The Language of Vampyr

originally posted by: fireslinger369
What makes you think I have any desire to engage with that attitude of yours?

I don't think desire has anything to do with it, you have shown no capability of engaging with either me or the subject. You seem only capable of asking others what it is that is happening, going to happen etc, etc.

Why is it that you think Direnei or Forgotten Languages have any answers for you? Or do you just want someone, anyone, to tell you that it is going to be alright?

I can understand and appreciate that but as I pointed out previously, we are in uncharted territory.

Anyone telling you otherwise is treating you like a child, I take it that you are not a child?

originally posted by: fireslinger369
We're all burned out and angry. You may want to stop pretending you have all the answers, to an incredibly complex situation that isn't being properly discussed anywhere.

It isn't? Are you sure? Have you even looked?

I'm not burnt out. Or angry. And I am not pretending to have any answers, but I do work hard to stay informed of the situation, and rely on many great and brilliant minds to do so. Past and present.

What a waste it would be to do anything else!

If you can't engage with me, at least try and engage with the source.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

www.scientificamerican.com...

www.pbs.org...

I also recommend that you take a look at the Limits of Growth. Or anything by Donella Meadows. Literally anything.

originally posted by: maferoxy2
Hey all! Just a heads-up that there's a growing Discord community of almost 500 members dedicated to analyzing FL articles. Our focus is on exploring the encryption methods and uncovering the meanings within the texts, rather than speculating about the identities of those involved. Feel free to join us here: discord.gg...

edit: DIRENE - you're invited too 😏

Thank you for this, but unfortunately I didn't get to it in time.

Would you please re-post an invite link, or message me one?

a reply to: IndieA

No prob! Here it is: discord.gg...

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: fireslinger369
What makes you think I have any desire to engage with that attitude of yours?

originally posted by: fireslinger369
We're all burned out and angry. You may want to stop pretending you have all the answers, to an incredibly complex situation that isn't being properly discussed anywhere.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

www.scientificamerican.com...

www.pbs.org...

I also recommend that you take a look at the Limits of Growth. Or anything by Donella Meadows. Literally anything.

Wikipedia and PBS, who never present an ideological slant on topics.

Wikipedia on "climate change denial", which it says Exxon was a leader in-

Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial characterized by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing, or fighting the scientific consensus on climate change.

Wiki
This is a straw man. In practice it means anybody that doesn't blindly accept corporate profiteering on "green energy" or creation of a new commodity (carbon) that the wealthy can exploit. It also includes anybody that asks for the scientific basis for claims that the climate cult can't provide or asks that the government lay out a plan for how the carbon taxes will mitigate risks.

One can agree with the premise of a changing climate and still be a "climate denier" if one doesn't agree that BlackRock, Bill Gates, and the wealthiest people on the planet should be profiteering off the solutions they haven't proven -or even tried to prove- will work.

It's the same playbook they used for COVID tyranny and the vaccines, but it's been going on long enough that there is very little excuse for somebody that claims to informed to have missed it

What does it have to say about "science denial", which "climate denial" is a subset of?

In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of ideas that are radical, controversial, or fabricated.

Wiki
If somebody is rejecting, fighting, or disputing consensus as described in the first definition... then the second definition is wrong in saying denialism is rejection of facts that are not disputed. They are disputed and often successfully so. That's why this ridiculous social engineering has taken place to discredit anybody that disagrees. It's necessary to maintain the preposterous "scientific consensus" claim.

Radical, controversial, and fabricated are all meaningless in the context used. The entirety of our scientific knowledge has been fabricated and at one time or another much of it was considered radical or controversial.

There's nothing for anybody to engage with here. It basically says agree with what we believe or you're a "science denier". I don't know why these were linked as a rebuttal to the belief that the topic isn't being properly discussed. They appear to all be evidence that supports that very premise.

Proper discussion isn't excluding people that disagree or using straw men to socially stigmatize critics, which is what the climate cult has increasingly done over the past two decades as profiteers lined up at the government subsidy trough.

originally posted by: ksihkahe
This is a straw man.

No, it is not but your subsequent post is. Entirely and in fact by multipliers. You got yourself a whole bale of strawmen going there.

