|
Squalid posted:Well then given the seriousness of your position you should appreciate Thug lessons' willingness to take the surprisingly controversial position that actually America and Western Europe shouldn't let you die/actively facilitate your death alongside the rest of the third world. Not if the policies prescribed by his conservative view of the science and his inclination toward the status quo will end up having the opposite effect of that position.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
Dr. Furious posted:Not if the policies prescribed by his conservative view of the science and his inclination toward the status quo will end up having the opposite effect of that position. Science is by necessity conservative. I know this is hard to stomach when one is engaged in a vitally important political struggle. When the strength of an argument literally means the difference between life and death passions rise, and someone pointing out the very real flaws can feel like a personal attack. It's all too easy in rhetoric to let that which is convenient stand in for what is but is not known. Yet someone pointing out our unserious arguments should be welcomed, it does us a favor. We should not take it personallly and should instead seek to engage with anyone who is acting in good faith. I've already spoken too much on Thug Lesson's behalf, a favor I doubt he appreciates, so I'm not going to try and reinterpret any more of his positions. However if you really think he has an "inclination toward the status quo" I suggest you briefly review his post history. I think you'll find he's much more forward thinking than you think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Well then given the seriousness of your position you should appreciate Thug lessons' willingness to take the surprisingly controversial position that actually America and Western Europe shouldn't let you die/actively facilitate your death alongside the rest of the third world. Eh... all TL does in this thread is argue against 'extreme' predictions or pedantically against hyperbole or blanket statements rather than actually advocating anything, so any such position can only be inferred by squinting hard at his "hey, how about we worry about current or soon-to-be-current issues instead?  " gotchas.I suppose he does provide a service for clueless goons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Eh... all TL does in this thread is argue against 'extreme' predictions or pedantically against hyperbole or blanket statements rather than actually advocating anything, so any such position can only be inferred by squinting hard at his "hey, how about we worry about current or soon-to-be-current issues instead? Well part of that is that I don't want to come in here and lecture people on my preferred strategies for navigating climate change. It doesn't accomplish anything. If anything, what I want to impart most is that simple solutions to complex problems are useless. Climate change is a wicked problem, or even a super wicked problem, and I make no pretensions to having devised some clockwork solution to it. It seems to me that a pragmatic "worrying about current or soon-to-be-current issues instead" approach is not just the best solution strategy, but the only one that's possible. And besides, climate change policy is set more or less completely outside of democratic control. Mitigation and adaptation strategies are devised and implemented by governments, intergovernmental groups, NGOs, corporations and academics with essentially no public input. Even if I told you the solution you wouldn't be able to do anything about it, at least without changing your career. So, as far as "actually advocating anything" goes: stop thinking about climate change in such simplistic, reductionist ways. Stop reading newspaper articles about it, not doing any research, and then pretending you know what you're talking about. Cancel your plans to live as a prepper on a permaculture farm. You can have whatever environmental politics you want but you need to be practical about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
Even though climate change is an existential threat we need pragmatic solutions? Oh word?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You can have whatever environmental politics you want but you need to be practical about it. Lol I just want to ban the internal combustion engine, nbd and jet engines too Car Hater fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I've already spoken too much on Thug Lesson's behalf, a favor I doubt he appreciates, so I'm not going to try and reinterpret any more of his positions. However if you really think he has an "inclination toward the status quo" I suggest you briefly review his post history. I think you'll find he's much more forward thinking than you think. Well yes, this is the thing. My politics are a kind of extreme leftism. But I don't see any problem here because this is a thread about climate change, and the climate doesn't care what your politics are. The problems that confront the government will be essentially the same no matter who's in power, and even a revolution wouldn't be enough to substantially alter them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
white sauce posted:Even though climate change is an existential threat we need pragmatic solutions? Oh word? You have to be even more pragmatic if it's an existential threat. But being pragmatic doesn't preclude being decisive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
"practical" "solutions"
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
self unaware posted:"practical" "solutions" "the rich get to keep their lifestyles inside walled communities, everyone else gets hosed"
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Advocating realistically pragmatic solutions to climate change would get me ToC'd here. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Thug Lessons plainly states the scientific consensus also shout out to this guy pretending there's a "scientific consensus" on climate change beyond its happening, bad and driven by humans
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Rime posted:Advocating realistically pragmatic solutions to climate change would get me ToC'd here. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Thanks for these predictable, clearly reflexive responses, guys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Thanks for these predictable, clearly reflexive responses, guys. *clears throat* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Hgd5gHWbA
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Rime posted:Advocating realistically pragmatic solutions to climate change would get me ToC'd here. Thrown out of Court? Triggered on Cows? Terms of Conscription?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Just asking questions, guys. What if we react too fast towards climate change? We wouldn't want to hurt an innocent company's revenue would we? Let's be pragmatic guys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
white sauce posted:Just asking questions, guys. What if we react too fast towards climate change? We wouldn't want to hurt an innocent company's revenue would we? Let's be pragmatic guys. Sure, I could agree with that. It seems likely that a dramatic carbon-cutting policy would wreck corporate profits, (plus factors that are a whole lot more personal, like home energy and gasoline prices), and thereby the economy. After that, the government in power gets voted out because their policies exposed the people to all sorts of suffering and misery, and the new government's climate policy is worse than if you'd never enacted your new policy at all. It does no good to say "this is just about corporate profits and I don't care if corporations profit", because there are downstream effects that prevent your program from being feasible. So there's a danger of reacting too quickly, though in reality decision-makers are reacting too slowly. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
The global economy is already hosed by virtue of being based on the concept of infinite growth, which is to any sane person very obviously impossible. If you don't think we're on the verge of a crash which will make '08 look delightful, you don't follow the markets. Poking it via aggressive climate policies is going to alter the trajectory not at all. The tax bill which just passed in the states is probably going to light the fuse on that little bomb, so yeah, enjoy the coming global great depression on top of everything else motherfuckers. 
