|
Mustached Demon posted:Is Tampa Bay a conservative hell hole part of Florida? You're implying there's any good part of florida?
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Everything is relative. Generally speaking the panhandle area is more red so unfortunately karma will not be very instant here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:You're implying there's any good part of florida? That's why I used a and not the. Was hoping it had plenty of conservative fuckwads to wash away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:Is Tampa Bay a conservative hell hole part of Florida? Someone didn't read the rest of the article: quote:In Hafen’s eyes, there’s an additional problem, one that officials who work at the pleasure of politicians are reluctant to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
'Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accordquote:Potent, climate-warming gases are being emitted into the atmosphere but are not being recorded in official inventories, a BBC investigation has found. Also when can we expect the next refugee crisis after Syria, and from where?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Climate misanthropy is a weird cult. Cli'mate fh´tagn! *plunges knife into desk globus*
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Speaking of, what everyone in this thread already knew, courtesy of a leaked government report draft: Climate Change is already having a measurable and drastic impact on the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:'Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord Earth. Eventually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Also when can we expect the next refugee crisis after Syria, and from where? Arent places in Iran and India hitting the maximum temperatures humans can actually survive in? Cause that would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Climate change destroying Florida is one of several reasons I'm okay with all of this You don't get it man. With Florida gone all those Floridians are gonna come live in your city.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Hm. What would be the effect of nuclear winter on global warming again? Random question I swear
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Hm. What would be the effect of nuclear winter on global warming again? Random question I swear My understanding is that it largely depends on how far from the ground it is detonated because this affects the amount of particulate that can dim solar radiation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Hm. What would be the effect of nuclear winter on global warming again? Random question I swear Depending on magnitude, cooler temperatures for a few years caused by dimming then back to business, with a possible rebound causing the atmosphere to be even warmer than it'd have otherwise been.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Wouldn't do anything to stymie ocean acidification either
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Yeah, it's basically just the same idea as aerosol sulfate injection. Unless we're continually nuking the planet, it won't really do much after a few years and temperatures will very rapidly rebound to where they "should" be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
The reduction in humans from nuclear war should also reduce our carbon footprint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Use the nukes as emps, send us back to the stoneage without causing nuclear winter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:My understanding is that it largely depends on how far from the ground it is detonated because this affects the amount of particulate that can dim solar radiation. e: I think the difference you're thinking of is the amount of fallout created. A ground burst irradiates large amount of dirt, and then lifts it into the air, where the only fallout from an air burst is the leftover parts of the bomb itself. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:The reduction in humans from nuclear war should also reduce our carbon footprint. It would, but it would also reduce carbon emissions induced global dimming, which would make warming accelerate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Yeah. Believe it or not, using nuclear weapons remains a bad idea for all sorts of reasons (unless we're pushing massive spaceships)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:Yeah. Believe it or not, using nuclear weapons remains a bad idea for all sorts of reasons (unless we're pushing massive spaceships) The safest thing for the world is to impeach trump immediately. Make Mike Pence president, fine, but then to make 100% sure Donald never finds out he was impeached by creating a Truman show type situation where we convince him that everybody loves him until the nuclear football is safely secured. edit: I keep thinking this is the trump thread because I have those two thread open 24/7 so I apologize to everyone that had to read this post. We're also talking about nuclear weapons over there for a more scary reason. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Climate misanthropy is a weird cult. Trying to come up with the burn meme for people who rationally appraise the situation is a dumb cult.