People who identify with progressivism tend to genuinely care about helping others and improving human rights, living, and working conditions.
They don’t like to see wealthy and powerful people and corporations bending the rules in their favor. They oppose economic, racial, and gender discrimination and are advocates of a variety of social issues.
Many favor stronger government intervention to achieve these goals, which I think is what libertarians take the biggest issue with.
They also tend to have a misguided understanding of how money works, especially with respect to central banking and inflation, and usually assign blame for rising costs squarely on corporate greed as opposed to money printing.
One of the goals of this podcast is to help explain this in a way that doesn’t alienate people who identify as liberals and progressives and show them why and how bitcoin also speaks to their values.
By the way, conservatives, especially in the US, are also big fans of government power, except they prefer to wield it against the same types of people progressives want to help.
Dan - what I don't understand is the Government has been working with large corporations for DECADES. The lies and propaganda are incredibly clear.
The biggest in the 70s was food was running out.
Today it's global warming.
But there are 1,000 of smaller 'fibs' that are very easy to see.
Why is a liberal so blind to the idea that organized crime thives in large government programs? Yet decade after decade Government programs are created to 'fix' things - yet they never do.
We have spent $22 trillion to fix Poverty in the USA, yet it's the same (or worse in bigger cities). How can this not be seen?
Also, everything the government touches gets more expensive and has less innovation. "Free" markets ignored, mostly, by Government and you get more for less - proven by history!https://m.primal.net/HufU.jpg
I’ll need to spend more time than I have at the moment if to give this a proper answer but I’ll keep this one brief.
Yes, the government is corrupt. Yes, both major political parties were captured by corporations and banks long ago. It hurts to see so many people fail to understand this.
You can be a progressive idealist and still completely disagree with mainstream politics.
On the topic of science, there is more than enough consensus that global warming is real, and denial of the data is as easy to disprove as flat earthism.
Even Max Keiser agrees with this one, and he’s not exactly in the progressive camp.
Max is a retard.
Climate change is real - humans don’t have the ability to stop it, it’s driven by solar activity.
Now what?
Should we bankrupt ourselves to pretend that governments can fix it? They can’t fix anything else, they create the vast majority of problems in every country but we should entrust them to somehow fix the climate?
What do we about India and China who keep doing more to emit CO2 and have no intention of stopping?
Humans adapt to climates through technology. They use fossil fuels for better construction of buildings, use of materials, machinery to control our localised temperatures such that we don’t have to deal with extremes - should we stop the very thing that has seen a **massive** reduction in climate related deaths over the last century as we’ve adapted because of a modelled future?
Solar activity? Where are you even getting that information from?
Do you want to deny that the sun is not the principle factor on earths climate? Is your argument that humans have a greater impact on climate (anthropological climate change) rather than the sun?
You know seasons are driven by earths relation to the sun right? Literally every place on earth has sun-affected seasons and that has existed long before humans were here.
The sun has its own cycles. It affects our oceans (70% of the planet). That affects winds/atmosphere. Those things affect extreme weather which is always pinned on “climate change” even though the link to the sun is ignored.
The sun is a giant ball of fire. It’s not some stagnant thing that just throws off heat and light in some steady state. None of this is controversial.
I just want to be clear that you are arguing that humanity is causing climate change above and beyond what the sun is, and that you believe with coordinated action this can be arrested?
Heat from the giant ball of plasma (not fire) gets trapped in the earth’s atmosphere due to the release of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels by human activity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This was known even then, as early as the 1830s.
I know I put forth a few questions so let me try to be succinct:
You believe that humans release of CO2 has a greater impact on the changing climate of earth than the sun does?
You also believe that humans can coordinate to stop this impact (over and above that of the sun) but that we’ll be fine just dealing with the impacts of sun-affected climate change (which you haven’t denied)?
It’s not a belief. Throughout over a million years that humans have existed, the vast amount of warming has taken place over less than 200 years, in tandem with the advancement of industry, which is inconsistent with the theory of solar-caused climate disruption that takes place over exponentially longer time periods.
Ok mate, you’ve not answered my pretty basic questions. I’m trying to pin down exactly what you are arguing so I can debate in good faith rather than put words in your mouth. Not wanting to address those questions head-on goes against your arguments, not mine.
You can’t claim a million years of humanity and then base historic records on fucking icecores because that’s all we’ve got before the advent of thermometers and widespread use thereof ~150 years ago. You’re mixing actual data with scientism.
Too much of your arguments is based on such scientism. Models by experts. And none of it accounts for solar cyclicality.
The arguments I’ve heard seem to be that:
(a) it isn’t happening at all
(b) humans don’t play a role
(c) it’s entirely a natural phenomenon
(d) there is no solution
These are contradictory, yet they are the most common denialist positions.
I wrote some long notes which were maybe hard to answer so I gave the benefit of the doubt and pulled it back to 2 concise questions with context and this is your response..