What we have, in terms of climate change and global warming, is an overwhelming body of evidence. This body of evidence is derived from a myriad of disciplines, from studies conducted around the world by personnel from all around the world. This is where the concensus derives from. Proof.

Now, this evidence has been emerging for some time and, as I have already mentioned, in 1978 Exxon specifically knew the role that they, and oil, were playing in the changes that were being noted. We have proof that Exxon knew in the memo but we also have, in hindsight proof that all the major fossil fuel corporations knew too largely through their actions. Through their lobbying obviously but also through the private security companies they employed to infiltrate environmental protection groups where they attempted to creat malice and break them up. And yes, of course they have also used this knowledge to diversify investment into other "greener" areas of energy production while at the same time suppressing the attempts of individuals to do the same by lobbying for the restriction of venture capital directed in the area.

Amongst all this million dollar lobbying and resistence breaking, climate scientists, pushed out to the fringe and hideously under-funded, were speaking up about what they were seeing, what their research was showing. Over decades, they were ridiculed, harassed, hacked and in some cases threatened with physical violence or death.

We also shouldn't forget that while denying that climate change was occurring and that global warming was happening, they were also destroying ecosystems and fostering conditions that have led to civil wars and massacres. Not to mention the very many brave journalists who have lost their lives reporting these crimes, giving voice to the victims.

Then the dam broke. The evidence is overwhelming. It can no longer be denied.

Or rather, it can no longer be denied by any one who takes the time to look.

Sadly, curiousity appears to be one of those things that cannot be taught but to say discussion isn't or hasn't been happening only indicates that all this time you've been drinking the Kool Aid for quite some time - and probably still are if we're being brutally honest.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

Sadly, understanding what scientific consensus means and scientific paper literacy seem to be at an all-time low.

Scientific consensus is not an arbitrary agreement among scientists. It's a collective agreement reached after rigorous testing, debate, and replication of results across various independent studies. This consensus emerges from a collection of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry: meteorology, oceanography, geology, and biology, among others.

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the notion that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of recent climate warming. This conclusion is supported not just by one study or one group of scientists but by an extensive array of peer-reviewed research conducted globally among independent, disconnected labs and groups.

As for the claims of "science denial," it's critical to differentiate between healthy skepticism, which is a fundamental part of scientific inquiry, and denialism, which rejects this consensus in favor of unproven, controversial, or blatantly false alternatives. True scientific skepticism is always open to new evidence and is a necessary mechanism for self-correction in science. Denialism, however, often ignores overwhelming evidence in favor of ideologically motivated beliefs.

The notion that dissenting opinions are simply shut down or dismissed out of hand misrepresents how scientific discourse operates. Scientists are among the most eager to challenge established ideas, but such challenges must be based on credible evidence and rigorous methodology. This is the core of scientific debate.

Simply disagreeing without substantial evidence does not constitute a valid scientific position.

We gotta approach this topic with a clear understanding of the science at hand and recognize the real-world implications of climate change. Acknowledging the scientific consensus on climate change is not an act of submission to a "climate cult" but an acknowledgment of the robustness of scientific research and the urgent need for action based on that research.

Personally, I think biodiversity loss might actually be an even more pressing issue. Of course, biodiversity loss and climate change are connected. As climate change (and a myriad of other factors) accelerates, we're seeing drastic declines in biodiversity that threaten ecosystem services critical for human survival, like pollination, water purification, and disease regulation. Human survival, of course. If we do nothing, humans and some other species will be wiped out, but nature/the earth will continue just fine.

a reply to: ksihkahe

Addressing your point about the critique of "green energy" and carbon markets: I think it's def a valid concern to question the implementation and integrity of these plans. Sustainable solutions require transparency and should avoid the exploitation and profiteering that capitalists love. Asking for the scientific basis of claims and how policies like carbon taxes will specifically mitigate risks is absolutely necessary. But then we have to understand their scientific explanation.

Aaaand we're back to scientific literacy being quite low.

Now for something lighthearted...

I was inspired by FL’s post today today and decided to create an illustration based on it. If you’ve ever dreamed of having an FL-themed coloring book, consider this your first page 🥴