|
Thug Lessons posted:Here is what the UN says. This is from their draft report on a 1.5C scenario. What is with your Arctic Sea Ice Forums obsession? You keep mentioning it, and I don't know what the gently caress you're talking about; I only ever look at sea ice charts melting charts/discussion there. I didn't get that Nature Climate Change paper that you're just brushing aside from there, nor the other paper before it.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
This thread is more fun when it's the sadbrains venting place and not the assholes-in-denial venting placeThug Lessons posted:The 20th century average. For all teh kids at home, the ones that care more about birds and Bernie than whatever this denialist pedant gently caress spews, this is a classic denialist shibboleth right here call to action fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
Useless libs like Thug Lessons are 100% more of a threat to our world than conservatives are because they wrap their hatred and ignorance in a cloak of science and wokeness. Like others have pointed out, it's the difference between the hate of an enemy soldier versus a traitor
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
call to action posted:For all teh kids at home, the ones that care more about birds and Bernie than whatever this denialist pedant gently caress spews, this is a classic denialist shibboleth right here Nope, it's a direct quote from NOAA, the source I used to get that number. Swing and a miss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Every time I post Climate-related stuff on FB, I get this nonsense.quote:James Hansen: When someone can accurately tell me how many hurricanes hit the east coast of the U.S. In, let's say, 1801...or the fluctuations if the temps in Peru during the summers of 1766-1776, maybe I'll start to listen to the climate change crew. Until then, I'll pass. The scientific method demands that all data needs to be collected in order to reach a conclusion and this is impossible when it comes to climate. Are these paid shills (note the name) or just stupid people?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
He's right, he's just on the other side of the debate from deniers. That's the blind spot to Thug Lesson's ideology. That line of thinking has been grasped to by those in power in order to prevent any sort of major reforms.
90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Nope, it's a direct quote from NOAA, the source I used to get that number. Swing and a miss. No, I'm not saying that the existence of a 20th century average makes you a denialist - it's the fact that you're citing it as a cudgel against data that measures against prehistoric averages that makes you a denier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
call to action posted:No, I'm not saying that the existence of a 20th century average makes you a denialist - it's the fact that you're citing it as a cudgel against data that measures against prehistoric averages that makes you a denier. Okay dude. NOAA, the EPA, the IPCC, the UN and all the thousands of climate scientists who use the +1C number for 2016's warming are all liars and denialists. Keep eating out of that trashcan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
God bless humanity: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/984635308393271296
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
call to action posted:Useless libs like Thug Lessons are 100% more of a threat to our world than conservatives are because they wrap their hatred and ignorance in a cloak of science and wokeness. Like others have pointed out, it's the difference between the hate of an enemy soldier versus a traitor I'm not even sure what "hatred and ignorance" is supposed to mean in this context, disagreeing with the extent (not need for action) of climate change using scientific estimates? If anything it's evident a bunch of people in this thread are depressed misanthropes who aren't really interested in any examination or thesis that doesn't support the most dire predictions because it doesn't allow them to feel as much narcissistic superiority about their lifestyles as childless vegans or whatever. This is a realm beyond any useful evidence based analysis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:I'm not even sure what "hatred and ignorance" is supposed to mean in this context, disagreeing with the extent (not need for action) of climate change using scientific estimates? lemme guess you're another person who "believes" in global warming but hasn't done poo poo to lift a finger about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:I'm not even sure what "hatred and ignorance" is supposed to mean in this context, disagreeing with the extent (not need for action) of climate change using scientific estimates? Yours is a poor summary of their arguments. This is more accurate: Realists: Here are the trends, the science, and how likely various responses will address the problem in time. Some possible routes would look like this: Traitors: No none of those will work. It's not disagreeing on extents, it's some posters showing what kind of actions could conceivably make a change, and then the trolls poo-pooing every idea out of an aversion to the ramifications on their personal lifestyles. They don't disagree on "extent" they disagree anything needs doing at all other than waiting for a moon-shot magic solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Yours is a poor summary of their arguments. This is more accurate: I guess you're right dude, the infuriatingly ignorant people who think we've had nearly double the warming than we've actually had are just reviewing the trends and science. Anyone who disagrees is a traitor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:I'm not even sure what "hatred and ignorance" is supposed to mean in this context, disagreeing with the extent (not need for action) of climate change using scientific estimates? Here, let me translate into terms you'll understand: TheNakedFantastic posted:I'm not even sure what "hatred and ignorance" is supposed to mean in this context, disagreeing with the extent (not need for action) of racism in America using scientific estimates?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
I'm glad the people who used to spend their time losing arguments to me have graduated to ceaselessly whining about me to other people in the most hysterical terms possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm glad the people who used to spend their time losing arguments to me have graduated to ceaselessly whining about me to other people in the most hysterical terms possible. "arguments" doing a loving ton of work there