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Trying to come up with the burn meme for people who rationally appraise the situation is a dumb cult. Rationally appraising the situation doesn't lead normal people to smugly joke about the positive outcomes from the suicide of the least carbon emitting among us while living a high carbon lifestyle themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Trying to come up with the burn meme for people who rationally appraise the situation is a dumb cult. I don't think you can really fault people for this. At some point reality becomes overwhelming and you retreat to a place where you're forced to pretend anyone who's more pessimistic about the future than you just hates humanity. Clearly the only reason they disagree with Thug Lessons is because they just aren't as smart as him and suffer from 'sadbrains' and 'climate nihilism'. It's pretty amazing that you'll have these people unironically drop the IPCC report as 'evidence' as if those talking about 2C+ by 2100 missed AR5 or something. It really can't be understated how easy it is to just label your opposition as mentally ill and ignore anything further. Trabisnikof posted:Rationally appraising the situation doesn't lead normal people to smugly joke about the positive outcomes from the suicide of the least carbon emitting among us while living a high carbon lifestyle themselves. Actually it does. just lol if you don't think comedy has always been a way to cope with existential dread. It's adorable hearing white people at the tippity top of our socioeconomic pyramid tell others that they should care more about saving the world that only serves them. Bad news too, this is only going to get worse as time goes on. Nobody's going to fight to save a world that doesn't work for them. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
It's not very adorable when people at the tip-top of the socioeconomic ladder smugly declare they won't help out because they'd rather keep engaging in hedonism than try. But that's the history of politics for you. That attitude never lasts forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It's not very adorable when people at the tip-top of the socioeconomic ladder smugly declare they won't help out because they'd rather keep engaging in hedonism than try. The reality is very few people have the ability to "help" in any sort of meaningful way. What does "helping out" even look like? You're essentially a first class passenger on the titanic trying to get water off the deck with a bucket calling anyone who doesn't help you a misanthrope. Maybe they just realize your bucket's doing nothing and don't want to waste time when they could be hugging their families while the ship sinks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The reality is very few people have the ability to "help" in any sort of meaningful way. What does "helping out" even look like? And here we are on the same circular argument where I'll point out the realities of the need for climate advocacy, community resilience and how even small reductions in emissions now can reduce long term harms. Then you'll say that doesn't matter because harm reduction doesn't solve the problem and what's the point of trying to change anything if people are still starving in our current society. Besides, we are talking about the people on the tip top of the socioeconomic ladder, remember? Those are the people most able to take meaningful action rather than act hedonistically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And here we are on the same circular argument where I'll point out the realities of the need for climate advocacy, community resilience and how even small reductions in emissions now can reduce long term harms. Those aren't the people you're talking to though. The people able to take meaningful action are the 400 families that control the wealth in America. The people you're calling 'sadbrains' largely are advocating community resilience and climate advocacy. Disagreeing on whether putting led light bulbs will have any impact is irrelevant. It's not like the people you're talking to have said "gently caress it, I'm voting DJT full accelerationism all day every day" they simply do not see a possible future whether things get better. Screaming at them that changing their lightbulbs actually does something isn't going to change their mind. They don't think lack of LEDs is the reason our society isn't going to stop climate change in any meaningful way. You need to focus on describing the future you want to see as opposed to attempting to demonstrate how many lives each twenty tons of carbon is worth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Those aren't the people you're talking to though. The people able to take meaningful action are the 400 families that control the wealth in America. The people you're calling 'sadbrains' largely are advocating community resilience and climate advocacy. Disagreeing on whether putting led light bulbs will have any impact is irrelevant. It's not like the people you're talking to have said "gently caress it, I'm voting DJT full accelerationism all day every day" they simply do not see a possible future whether things get better. Screaming at them that changing their lightbulbs actually does something isn't going to change their mind. They don't think lack of LEDs is the reason our society isn't going to stop climate change in any meaningful way. You're the one who brought up the "tip top of the socioeconomic ladder" and I think it is worse for them to do nothing and be hedonistic than to try and fight climate change even if on the margin. Sure, they're being selfish, but climate change is really bad. You're literally arguing that the rich and powerful should spend their time enjoying themselves rather than fight climate change, to which I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're literally arguing that the rich and powerful should spend their time enjoying themselves rather than fight climate change, to which I disagree. Where did I say that? Why is it so hard to just argue honestly? It's just sad that even on an internet subforum where we probably agree more than disagree you can't actually read a post/point and discuss it honestly. You have to retreat to these bizarre rhetorical flourishes (lol at "literally", spoken like a teenage girl) where you stuff so many words into someone else's mouth nobody even knows what's being said any more. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