Rime fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Rime posted:The global economy is already hosed by virtue of being based on the concept of infinite growth, which is to any sane person very obviously impossible. If you don't think we're on the verge of a crash which will make '08 look delightful, you don't follow the markets. Poking it via aggressive climate policies is going to alter the trajectory not at all. No, I think this is completely fallacious. If you think the global economy will keep growing for the near future, you get accused of the obviously ridiculous claim that "the economy can grow ~infinitely~". This accusation isn't just bad because no one actually advocates that position, but because it's an ironic means of delivering a similarly ridiculous one: "since the economy cannot grow forever, it must collapse in the near future". It's dishonest. The "strawman argument" thing is massively abused, but this is a genuine and truly disgusting example of it. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Rime posted:The global economy is already hosed by virtue of being based on the concept of infinite growth, which is to any sane person very obviously impossible. If you don't think we're on the verge of a crash which will make '08 look delightful, you don't follow the markets. Poking it via aggressive climate policies is going to alter the trajectory not at all. The "global" economy will be supported when space-x starts landing asteroids in, let's say Kentucky? The gulf of Mexico? gently caress it just land them all in Texas, no one will notice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No, I think this is completely fallacious. If you think the global economy will keep growing for the near future, you get accused of the obviously ridiculous claim that "the economy can grow ~infinitely~". This accusation isn't just bad because no one actually advocates that position, but because it's an ironic means of delivering a similarly ridiculous one: "since the economy cannot grow forever, it must collapse in the near future". It's dishonest. The "strawman argument" thing is massively abused, but this is a genuine and truly disgusting example of it. Wow way to strawman the economic collapse argument. "No you see the economy can keep going for quite a while because ECS is uhh... zero. We're fine because we'll stay under 2C in our current models 63% of the time! You just make stuff up while I listen to models! What do you mean our models consistently underestimate both how quickly and to what degree temperatures change compared to paleoclimate records??? Oh gosh that new hydrofracturing feedback we found is kind of scary for the Antarctic. I guess we'll set it at about........ 0.5 Jakobshavns that way we don't have to think about +2 stddev outcomes." The global economy will not survive rapid sea level rise inundating coastal communities. Given current models of SLR and hydrofracturing I agree with upper estimates that we'll likely see 2C GMSTA and 1m SLR by 2060. As such, I'd gladly  that our global economy collapses no later than Jan 1, 2060.You, once again, complain about radical outcomes because you err on the side of least drama and don't bother to look at the long-tail outcomes that many climate scientists (sup Hansen) have been saying are likely the real outcomes for a long time. Your naivete is more problematic when there's a bifurcation in outcomes between happy 1.5-2C scenarios and less happy 4C-6C outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Thug Lesson's posting is basically what happens when you buy into the 63rd percentile bullshit that the IPCC has been praying will come true and reality turns out to be a lot closer to the 95th percentile that any good engineer would have been considering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Sure, I could agree with that. It seems likely that a dramatic carbon-cutting policy would wreck corporate profits, (plus factors that are a whole lot more personal, like home energy and gasoline prices), and thereby the economy. After that, the government in power gets voted out because their policies exposed the people to all sorts of suffering and misery, and the new government's climate policy is worse than if you'd never enacted your new policy at all. It does no good to say "this is just about corporate profits and I don't care if corporations profit", because there are downstream effects that prevent your program from being feasible. So there's a danger of reacting too quickly, though in reality decision-makers are reacting too slowly. Jesus Christ we are so hosed 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
white sauce posted:Climate change is real but it's too late to do anything about it Maybe so, but I am also hearing this from (previously) deniers as a justification for doing nothing about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Maybe so, but I am also hearing this from (previously) deniers as a justification for doing nothing about it. Yup, that attitude is classic Stage 5 Denialism: quote:5) Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, but there’s very little we can do about it and there are lots of other bad things we should attack first quote:Stage 5: It's too Late quote:Stage 5: Human activities are the primary cause of global warming, but plans to reduce emissions won’t work or are too expensive. Both Kasich and Rubio appear to be on the verge of graduating to stage 5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yup, that attitude is classic Stage 5 Denialism: The crazy thing is the change that would do the most good would involve charging the real cost of beef etc. to consumers, instead of letting the industry treat the planet as a toilet. I'm not saying "don't eat beef". I'd saying "eat less of it because to raise it in a way that doesn't harm all of us, is kinda expensive don't you know?" VideoGameVet fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
