Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
When Climate Change is Your Life
There have been recent articles about women who will not date anyone who does not share their views on climate. At a deeply pathetic extreme, some folks are in a state of “climate grief” in anticipation of the planetary catastrophe due any day now. If Climate Change is the core of your life, what happens when it’s over?
What would happen if the climate issue goes away as it must someday? Maybe better science comes to understand the complex causes and rhythms of natural variability and finds that human contribution is not as great as we thought. Or that that additional CO2 is actually staving off an incipient ice age. Or that small-form nuclear reactors and new battery technology help stabilize fossil fuel use globally as everybody everywhere just adapts to a slightly, slowly warming world?
When a war ends, soldiers expect to go back to normal social and family life. But if the cause, the war is the basis of your social life, what happens when it’s over? No dramatic end, no gallows for oil company CEOs, no parades just steady scientific, technological and economic adaptation and a growing quiet global consensus that the “climate catastrophe” was overwrought, even silly.
Earlier this year, while enjoying a sandwich in James Monroe Park, I observed a demonstration/march by young people (presumably George Washington University students) energetically demanding an end to fossil fuels. If some genie suddenly granted their wish and the dorms had no heat or light, there were no jets to take them home on holiday breaks, and delivery of all routine goods became iffy… is that what they really want? Or are they just enjoying membership and identity in a group opposing a fearful thing?
Atomized unmarried young women in particular seem more vulnerable to “mass formation” and whatever other ideological monstrosities prey on fractured societies. And they seem to be among the least capable of distinguishing real from fake science, an incapacity worsened rather than cured by higher “education” in politicized, uncritical indoctrination studies. They may not respond to facts and arguments from Bjorn Lomborg, Richard Lindzen, Michael Shellenberger, Judith Curry, etc. but maybe they might pause and reflect a bit after the question: “If the Climate Change issue were resolved by law, politics, and/or technology tomorrow, who are you?” If The Issues are your life, you are doing something really wrong.
Published in General
“When a war ends, soldiers expect to go back to normal social and family life. But if the cause, the war is the basis of your social life, what happens when it’s over?”
Something along these lines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt6xgSlk_aw
Meanwhile, women are also saying that conservative men are more desirable, etc.
Do they expect conservative men to believe in “climate change?”
As a wise man once said, something-or-other be crazy.
One word: plastics.
Well, as great as SOME thought anyway.
Now you expect women to admit they were wrong?
The climate change hoax is, by design, eternal. I remember 20+ years ago I read an article in The Atlantic whereby the author stated that global warming would result in cooling world wide. I cancelled my subscription because I realized the game was up – no matter what happened it would be the result of man made climate change. We have a young generation perfectly prepared to live in blind fear, and ready to accept almost any ridiculous proposed solution. Don’t forget that a huge cohort of Millennials and Gen Z fell for the COVID hoax, an even more obviously stupid boogey man.
If it ever becomes obvious that the climistas were wrong, Greta and her minions will be like one of those abandoned Japanese soldiers hiding out for decades, never surrendering.
I always assumed that they will declare victory. All the deaths and sacrifices of the poors will be justified, when disaster is pushed off by a few decades. They will think themselves heroes and if you have any doubt just ask them.
The eco-doom hoax has been going on for most of my life. Remember the fraudulent book Limits to Growth published by the serially fraudulent Club of Rome? The chief lesson to draw from this is that even STEM field college professors will embrace crackpot ideas. In fact, it seems that intellectuals are more prone to such fads than are ordinary people.
Regular people have regular nutty ideas. STEM/”intellectual” people have STEM/”intellectual” nutty ideas.
It would be replaced by another orthodoxy that satiates a need for security and/or moral standing through group identification.
Nouveau bigotry is remarkable stuff.
Own-race dating and don’t-marry-outside-your-faith-ism, however wrong-headed they may have been, had tradition and culture backing them.
The same cannot be said for a single difference in perspective.
Individual people can decide on whatever categories they want as ‘deal-killers’ for dating/marrying/[redacted]ing. Always have, and always will, regardless of how socially acceptable their choices or reasoning may be. And it’s probably at least somewhat necessary as there are quite a few fish in the sea and you are supposed to pick one (or at least few) so winnowing is a necessary strategy.
But when they open their yaps about it they are rightly judged, same as any other…what’s the word? Oh, yeah, ‘hater’.