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm glad the people who used to spend their time losing arguments to me have graduated to ceaselessly whining about me to other people in the most hysterical terms possible. It's really funny  TheNakedFantastic posted:If anything it's evident a bunch of people in this thread are depressed misanthropes who aren't really interested in any examination or thesis that doesn't support the most dire predictions because it doesn't allow them to feel as much narcissistic superiority about their lifestyles as childless vegans or whatever. This is a realm beyond any useful evidence based analysis. It's hardly only climate change where this is the case, there is a critical mass of depression/anxiety/loneliness in modern society that manifests itself in people really getting emotionally involved in these sorts of issues and engaging in the typical in/out group speech. That's where all the "punish the unbelievers, we must suffer for what we have done" comes from imo. It's also really hard to actually know what the gently caress you are talking about on this subject, so people mask their ignorance by just being hyperbolic assholes who scream at anyone that disagrees with their poorly thought out conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This isn't about planes and whatever, it's me laughing at you for calling avoiding flights austerity itself, then continuing to laugh at you as you double- and triple-down on it. lmao, you know you are in crazy land when owl of loving cream cheese manages to be a voice of reason. StabbinHobo posted:lemme guess you're another person who "believes" in global warming but hasn't done poo poo to lift a finger about it lemmmmme guess, you're one of those people that "flies" in "airplanes". Your soul is fuckin' dooomed mate. tsa fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
I want to kill myself in penance for my terrible sins against nature, but am concerned that my death will result in the carbon in my body being released into the atmosphere, resulting in even more global warming. What is the recommended environmentally correct method of suicide?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:I want to kill myself in penance for my terrible sins against nature, but am concerned that my death will result in the carbon in my body being released into the atmosphere, resulting in even more global warming. Killing oil industry lobbyists and CEOs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
tsa posted:It's hardly only climate change where this is the case, there is a critical mass of depression/anxiety/loneliness in modern society that manifests itself in people really getting emotionally involved in these sorts of issues and engaging in the typical in/out group speech. That's where all the "punish the unbelievers, we must suffer for what we have done" comes from imo. Thank you Mr. Robot for your analysis of why people become emotional over the mounting research that says we'll essentially have committed ecocide by 2100 at the very latest, well within the lifetime of my kids. Emotions are difficult for those on the spectrum, but eventually with enough human contact, I think even you can overcome that. And yes, I unironically do believe that "unbelievers", as you call them, or as I call them "climate change deniers" should be punished. I don't want anyone to suffer, but we probably will - because of fingerwagging liberals that sold your child's future for a Dodge Ram like yourself. Let me go ahead and push that button I love to push: your kids lives are going to be way, way worse than yours and they're going to blame you for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
Me, upset and retarded: The earth seems like it's dying folks! There's a lot of research that says our current emissions trajectory is incompatible with global, organized, liberal civilization by 2050 - well within our lifetimes, not just that of our kids. Also, I'm a huge misanthrope that cares about things besides just people and a stupid human being that cares about animal life! You, cool and contained: lol, get therapy
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
call to action posted:Me, upset and retarded: The earth seems like it's dying folks! There's a lot of research that says our current emissions trajectory is incompatible with global, organized, liberal civilization by 2050 - well within our lifetimes, not just that of our kids. Also, I'm a huge misanthrope that cares about things besides just people and a stupid human being that cares about animal life! Don't worry, the rapture will save us by then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
call to action posted:And yes, I unironically do believe that "unbelievers", as you call them, or as I call them "climate change deniers" should be punished. What sort of punishment would be appropriate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
call to action posted:Me, upset and retarded: The earth seems like it's dying folks! There's a lot of research that says our current emissions trajectory is incompatible with global, organized, liberal civilization by 2050 - well within our lifetimes, not just that of our kids. Also, I'm a huge misanthrope that cares about things besides just people and a stupid human being that cares about animal life! You guys have no connection to the research. On the rare occasions you have numbers to back up your predictions of doom I have to come in here to correct you because they're wildly inaccurate. You're a guy on the sidewalk holding up an "the end is near" sign that I stopped to argue with because your asinine apocalyptic ideology makes a nice punching bag. Edit: That said I have no problem with R.I.M. and others who take a more pessimistic outlook but are actually interested in grounding it in climate science.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:What sort of punishment would be appropriate? Expulsion to Puerto Rico. BTW, there's plenty of science in this article: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html Just because I don't debate your bullshit science directly doesn't make the above not real. call to action fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:What sort of punishment would be appropriate? Barred from voting, for starters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:What sort of punishment would be appropriate? Deniers who are paid media shills (like the ones in the "Merchants of Doubt" documentary) or the ones funding denial to reap the benefits from their fossil energy holdings (the Kochs) should be tried for a capital crime. But by then I expect the mobs will have gotten to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
TL is just playing fishmech in this thread for some reason, he nitpicks anything he can see as being slightly inaccurate, without ever presenting an argument as to why we're to believe that global human civilization is somehow going to be able to survive the effects of climate change past the end or even middle of this century. He grabs on to any post where someone talks about how there's even a chance that we're going to start an end-permian style anoxic event with our hilariously reckless behavior and straight up pathetic and meaningless attempts at mitigation and uses that to paint every poster in the thread with the doomsday/chicken little brush. I think it's because he refuses to believe that the doctrine of never-ending growth and consumption might be hilariously wrongheaded and physically impossible. Either way, I don't know why people keep engaging with him. There's plenty of people in this thread who are not particularly concerned with wiping out 99% of life on the planet, because it's much more likely that my country won't exist long before then anyways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