IMO we should be doing everything we can to mitigate Total Biosphere Collapse and who gives a poo poo if that destroys the economy, because a "functional economy"  is worthless if most humans are dead from the Total Collapse of our Biosphere, but I'm just a hardened cynic who can't see all the good that resource extraction monopolies do for the world I guess. Like, who gives a flying gently caress if a few thousand beef farmers go bankrupt, they can all retrain to sling code for Juicero or kill themselves, just like the coal miners of bumblefuck Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Rime posted:IMO we should be doing everything we can to mitigate Total Biosphere Collapse and who gives a poo poo if that destroys the economy, because a "functional economy" Yea but have you thought about Corporate profits
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The crazy thing is the change that would do the most good would involve charging the real cost of beef etc. to consumers, instead of letting the industry treat the planet as a toilet. I said "don't fly, keep your vacations within reasonable motoring distance if you must" about something last week and it derailed a thread, just lol into the wind and admit we're hosed without a butlerian jihad and only very slightly less hosed with one
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
The Groper posted:I said "don't fly, keep your vacations within reasonable motoring distance if you must" about something last week and it derailed a thread, just lol into the wind and admit we're hosed without a butlerian jihad and only very slightly less hosed with one If that is the derail I am thinking of your placement of the claim people need to stay in their own place sure seemed like it had more to do with fear of having to interact with foreigners and less to do with airplane pollution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If that is the derail I am thinking of your placement of the claim people need to stay in their own place sure seemed like it had more to do with fear of having to interact with foreigners and less to do with airplane pollution. Nah, planes are just nonviable technology without some absurd battery densities for hypothetical passenger electric flight. Maybe I should have said take a dirigible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If that is the derail I am thinking of your placement of the claim people need to stay in their own place sure seemed like it had more to do with fear of having to interact with foreigners and less to do with airplane pollution. How much energy do you think you expended taking pictures of cats on six continents I'm not a moralizer by the way who is intent on judging people by their consumption habits. However manipulating prices to reflect the carbon intensity of an activity like flying would probably be a good way to meet our carbon reduction goals. Or so I recall some economist saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
But internalizing externalities is bad because it can only be done through government regulation and that interferes with the workings of the free market!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Squalid posted:How much energy do you think you expended taking pictures of cats on six continents 5 to 7 tons of carbon over several years. Which is about a 5% increase over how much carbon on average I'd use if I hadn't done that. Which like, isn't ideal for the environment but also isn't so bad that it requires some sort of weird creepy hyper isolationist idea that no one should go to other countries and everyone just needs to stay in their own place. The idea people need to stay in their own country has some pretty strong and particular connotations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The idea people need to stay in their own country has some pretty strong and particular connotations. Well, good thing The Groper didn't say or even imply that. Perhaps you should engage with things real people have actually said, rather than trying to read bizarre motives into simple statements. Of course somebody else might bust in here with such a take any minute, feel free to get defensive about your choice of luxury entertainment at that time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Well, good thing The Groper didn't say or even imply that. Perhaps you should engage with things real people have actually said, rather than trying to read bizarre motives into simple statements. Saying people need to stay I their own country tends to be less about people saying I don't need to go to Africa and more about saying people from Africa shouldn't come here. More often than not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Saying people need to stay I their own country tends to be less about people saying I don't need to go to Africa and more about saying people from Africa shouldn't come here. More often than not. Quite a leap to make in a climate thread! Justify your flying however you want. Would love to see a 6-continent itinerary that is only 5-7 tonne CO2e lol!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Wait there's a goon that took their cats to different continents to photograph them? Like, unironically??
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Quite a leap to make in a climate thread! “Nobody should go to other countries” is An ideological position that people have way more often for reasons other than some environmental thing. It’s right to be suspicious of someone’s motives and if who they really care about stopping is me or someone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:16
|
|