|
Dreylad posted:Honestly I liked this thread more when it was Arzy rolling in with his latest denialist claim than this bullshit. Thug Lessons is a good poster who backs his arguments with proof and even offers to contact scientists on behalf of posters to clarify some particular point. People trying to suss out some secret bad faith arguments in his posting is just god awful and makes this thread completely useless. Yeah we saw him "back his arguments with proof" when people called bullshit on his 80 year GDP prediction. His bad faith arguments are only a secret to you, it seems.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
guys the whole permafrost virus kills everyone is super overblown. I used to work for a defense thinktank and it was on the radar to discuss a few times but such regions are generally remote/isolated, don't have a bunch of people traveling at a high volume and the incubation period of a hypothetical virus would be too short to remain undetected to allow widespread growth over a significant timeline. theres just alot of factors that kind of mitigate this I'm more concerned with ebola becoming airborne or something weaponized getting out fuckin Sasha dying from some woolly mammoth std is less concerning to me than pakistan loosing control of their nuclear arsenal or *looks at china* something legitimately virulent making the jump to humans in a dense, populated environment with many points of entry/exit e: given the thread global warming may end us but it wont be through a net new/super old virus Waroduce fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 06:37
|
|
|
Evilreaver posted:We regularly encode virus DNA into our own genome (like 90% of our DNA last I saw)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 06:43
|
|
|
Capital starting to get scared: https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/why-economists-worry-reversing-climate-change-is-hopeless-morning-brief-110537963.html quote:A ‘Green Swan’ is the next economic nightmare
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 11:25
|
|
|
Lmao "Limits? To growth? Unacceptable!" Also I would like to have an honest discussion of population control (because it is mandatory for intelligent species in the long term on any world), but people for some reason (not wanting to confront the universe?) conflate it with growth rates and development when there should never have been this many people/this much consumption/this much society in the first place. Our ecosystems can't sustain us now, how can one think we're going to grow our way out of the problem?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 11:53
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Uh.. I don't think that's what this is saying: Are you saying any random sample of oil/fracking well has 3,500 picocuries per liter? That is what the article is implying sure but I would be surprised that the majority of water from the deep water table of the US contains significantly above background levels of radiation. With regards to the chat about the style of radiation, remember the article specifically took time to explain that there is no safe level of radiation - ie, supporting the argument that all well industry brine should be classed as hazardous automatically on account of radiation. That a number of wells/site do and that the companies involved either willingly, ignorantly or negligently mishandled said waste is not surprising when there is an industry or task requiring 12,000 trucks across the variable geology of entire regions. Basically my argument is no doubt there is a problem, but the overblown, breathless and deliberately miss-informative style of the article tells me there is an agenda beyond trying to correct inappropriate hazardous effluent handling and management practices. With regards to salt water being used for gravel road dust suppression, salty water is certainly much more effective - it forms a crust that potable / raw water doesn't. Also used is old oil (banned for some time now), molasses and purpose built additives. Discharging water on public access roads without knowing the chemistry of the water is irresponsible though. Actually and funnily enough, we have about 750 thousand cubes of water that need to draw down and I am working through what is possible - using it for road dust suppression is indeed one of the mooted uses. I will confirm it meets the guidelines for discharge to the environment at which point I am happy to utilize it for site (internal) road dust suppression instead of our normal practice of using high quality raw water.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
So you are accusing the article of lying, got any actual evidence? Even if it doesn't apply to every bottle of brine, its clear that it could be any because the frackers dgaf, testing costs money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 14:19
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Also I would like to have an honest discussion of population control (because it is mandatory for intelligent species in the long term on any world), but people for some reason (not wanting to confront the universe?) conflate it with growth rates and development when there should never have been this many people/this much consumption/this much society in the first place. Our ecosystems can't sustain us now, how can one think we're going to grow our way out of the problem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwKjGbz60k
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:So you are accusing the article of lying, got any actual evidence? remember, they are simply drilling holes in the ground and stuff comes out, I estimate the bulk of boreholes in the states (farming, household, etc) do no have the full spectrum chemical analysis completed on their product. Must because those homeowners/ farmers dgaf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
I'm using a toilet filled with well brine right now and I'm as healthy as the president, don't @ me
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
Killmaster posted:Capital starting to get scared: I don’t understand, this isn’t possible due to the unassailable, geometric growth I was probated for questioning. Do these people even do an economics?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
