Is the world being destroyed?

Do you consider yourself civilized, Hightor?

You have a very negative view of humanity in general. I wonder if you include yourself in this perspective or if you see yourself as superior.

One of the conplaints of liberalism is the smug feeling they are better than everyone else; "liberal elite" is a pejorative, but one with some merit

These extremist views make it harder to address climate change.

Instrad of promoting productive solutions, working for cooperation and listening to people with whom you share the planet, you are attacking people, pushing exteme policies and insulting the people you should be helping.

Extemism is making things worse.

It's widely used by (British) National Socialists and other on the extreme far right as a form of coded antisemitism.

Interesting Walter.

What term do people in Europe who aren't antisemitic use to citicize the smug superiority from the left? I hope you arent suggesting the that criticism of the political left is anti-semitic.

My criticism of Hightor's rather extreme rhetoric is that

1. He expresses a hatred of a large part of humanity that he sees as greedy, murderous and uncivilized. It is unclear whether he sees himself that way, or if he imagines himself as enlightened.

2. He suggests that the "extinction" of 7 billion people might not be a bad thing.

The real point is the fact that Hightor's views receive support from a large part of the left in general.

You, Walter, aren't willing to challenge any part of his extreme viewpoints. I don't know if this is because you really agree with him or ifthis is matter of the "us vs. them" political war the left and right keep fighting Defending your ideological team is more important than finding solutions to problems.

I am certainly not a liberal (i.e. "libertarian" as it's called in the USA), pro-business/-industry, right of centre.
I don't have an ideological team.


I am a member of the Social Democratic Party, and this party is centre-left.

Well, it's hard to find 'the left' in Europe, besides some obscure communist parties (leaving out i.e. France).
Social Democrats are centre or still centre-left.
I'm not aware of a "smug superiority", but the extreme right uses similar terms to beat on any party left of them (which includes, of course, conservative parties).

What a load of old bollocks, the smuggest person on A2K has to be Max.

I don’t think your pointing out his use of far language as interesting, more depressingly familiar.

I honestly think he believes his own hype.

I have an American perspective of right and left.

The left is
- pro-abortion rights
- pro-LGBT rights
- in favor of gun control
- against free speech where it relates to "hate speech"
- in favor of fairly broad immigrant rights

There are a couple of variations.

The left in the US acts as if anyone who questions any part of the ideology are not worth listening too (or "antisemites" or worse).

In the US, the left has great influence on the media (there is relatively little postive coverage of opposing perspectives other than one network). Yet nearly half of American voters oppose the left (46% voted for a second Trump term).

It is not a good thing if climate change is just another issue in the endless ideological yelling match.

My question is this

Would you be willing to lose ground on abortion rights (or gun control, or health care if it would mean greater progress on combatting climate change?

If you dont answer an unequivocal "yes" then you dont really belive that climate change is a singular existential crisis.

I'm sure, if you asked me but I have no experience, actually no idea at all, how and if this either-or politics works.

And a much more positive view of human beings in particular.

Of course I and every other human are part of the problem. Attempting to tar me with the brush of smugness or superiority is just a rhetorical device, not worthy of comment.

Again, a common rhetorical advice used to stoke resentment against well-educated people to win the support of the resentful MAGA class. I'm not surprised you would attempt to employ it against me, even though you are probably better-educated than I am. You can't disprove my comments through logic or concrete facts so you resort to the ad hominem. Really transparent.

No, they're not. They're not shared (publicly anyway) by any of the parties involved in the Paris Accords or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I'm not a big player on the world scene, and anything I say here might be read by a handful of people, half of whom are dismissive.

Yes, the extremists defending unregulated capitalism are making things worse and the extremists denying the seriousness of the problem are making things worse.

Where have I expressed "hatred for a large part of humanity"?

Obviously you still don't understand Crisp's article. Let me simplify it for you. If the intensification of negative environmental factors continues at its current pace and the worst predictions turn out to be true, the quality of life for those humans left alive will be so awful that extinction would be a merciful alternative. Many argue for an individual's right to choose to be euthanized. Crisp simply wonders whether continued suffering on an inhospitable planet might cause people to see their personal extinction as preferable and whether it would lead to extinction. You're the one who brought up the 7 billion number and claimed that mass extermination was my goal. Neither I nor Crisp ever said that.

If climate change is truly an existential crisis, then it should be above politics. You certainly shouldn't be using an existential crisis to score poltical points on other issues.

In an emergency, you drop the is versus them mentality and focus on solvong the problem rather than winning political fights.

The fact that this had broken down on normal ideological lines is anfailure of both sides.

This "us versus them" attitude is exaxtly the problem. Instead of working together to find real solutions, the "well educated" liberal are battling against the "resentful MAGA class".

Pushing ideological positions is easy, and then you can blame any failure pn the other sides intransigence.

Working together, listening to the concerns of people who from different sides and finding real solutions is much more difficult.

If depends on if your goal is to score political points or to address the real problem.

Um, you're the one who suggested that educated people were seen as smug and that you found merit in labeling people as members of the "liberal elite".

Do you really think this is a realistic scenario? Do you think we'll hold a plebiscite or something? Ridiculous.

You apparently don't understand the existential threats arrayed against the biosphere if you think gun control and abortion rights (where we continue to lose ground anyway) are remotely in the same league or represent issues of equal importance.

Yeah, that worked out really well with face masks and vaccinations didn't it. I suppose your centrist position would suggest that we compromise, "Okay, if you're offended by having to wear a face mask you only have to wear it on odd-numbered days. We won't require you to get vaccinated and we'll only vaccinate half of those seeking one."

Public health officials are trying to get you to stop. You are making things worse.

The insults, the partisan fighting and the smug attitude don't help people get vaccinated. Quite they contrary, they make it harder for the people who work in public health (and who are doing the work to get people vaccinated) to do their job.

This partisan fighting and mudslinging don't help.

No, they're trying to get people to take the issue seriously.

You greatly exaggerate the influence of this message board. It's people like De Santis and Abbot who are making things worse.

Labeling people as "partisans" and "mudslingers" and then expecting them to compromise doesn't make much sense. Did it ever occur to you that people may hold sincere beliefs not because they are "partisan" but because they have looked at an issue and come to a reasoned conclusion?

It is my belief that people who look an issue honestly realize that there are valid points on both sides. An objective look at a complex issue doesn't tend to lead to the extremes.

You can't take an absolute, one-sided view of an issue without ignoring real facts. Reality doesn't fit into simple ideological narraties.

I'm going to post my response on your other thread since it has nothing to do with the topic

I have never claimed to be a source of climate data.



Their lack of credibility has nothing to do with publications by me. It has to do with publications by them.