At this point, undoubtedly, you are the one moving the goalposts Daniel; not me.
If you can’t answer basic questions and make a direct argument against the sun being the primary driver of climate change then I quite simply contend that you are beholden to a narrative that you haven’t fully explored yourself.
Have you read this book?: nostr:note1kexprper82q0wlt3qcwcxazmv5348magqm2yn7u8vfak37alxa9qc8yncc
If you haven’t then you don’t know any of the counterarguments to your position, no different to a shitcoiner arguing for their token without having done even basic research on Bitcoin.
You have to know your oppositions arguments if you’re to make a solid case for your position and this thread had demonstrated you simply can’t.
That doesn’t mean you’re wrong and I’m right, it does mean you can’t win an argument because you don’t know the other side of what you are actually arguing which means you refuse to actually engage things head-on.
As a Bitcoiner this should be a red flag for yourself that you only have one side of the story and yet you’re here spruiking it rather than reading what your opposition says.
Dan - read the book "Dark Winter" - and dig DEEP into the sources/studies. And look how accurate he was at predicting some of the cold snaps and current weather. Nothing biblical here, but he's been pretty accurate (based on some pretty good research on sun spots).
Also, Judith Curry is with you - there is warming, but Government programs to starve humanity of energy won't fix it BUT WILL make it harder for us to deal with the 100% guarantee climate wiill change. Between the sun and the earths core, there is a LOT of energy we can't control!
The climate crazies blackballed Judith but she has been very, very good with data analysis - and many have joined her. Find fault in her work, it's very hard.
www.judithcurry.com
Science isn’t a consensus sport, check the history of science. There are simple experiments anyone can do to prove the earth is a globe, are there any simple experiments anyone can do to verify humanity is in peril due to climate change?
These types of experiments are not simple, especially when it comes to modeling climate in a vast interconnected system of atmosphere, oceans, land, and biodiversity. This has been researched for over a century.
Ah, so not as easy to disprove as flat earthism then!
How do these models hold up? Have they predicted temperatures correctly in the century of research?
People are understandably sceptical of models used to enforce big changes on their lives after the Great Covid Debacle.
Easy to disprove due to there being far more research and data. This has nothing to do with Covid.
Much of the Covid hysteria was based on modelled predictions. There is lots of data on Covid but it doesn’t stop most people continuing to believe shutting down the world was worth it and the virtuous thing to do.
If you could show me climate modeling that has accurately predicted temperatures over many years without sly adjustments of said model I might be more convinced. Al Gore promised us an ice free arctic by now and it hasn’t happened!
I don’t have the time today to pull charts and graphs for you that are freely available to try to convince you of something that’s obviously happening and is being experienced by billions of people in real time.
Therein lies the problem - you could very easily send me off to do a simple experiment to prove the earth is round. To convince me humanity is in mortal peril due to human induced climate change requires modelling, dubious data sources and browbeating.
I think if there is human induced climate change, what states around the world are doing to attempt to combat it is worse than useless - exactly like the Covid response.
Those are two separate issues. There is no “if”. We know there is a problem and that it will ultimately lead to systemic collapses and mass extinctions, even assuming we can still mitigate it somehow.
The question of what to do about it is entirely different, and of course all attempts to get governments to collaborate were always doomed to fail.
I never suggested otherwise.
don't give up dan
engaging with others is the way to move us all forward
I'd consider myself an environmentalist, anti-pollution etc but when it comes to humanity shooting itself in the foot to attempt to reduce CO2 emissions I'm incredibly dubious.
You have a reason to be. I’m on the side of we need more energy, not less, but we’re sourcing it wrong and not using the tools we have to keep humanity from killing itself off. I think that’s an acceptable stance.
We can agree on more energy = good! The problem with the mainstream climate hysterics is their solutions involve coercion and violation of basic rights rather than voluntary cooperation. And over the past decade or more they have made everyone's lives worse and more expensive!
Lots of new cantillionaires in the green washing industry though!
Yes, the industry is bad.
You’re on the side of not wanting to actually argue your position but rather repeating “the experts” POV and claiming it as your own.
I live with an expert. I don’t need to argue with people who won’t admit we have a problem.
Ok say the person you live with is right.
I disagree but let’s follow that thread given that’s where you are.
China and India don’t give a fuck - they’re consuming more and emitting more CO2 than ever and have zero intention of slowing down. This is undeniably clear from their actions.
Now what Daniel?
We should keep destroying our energy production in favour of renewables?
We can convince them to actually follow the western way of reducing energy consumption as we are?
The West should restrict developing countries from pursuing abundant energy sources which highly correlate with wealth production?
If the expert in your house is right - what is the solution?