Dog Toothbrush posted:I don’t understand, this isn’t possible due to the unassailable, geometric growth I was probated for questioning. Do these people even do an economics? Yeah, some right minded goon needs to go teach those dumb scrubs at, uh, the Bank for International Settlements and the pikers at JPMorgan that it's all going to fine and we have the economic impacts all figured out and it'll just nudge growth a little bit down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:remember, they are simply drilling holes in the ground and stuff comes out, I estimate the bulk of boreholes in the states (farming, household, etc) do no have the full spectrum chemical analysis completed on their product. Must because those homeowners/ farmers dgaf. Yeah they are simply conducting industrial activity and bribing state politicians to create laws to protect them. Why should we demand they perform due diligence rather than offloading it onto the farmers and communities they swindle and poison?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
Has anyone here stopped being selfish for just a second and asked "but how will this hurt oil and gas companies?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Fracking is exactly the same as digging a water well and I wouldn't understand if you explained otherwise anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Fracking is exactly the same as digging a water well and I wouldn't understand if you explained otherwise anyway I mean, that's kinda exactly wrong. Regular oil wells are like drilling a really deep water well, sure why not close enough. Those are "Conventional" oil wells. Hydraulic fracturing is if there were little pockets of "water" (oil/gas) like balloons in the rock and so you smash the rock with by blowing pressure in your big tube so you pop all those balloons at once and the sweet sweet juices come out. Hydraulic fracturing is one of many "Unconventional" techniques, others include using acid. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
Dog Toothbrush posted:I don’t understand, this isn’t possible due to the unassailable, geometric growth I was probated for questioning. Do these people even do an economics? Lmao quote:Debt, inequality and environmental damage are major issues for growth sustainability," said economists at Deutsche Bank in a note last week. "However, one could argue that the first two are cyclical whereas the third is potentially structural Lmfao You know, I think I've realised what's going on here. Most people ITT have realised that the individuals in these organisations, who are making decisions which will affect billions of people for decades to come, don't have a clue and are likely to lead us to our doom because their horribly insulated lives will prevent them from accepting reality until it's far too late. This isn't a difficult thing to understand, and the majority response is laughter and despair. But for a particular type of person this reality is literally impossible to accept. Like, they can accept climate change is real and bad, they can look at the reports and intellectually understand the data, but they can't countenance the notion that all those extremely well paid highly qualified people are just as wrong and deluded as the average person in the street. It would shatter their world view, so therefore the economists can't be wrong, reality must be wrong. I've seen this many times IRL with regard to a bunch of different stuff, it's practically pathological for anyone who works in IT. I have a friend who, for a long time, found it impossible to believe that a car manufacturer would build something with a fundamentally faulty design, where no amount of replacing the part will permanently fix the problem, because they are billion dollar companies with the smartest engineers so they would never do something so dumb?? It literally took ten years' worth of working on his own car to partially fix that view, and now he's switched to thinking they just do dumb poo poo to save money. Which is often true, but there's a solid conviction there that there must be a rational reason and it can't just be incompetence/stupidity/laziness. Lifelong IT guy. This pattern repeats again and again in so many conversations with white collar professionals, it basically always comes down to a blind faith that someone high up in the heirarchy has already thought about what to do and it's being handled by people who know what they're doing, that there's always someone smart enough or qualified enough who steps in when the situation gets bad enough. That's how you wind yourself up into thinking there's gonna be 2.6% gdp growth in 2100: smart expensive people made a chart, it can't be wrong or why would they have that job in the first place?? The ship must have someone at the tiller somewhere, the idea that this whole civilisation just lurches along completely uncontrolled is impossible, we'd be fucken doomed! Slavvy fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I get that we won’t hit RCP 8.5 but how do you feel about feedback effects? Even then, anything near the ocean and/or equator is hosed. Early estimates start at 2040 to 2080 at the latest. The Earth with more carbon in atmosphere than ever before past 2100 is a literal freaking biblical apocalypse - (EDIT) thankfully we have technology and time. Even best case scenario, future generations will hate us and in a way I’m more concerned about our upcoming psychological collapse than I am about climate change - this is thread in a way is its own microcosm of humanity. Well, the whole point of the IPCC's modeling project is to account for feedbacks. This, I think, is probably the most misunderstood aspect of climate (denialism aside) in the general public. People have this idea that scientists don't know about or understand feedbacks, which helps them imagine global surface temperature spinning out of control, but pretty much the opposite is the case. The whole point is feedbacks and the dominant model is one of linear carbon emissions leading to linear temperature increases. There is indeed a potential for unpredictable feedbacks that we don't understand, which is enough to keep people up at night, but another way to put that is that there no feedbacks that we do understand that could challenge the paradigm of linearity. Most of the rest of this is wrong. There are very few places I would be confident saying is "hosed", with exceptions like Bangladesh and the Everglades. We