It's already here, it's already happening, we are already screwed. To stop it from getting worse everyone everywhere needs to stop putting carbon into the atmosphere now but that is not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Where did I say that? Why is it so hard to just argue honestly? It's just sad that even on an internet subforum where we probably agree more than disagree you can't actually read a post/point and discuss it honestly. You have to retreat to these bizarre rhetorical flourishes (lol at "literally", spoken like a teenage girl) where you stuff so many words into someone else's mouth nobody even knows what's being said any more.  NewForumSoftware posted:a first class passenger on the titanic trying to get water off the deck with a bucket calling anyone who doesn't help you a misanthrope. Maybe they just realize your bucket's doing nothing and don't want to waste time when they could be hugging their families while the ship sinks? When of course even in your dumb boat analogy the correct course of action would be to try use what power you have to assist the evacuation and help prepare people for survival. The "tip top of the socioeconomic ladder" have power they should be using to help prepare surivirors rather than hugging their families while the ship sinks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
So if I'm 30, running my own business what are the best places to invest in land wise in the USA? I'm thinking Oregon (Southern and middle) and Washington right? Long term those areas (minus fires) wouldn't be deeply effected by flooding right? And living in LA (Pasadena area) is a bad idea right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:It's already here, it's already happening, we are already screwed. To stop it from getting worse everyone everywhere needs to stop putting carbon into the atmosphere now but that is not going to happen. There is a difference between the lovely future we have locked ourselves into and the worst climate future we can make. Reducing emissions reduces long term harm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:So if I'm 30, running my own business what are the best places to invest in land wise in the USA? I'm thinking Oregon (Southern and middle) and Washington right? Long term those areas (minus fires) wouldn't be deeply effected by flooding right? And living in LA (Pasadena area) is a bad idea right? Sault Ste Marie
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There is a difference between the lovely future we have locked ourselves into and the worst climate future we can make. Reducing emissions reduces long term harm. Of course, but what "reduces emissions" How many emissions do you need to reduce for one life? The US carbon footprint averages about 20 tons/year, and we're emitting, as a species, 10000000000 tons of carbon a year. How much of an impact do you honestly think screaming at people "every little bit counts" is going to have? How many lives does 20 tons a year of carbon save? If I just killed myself today, how many lives would that save? Hint: the answer is 0. Meanwhile, how many lives would it save if Australia totally stopped coal mining?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
they hooked on opiates/weed don't count on them for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The safest thing for the world is to impeach trump immediately. Make Mike Pence president, fine, but then to make 100% sure Donald never finds out he was impeached by creating a Truman show type situation where we convince him that everybody loves him until the nuclear football is safely secured. That's good please keep the retarded opinion that Pence would be better than Trump safely quarantined in that thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Once again NFS lashes out at anyone who isn't doing anything, or is doing anything, or isn't doing something, or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
I find it pretty hard to believe that there still exist people who have read a single report on any climate issue in the last two years who seriously believe that reducing your personal emissions means poo poo to anyone in any point in time or in any part of the world. You people are being ridiculous. I don't know how the 90's-00's hosed up so many people's perceptions of reality so badly, but it's getting to be a bit farcical at this point. Anyways you're being hilariously disingenuous if you're trying to say that anyone posting in this thread has the power to do anything, just by virtue of the fact that we are technically globally wealthy. The power to make a difference lies in the hands of a very very small number of incredibly wealthy people, and not a single one of them posts here or will ever read anything in this thread. Those people are the actual top of the socioeconomic ladder, they're the ones with the power, and they are never going to do a drat thing to even try to mitigate the disastrous future that is headed our way. They've got theirs and we can all get hosed for all they care. If you want to make a difference then start trying to get people to throw IEDs at them whenever they show their faces in public, try to get people to drive trucks full explosives or armed personnel through their gates and gun them down or something. Those are the actions you should be advocating if you want to make a positive change in the world, not "buy a hybrid car and vote Democrat so we can participate in the hilariously ineffectual and lackluster Paris Accord". In the mean time, I'm gonna see if I can get citizenship in New Zealand before global civilization falls apart. It seems a bit safer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:21
|
|