I never said I had the right solution. The primary role of scientists is to do research and present information that others can use to make decisions. If we as a species don’t care that we’re going to lose our islands and coastal lands, that collapse of entire ecosystems (including drinkable water and food) is acceptable, and humans will be forced to migrate en masse to survive on an increasingly inhospitable planet, because the production of wealth is more important than our survival, that’s also a decision.
I didn’t say you did. You live with an expert - pose these questions to that expert who has seeded your mind with these ideas that you’re repeating even though you can’t steelman the counterarguments.
Another question to ask is if our coastlines are so susceptible, why are our parasitic elite buying coastal property hand over fist? The experts know we’re going to lose this coastline but Obama and Oprah and Zuck and et al what, they forgot? They ignored it? Why did they buy oceanfront property at high prices if the experts know it’s just going to get washed away? What is “the expert’s opinion” on this?
Are we worried about drinking water? Even though we have the tech to turn sea water into potable water and guess what, it’s done using ‘fossil fuels’ and works fine.
I live in an island continent here in Aus - beachfront commands a massive premium despite our housing Ponzi. Are they all gonna lose everything?
Why are there so many questions you can’t answer but the climate change expert you live with is so right? Have you considered this question?
The kind of people who can afford beachfront mansions and the insurance that is becoming harder to secure due to increasing climate-related risks are buying it for the view and also have other homes they can go to, so that isn’t really a discussion worth having.
The more these conversations diverge into unrelated topics the less productive they become.
So they’re just willing to burn their money for a short term view then?
Don’t tell me it’s not a discussion worth having, this is pure cop out from you and given how many questions you’ve ignored in this thread none of this is favouring you.
You can’t steelman your opposition. You can’t say why India/China are ignoring this whole thing. You can’t argue against the suns impact on climate. You can’t argue about potable water. You can’t argue “what we should do”. You conflate 150 years of data with a million years of humanity.
Your whole thing is based off what someone you live with told you. You refuse to question this but we should all believe that you and whoever you live with is right - nonsense.
You don’t see how idiotic this is, because to do so would undermine fundamental things you’ve told yourself. So when someone like me comes in with no fucks given, you just want to dismiss it rather than address it because you can’t tackle it head on without exposing yourself.
This whole thread is an expression of disappointment in your rationality.
You believed an “expert” and that’s where you stopped. Everything that doesn’t fit in your expert’s bucket has to be ignored so you don’t look totally stupid.
But you do, because you refuse to engage in anything in good faith.
I’m not the one who is all over the place. You are. This is exactly what I expect from someone who thinks science isn’t real, and it’s why I try to avoid having these conversations in the first place.
Also my scientist wife can read these notes and she thinks it’s amusing that someone thinks I can be easily indoctrinated, and wonders why I can’t also be indoctrinated to make the bed and empty the dishwasher in the morning.
This is pretty funny mate.
Haven’t heard the old “This is exactly what I expect from someone who thinks science isn’t real” since the heady days of Covid.
As I recall it was a favourite refrain of those who demanded people wear masks, stay at home, and get experimental vaccines else you wanted grannies to die. After all, all The Experts™️ agreed on The Science™️
When that’s your line of argument, and you can’t steelman your opposition, you really ought consider if your argument is rock solid or is in fact just a castle made of sand.
A big problem with the climate debate is falsified data - especially before 1980. A PhD historian, John Robson researches the records and the history, and has the receipts. His website is https://climatediscussionnexus.com/
His expertise is history, records, archives - he does not claim to an expert on climate/atmospheric physics. No matter now expert, you get bad results from false data.
One thing I found from my less than expert historical research is that the optimum global CO₂ level is 400 ppm. 300 is too low, and generally has resulted in famine. Greenhouses go for 1200ppm if possible, as that optimizes plant growth (not good globally). So the target they want to reduce CO₂ to is wrong - and no real justification is given. It's almost as if famine (without totally destroying ecosystems) is the point.
nuclear easily fixes everything until fusion arrives
In theory, but it currently takes decades to permit and build reactors. We could have done this a generation ago and it didn’t happen because of anti-nuclear propaganda and NIMBYism.
yes the legal stuff is dumb
the legal stuff can be changed
They may be separate issues but they are similar in the "proof" being modelling - models that haven't shown they can predict the future. See also, Bitcoin price modelling.
It's sad so many have been convinced we are doomed based on very shaky data.
Predictions of the end times have been around for 1000's of years.
We overcome with technology.
Regardless, Government and 'consensus' never fix anything.
This was the point - But most of the narratives in the article below were created by a central Government consensus - ALWAYS backed by science, never happening. This is likely the ONLY fact and should make most question authority or Governments ability to fix anything (since from a cost/advancement perspective Government has made everything it touches worse)!
Trying to stay on topic - understanding why we get so mislead thinkking central authority expansion will fix things. Wouldn't it be better to start your OWN private non-profit to 'fix' what progressives believe needs to be fixed? If it fails, you know it was the wrong path!?
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
Oddbean new post about login | logout 