff, thanks. Have some different thoughts on evolution and climate change. Certainly things evolve but there are different and interesting takes on how, and some things aren't so easily explained by evolution. Valid questions exist, such as the fact that DNA has not changed, not evolved one single bit in 3.5 billion years. F. Crick, discoverer of the double helix, has said that it could not have come about from the soup of life. I, for one, am not willing to close my eyes to possibilities of God or aliens, and firmly believe that western science needs to 'evolve' by allowing for a more spiritual awareness.

As far as the climate change thing goes, I think we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of a debate whose parameters have been defined for us. I think this goes for evolution as well, it's as if the group you belong to defines your stance. To wit, only religious right kooks deny evolution or climate change and all intelligent, rational thinkers believe in them. I believe there to be many serious and qualified scientists who are not so certain as to iatrogenic carbon induced global warming. And there are factors like solar radiation, ozone depletion, chemtrails, and possible climate control efforts by the military that should be considered and studied.

Thanks so much for this well worded response: I'm truly flattered @dashr :-)

I, for one, am not willing to close my eyes to possibilities of God or aliens...

Neither am I. And neither is any true scientist, however loudly they rage against religion and publicly claim to know truths no one can know for sure. All science can say on this subject is that there's no reason to believe in God. God just isn't part of any equation, unless you want to invoke a "God of the gaps"; imagine some all powerful being where knowledge and understanding breaks down. Through the ages we've had ever fewer needs for some God or miracle to explain events. When we couldn't explain how someone got sick, it was God and not the germs. Maybe we're not supposed to know everything, but somehow "I don't know" is an answer most people are uncomfortable with. We fear what we don't know. I therefore see no reason to believe in God, but I don't close my eyes to the possibility that there someday will be a reason to do so.

As far as the climate change thing goes, I think we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of a debate whose parameters have been defined for us.

This one is much simpler in my mind. I don't really care who's right or wrong in this debate. The arguments are false on both sides; as @soundwavesphoton mentioned in his reply, science doesn't have the tools to make a definitive judgement on AGW. And the newspeakly named "climate deniers" are are eager to point out this fact. But... We do live in the sixth mass extinction. Since we started using our brains to adjust the environment to our needs and wants instead of us adjusting to the environment, species of plants, insects and other animals have been dying out at speeds not before seen since the comet that killed the dinosaurs.

And we simply don't need to be as wasteful as we are now. On the contrary: we're technologically perfectly able to show at least some respect for spaceship earth. We don't however, only because we're addicted to an economy that runs on egotistical wastefulness. So even when in doubt, as I am, about the exact causes and ultimate effects of this period of climate change, showing more respect for our home is simply the right, the moral thing to do.

I had to chuckle at the irony in my response to you: I'm so accustomed to facing the polarized view point that I assumed that was were you were coming from. Trapped by the trap I suppose!

I think a large part of the equation often gets completely ignored when it comes to post-truth. The "right" is always demonized as idiots and the nuance of their arguments is instantly considered invalid.

For example, I question the models and the solutions of the "climate changers". Even the words "climate change"... is some kind of Orwellian newspeak. Of course the climate changes, constantly... yet these words evoke panic and a need to "do something about it".

It's not simply "free marketeers want unconstrained markets so screw the alarmists".

I think there are very valid skepticisms about the climate computer models because even tiny changes in the initial conditions can produce wildly different results.

The fudging of the data is also very worrisome, but the most alarming thing is the gov wants to tax A BASIC ELEMENT. That is insane brother and should terrify people haha, straight out of a dystopian sci fi book, but it is ok because they have us fooled that this is a "moral" endevour.

If the solution is more government power, I think the right and the left should be very worried. They don't tell us to plant more trees and the corporations and media seduce us with "green" products.

Because I have these opinions, I am considered anti-science, yet it is science that asks for the most skepticism and most of the claims of the 97% of scientists (more orwellian language as an appeal to authority) can be falsified. Yet to even question the 97% instantly puts you in the crazy box.

Thanks for the post :)

Thank you for such an elaborate and eloquent response @soundwavesphoton :-)

A lot of what I could say here has already been said in my response to @dashr, so please read that if you can.

Also I agree with most of the reservations about the AGW propaganda; heck, the mere fact that there is so much hype around it in the mainstream media should make us suspicious abut the truth of it. That doesn't take away though that the so called "climate-deniers" (talk about Orwellian speak indeed) are economically motivated in their narrative. As almost everything is because we made money God. So measures to reduce waste and CO2 emissions are not taken because they hurt the economy. And when we do take measures, we do so within the parameters set by said economy and we end up with something horrible as taxation of an element, like you rightly mentioned. Take this bullshit one step further and we'll be buying breathable air in cans. Taxing polluted air is the same as charging money for unpolluted air. And it doesn't work. And it will hurt the poor most.

Carbon tax is one of those measures by which we can plainly see the shadowboxing that's going on between left and right wing politics. This leftist proposal is a fake solution that will hurt average working people the most. Factories however have been given the opportunity to trade their allotted emission-rights among themselves. So companies that can easily reach a set goal for the emissions, and therefore have a lot of their emission points left, can sell these leftover rights to companies that have a hard time reaching their emission goals. This simply saves those companies money compared to the costs they would have had to pay if they truly had to make the investments to reach a lower emission rate. Again: we pay the prise where the plutocrats escape yet again...

If the solution is more government power, I think the right and the left should be very worried.

This fear of government I've never understood. Look at it like this: if you fear the government you just admit to the failing of the democracy. And this is true: the democracy has failed. Miserably. The answer however is not fear of government but eliminating that which makes the democracy fail. If your government was a true government by and for the people you wouldn't fear them. You'd love them. We don't fear, but even hate the government in its current form because they're the ruling puppets of a plutocracy; a government by the capitalists for the capitalists. You should get angry about the government whether they're right wing or left wing; they're not working for you. But don't fear government in general; instead work to make a better democracy and eliminate (the power of) money.

...yet it is science that asks for the most skepticism ...

Science is skepticism. Or skepticism is a fundamental element of science. To be skeptic about science is to be skeptic about skepticism (wow... try repeating that in fast succession a couple times...) :-) But... it is healthy to be skeptic about scientists; they're as human as you and I and therefore often fall in the same traps as we mere weed-smokers do (yes, there are alternative ways to expand the mind... ;-)). And again the economy, and therefore money and rich people, plays a crucial role here: is someone paid money to say one thing or another? And by whom? Does the doctor prescribe me medicine because I need it, or are there financial motivations for him or her to do so? Why does advertising medicine even exist?

Thanks brother, and please stay skeptic :-)

The term meshes quite nicely with "post-modernism."

Indeed it does brother. Come to think of it: amazing that I didn't even use that term once in this whole post... Thanks, @passion-ground, for pointing out this grave omission on my part ;-)

Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

  • Join our discord and chat with 250+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

  • Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!

  • Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call

Ways you can help the @informationwar

  • Upvote this comment.
  • Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
  • Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

You have my sincere gratitude once again @openparadigm and @informationwar :-) Thank you!

Hi @zyx066!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 2.733 which ranks you at #12918 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 13 places in the last three days (old rank 12931).

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 271 contributions, your post is ranked at #69.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • Only a few people are following you, try to convince more people with good work.
  • The readers like your work!
  • Good user engagement!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server