aren't putting more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before: there was 1700ppm in the atmosphere during the Cretaceous, which is more than we'd get even if we burned every ounce of coal, oil and gas. I absolutely agree with you on the "psychological collapse" part though. I find that much more worrying that anything regarding climate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Yeah I was going to say something like this. It's really unlikely anything coming out of a glacier is a prehistoric plague. It would be genuinely interesting, and not particularly frightening, if any of these extinct virus groups could survive in a modern environment at all. Aren't there 1919 Influenza pandemic victims buried in permafrost in Alaska that could conceivably spread that flu again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Yeah they are simply conducting industrial activity and bribing state politicians to create laws to protect them. Why should we demand they perform due diligence rather than offloading it onto the farmers and communities they swindle and poison? It seems fairly clear to me he is explicitly not saying that: Electric Wrigglies posted:Basically my argument is no doubt there is a problem, but the overblown, breathless and deliberately miss-informative style of the article tells me there is an agenda beyond trying to correct inappropriate hazardous effluent handling and management practices. It's possible you just didn't read this, but I am pretty sure you did. So, here we are, on iteration 9,000 of people here preferring to lie about what the other person is saying rather than do the difficult work of putting their underlying disagreement into words.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Aren't there 1919 Influenza pandemic victims buried in permafrost in Alaska that could conceivably spread that flu again? That certainly is conceivable. However I would be much more worried about viruses "jumping species" from animals to humans than I would be about this. SARS and bird flu were two examples that could have caused a pandemic on a scale equaling or surpassing the post-war flu pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Dog Toothbrush posted:I don’t understand, this isn’t possible due to the unassailable, geometric growth I was probated for questioning. Do these people even do an economics? I was also probated for questioning the validity of perpetual economic growth and I too am confused. Maybe it is I who is the loving idiot and not Very Serious Economics goons who like to drop into this thread to remind us that everything isn't so bad after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It seems fairly clear to me he is explicitly not saying that: I'm not misrepresenting anything. The argument you just quoted is "Sure there's some abuses in the industry, but the article is biased" which no poo poo, it's an article about how terrible fracking is. The bias is obvious and clear. My point is that it's not just some abuse in the industry regarding the handling of expected toxic waste, but that the industry is abusive and cannot be meaningfully regulated because they have effectively neutered regulators.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean, that's kinda exactly wrong. Regular oil wells are like drilling a really deep water well, sure why not close enough. Those are "Conventional" oil wells. Thank you. I was in fact making fun of the post about how clearly the content of what you described should be exactly the same as from any other hole but you've explained well why that is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:You know, I think I've realised what's going on here. Most people ITT have realised that the individuals in these organisations, who are making decisions which will affect billions of people for decades to come, don't have a clue and are likely to lead us to our doom because their horribly insulated lives will prevent them from accepting reality until it's far too late. All of this is of course true, but it's also nothing new. Was there ever a time when the the top of the social hierarchy knew what they were doing, were acting rationally, and had everything under control? Not as far as I can tell. Maybe it used to be easier to convince ourselves that was the case, but in practice the people running the show have never known what they're doing and were making up as they go along, tolerating all sorts of inefficiency and corruption, and making terrible decisions that led to disastrous consequences. That's business as usual. And despite it all, the world keeps spinning. Over the past few centuries this project we're engaged in, call it capitalism, modernity, Western civilization, whatever you want, has gone through upheavals of extreme proportions.Two World Wars and hundreds of smaller ones, global revolutions, economic crises of increasing scope and intensity, constant technological change, a sequence of man-made and natural disasters. At no point was there ever "someone at the tiller", or at least not anyone with our best interests in mind and the ability to ensure them, but quite the opposite. Society's best and brightest have repeatedly steered the ship into the rocks. And yet despite all of this no amount of incompetence or maliciousness has managed to derail the entire project, or even really come close. Of course, none of that proves that the next crisis on the horizon isn't going to bring it all crashing down, but it gives us reason to be skeptical. It is not faith in authority that keeps me from accepting the climate apocalypse, but rather a lack of faith in the prophets of doom. A large part of the reason is that these claims are nothing new. Predictions of imminent ecological catastrophe have been around for decades. In the 1960s it was population growth leading to famines that was going to kill us all, in the 70s it was resource exhaustion, in the 80s through the 00s it was Peak Oil, and now it's climate change. The message of the environmental movement ("We're hosed™") has remained essentially unchanged in fifty years with the instrument of our demise being swapped each time the previous one fails to materialize. Climate might be the most plausible one yet, but the reasoning process is fundamentally flawed, more myth than science. None of this is to minimize the severity of the problem, (although people will inevitably fail to recognize this), but rather to underline that the climate crisis will look less like the end of the world and more like those historical crises referenced above. Some of those ended with millions of people dead, and this one might too. That's bad enough! Rather than introducing fundamentally different problems that the system has no way to deal with, what will likely happen is that all the problems that already exist, (poverty, inequality, disease, oppression), will be exacerbated. But what it will not do is wash away those processes that keep the system afloat despite, (and often even because of), those problems. Not in our lifetimes at least. A final note: you think it's impossible for society to survive while it "just lurches along completely uncontrolled". I don't agree. Lurching uncontrollably is what our society does best. Deleuze and Guattari had it right: "No one ever died of contradictions."