I used to think that politics was a secondary thing, and not a basis for filtering dates & mates.
Now I think that politics is an outward expression of a whole bunch of fundamentals, some of which can not be changed. It’s a pretty good rubric for compatibility. Necessary, but not sufficient, of course.
IMHO, cross-political marriages only “work” when one party gets squashed, i.e., not working in my book.
Worldwide spending on energy is about $10 Trillion/year. That is a *lot* of reasons to lie about climate change.
FIFY
At least in my limited experience, the age of the woman has little to do with it.
I’m reminded once again of a passage in Sebastian Haffner’s memoir about coming of age in Germany between the wars. He says that when the political and economic environment stabilized significantly-which he credits to Stresemann–most people were happy:
The last ten years were forgotten like a bad dream. The Day of Judgment was remote again, and there was no demand for saviors or revolutionaries…There was an ample measure of freedom, peace, and order, everywhere the most well-meaning liberal-mindedness, good wages, good food and a little political boredom. everyone was cordially invited to concentrate on their personal lives, to arrange their affairs according to their own taste and to find their own paths to happiness.
But not everyone was happy:”
A generation of young Germans had become accustomed to having the entire content of their lives delivered gratis, so to speak, by the public sphere, all the raw material for their deeper emotions…Now that these deliveries suddenly ceased, people were left helpless, impoverished, robbed, and disappointed. They had never learned how to live from within themselves, how to make an ordinary private life great, beautiful and worth while, how to enjoy it and make it interesting. So they regarded the end of political tension and the return of private liberty not as a gift, but as a deprivation. They were bored, their minds strayed to silly thoughts, and they began to sulk.
To be precise (the occasion demands precision, because in my opinion it provides the key to the contemporary period of history): it was not the entire generation of young Germans. Not every single individual reacted in this fashion. There were some who learned during this period, belatedly and a little clumsily, as it were, how to live. they began to enjoy their own lives, weaned themselves from the cheap intoxication of the sports of war and revolution, and started to develop their own personalities. It was at this time that, invisibly and unnoticed, the Germans divided into those who later became Nazis and those who would remain non-Nazis.
Ah, the Helen Caldicott Principle.
It is already obvious, but if 7 out of 8 GOP debate candidates won’t admit it, how can we expect the Normies to admit it.
Oh, that’s so 1967.
Yes, but kids need to be reminded that plastic is a petroleum product and it’s EVERYWHERE – – their phones, their cars (even their unaffordable EVs), their video game consoles. . . Their world doesn’t exist without petroleum.
I’ve long thought we should send Jane Fonda to an island of her fossil-fuel-less dreams and see how long she lasts. Make it a reality show. It would be the best thing Jane ever did for the country. A hard lesson well learned by example.
Actually it’s not just Jane Fonda, it’s women in general. There’s been some “Survivor”-like contests where men were put in one area and women in another, by nightfall or something the men had shelters up and fires burning etc, the women had to be rescued.
Oh, yes, totally agree. Just goes to show the prescience of that movie.
ETA (When they maybe thought they were being funny)
I would just like to mention that “plastics” was also mentioned in “It’s A Wonderful Life.”
Yes, but Jane Fonda made some comment on The View about incarcerating oil executives. So she gets special treatment to an oil-free existence in my plan.
Oh okay, yes she can definitely go first.
I think if we get the production values right with worldwide distribution, she’d be first and last.
Oh for heaven’s sake.
Right, George’s old friend (HEEhaw) was making plexiglass cockpits, right? But it wasn’t an oil-based substance – iirc most of the “plastics” of the day were acrylics or cellulose-derived, or stuff like Bakelite.
As for “The Graduate,” the advice to get into plastics was perfectly sane and helpful, but no, plastics were bad, man, they were fake, you know, Dow Chemical, napalm, trash waste, Indian with a single tear, and all that. But that was the era: we were expected to not only reject something useful and ubiquitous, we were expected to believe that a sullen mopey nebbish would be catnip to Anne Bancroft and Katharine Ross.
As others have noted, the Climate Fear will never end. It fills too many needs for too many people and too many organizations. It’s the perfect threat, infinite and minute in its manifestations one day, crude and singular the next. It justifies the misanthropic self-loathing of the educated class, gives the young the urgent cause they need, fills the void left by religion’s retreat, and so on.
As I recall, the factory was going to make plastic from soybeans.
Isn’t it far more likely that we are talking about two different groups of women?