call to action posted:Expulsion to Puerto Rico. Great job reposting an article that was roundly critiqued by actual climate scientists for glaring inaccuracies and baseless alarmism. Terms used to describe the errors include, "pure hyperbole", "factually wrong", and "very alarmist". Great descriptions of the poo poo you post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's completely possible. Let's say we have 10Gt in residual emissions. That just means we need to get an additional 10Gt in negative emissions. How much would that cost? Depends. Let's say it's a $100/ton. That means it's $1 trillion a year, or 1% of global GDP. That's not an impossible amount of money to spend, even if it is a waste. With BECCS it might even be profitable. I'm not sure we'll do this, because people are loath to spend money, but there's no inherent reason it couldn't be. I think this thought-example is exactly why every thing I read about BECCS insisted that it alone wasn't enough, we'd need massive reduction in emissions as well. Even if it is possible to scale to that extent, it's just going to become an excuse for people to continue the pursuit of economic growth and development. That 10Gt becomes 11, 12, etc, and we have to build more and more BECCS capacity in perpetuity (eating up lots of fertilizer) in order to maintain what is basically life support so that we can keep emitting affluently and bring more people into the high-emissions class. The monetary cost is meaningless against the fact that we're going deeper into a trap. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Great job reposting an article that was roundly critiqued by actual climate scientists for glaring inaccuracies and baseless alarmism. Terms used to describe the errors include, "pure hyperbole", "factually wrong", and "very alarmist". Great descriptions of the poo poo you post. Do the shills get that links to their denialist websites aren't super convincing? Why the gently caress should anyone care about these fake scientist shills tut-tutting us about being overly dramatic when they have been WRONG for decades about how impactful climate change will be and how quickly it will come? People who marginalize calls for action are DENIALISTS. By the way, Michael Mann didn't have any problems with the actual content or science - just the 'doomist framing' as he called it. call to action fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:TL is just playing fishmech in this thread for some reason, he nitpicks anything he can see as being slightly inaccurate, without ever presenting an argument as to why we're to believe that global human civilization is somehow going to be able to survive the effects of climate change past the end or even middle of this century. I do, you're just not listening. The reason is because we've been over this before. In the 1960s we heard the famines were coming in books like Famine 1975! and The Population Bomb. President Carter addressed the nation about in a primetime address warning of the dangers of peak oil, which would set in in the 1980s and devastate the country if reliance on petroleum was maintained. The famines never came, and the oil supply never dried up. And it turns out when you look into it, these prophecies of doom go all the way back to Malthus, and arguably well beyond, with a very poor track record for accuracy. Very real problems like broad-scale ecological catastrophe become repositories for the human penchant for apocalyptic fervor. It's interesting - but only because it says something about the culture and warped psychologies that produced it, not because it says anything about the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
If you look through my extremely Boomer-y timeframe, people who wrote two books were being alarmist so therefore it means everyone always is, and it definitely means climate researchers are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
oil bubble popping got postponed by the discovery of efficient fracking lmao see how that's been working out for us
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
call to action posted:Do the shills get that links to their denialist websites aren't super convincing? Go through the articles on that website. They're mostly attacking denialist articles from conservative publications. The guy who put together that piece is Michael E. Mann, the director at the Penn State Earth System Science Center, who made the famous "hockey stick" graph, turning him into a target for climate denialists. I guess we should listen to you, an anonymous internet person with a severe case of Dunning-Kruger, rather than one of the most prominent climate scientists in America, AND a bunch more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:I think this thought-example is exactly why every thing I read about BECCS insisted that it alone wasn't enough, we'd need massive reduction in emissions as well. Even if it is possible to scale to that extent, it's just going to become an excuse for people to continue the pursuit of economic growth and development. That 10Gt becomes 11, 12, etc, and we have to build more and more BECCS capacity in perpetuity (eating up lots of fertilizer) in order to maintain what is basically life support so that we can keep emitting affluently and bring more people into the high-emissions class. The monetary cost is meaningless against the fact that we're going deeper into a trap. All the studies about the role BECCS can play in preventing the climate go off the rails explicitly assume rapid decarbonization over the next 20-30 years. It is not possible to avoid catastrophic warming with BECCS-alone, it really cannot scale up enough. I don't think you're disagreeing with this, I'm just pointing out it's almost pointless to start building BECCS when there's still significant fossil fuel usage, it's like stopping a river with bucket. However I do think states starting to implement large-scale BECCS could be a useful as a political cudgel against holdout emitters, as in "we're paying all this money to scrape carbon out of the atmosphere, why are you dumping it back in?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
just lol if you think the countries of the world are going to do anything other than wildly spray sulfates into the air when push comes to shove
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
self unaware posted:just lol if you think the countries of the world are going to do anything other than
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:44
|
|