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:I'm not misrepresenting anything. The argument you just quoted is "Sure there's some abuses in the industry, but the article is biased" which no poo poo, it's an article about how terrible fracking is. The bias is obvious and clear. My point is that it's not just some abuse in the industry regarding the handling of expected toxic waste, but that the industry is abusive and cannot be meaningfully regulated because they have effectively neutered regulators. Well, that's a perfectly fine point to make, and I wish you'd said this in the first place rather than implying the guy believes something completely insane. And of course there's no inconsistency between the idea that fracking companies are gaming the regulatory system, and the article being mostly baseless scaremongering about fracking making everything radioactive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It is not faith in authority that keeps me from accepting the climate apocalypse, but rather a lack of faith in the prophets of doom. A large part of the reason is that these claims are nothing new. Predictions of imminent ecological catastrophe have been around for decades. In the 1960s it was population growth leading to famines that was going to kill us all, in the 70s it was resource exhaustion, in the 80s through the 00s it was Peak Oil, and now it's climate change. The message of the environmental movement ("We're hosed™") has remained essentially unchanged in fifty years with the instrument of our demise being swapped each time the previous one fails to materialize. Climate might be the most plausible one yet, but the reasoning process is fundamentally flawed, more myth than science. They're all true though, we just discount them because they're not happening fast enough for our monkey brains to care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:None of this is to minimize the severity of the problem, (although people will inevitably fail to recognize this), but rather to underline that the climate crisis will look less like the end of the world and more like those historical crises referenced above. Some of those ended with millions of people dead, and this one might too. That's bad enough! Rather than introducing fundamentally different problems that the system has no way to deal with, what will likely happen is that all the problems that already exist, (poverty, inequality, disease, oppression), will be exacerbated. But what it will not do is wash away those processes that keep the system afloat despite, (and often even because of), those problems. Not in our lifetimes at least. But this is minimizing the problem, that's exactly what you are doing. Because nearly every living scientist is dreading Climate Change. Are they the doomsayers? Is losing our ability to survive with ease doomsaying? I'm sorry, your going to have to try harder to take this seriously, because downplaying the critical of it IS minimization. It is going to starve/displace/kill millions. Period. There's no ifs/ands/buts about this. Its not just crop failure, but nutritional failure of crops, we're going to be feeling the effects long before total collapse, and when the collapse comes, it will be swift. quote:CO2 is not actually increasing. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
How are u posted:I was also probated for questioning the validity of perpetual economic growth and I too am confused. Maybe it is I who is the loving idiot and not Very Serious Economics goons who like to drop into this thread to remind us that everything isn't so bad after all. I asked why someone had been recently probated in another thread because what they said wasn't actually that bad... It turned out it was because of a new rule where slurs are banned, so if you called someone a word beginning with N or R or something it may have been that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Stuff You are willfully ignoring evidence. Not only does data support just about every "worst case" scenario that's been laid out over the past decade regarding climate change. The data has shown time and again that the "worst case" scenario was hopelessly optimistic. Climate change has been talked about since before the 80s, seriously since the 80s, and nothing has been done, and now it's coming home to roost. You're calling it myth and it is right now making all of the arctic ice and glaciers disappear, and making unprecedented wildfires rage worldwide while the insect population has absolutely cratered. India might run out of water this summer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:CO2 is not actually increasing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:They're all true though, we just discount them because they're not happening fast enough for our monkey brains to care. Even if that was true, (it isn't), it doesn't explain why doomers used to be saying they were imminent and now they're suddenly happening too slowly for us to notice. This is ad hoc reasoning in action. CommieGIR posted:But this is minimizing the problem, that's exactly what you are doing. Because nearly every living scientist is dreading Climate Change. Are they the doomsayers? Is losing our ability to survive with ease doomsaying? I'm sorry, but no. Taking climate change seriously does not require me to indulge people's apocalyptic fantasies. As far as climate scientists go, while you will find people who are quite tolerant of "being wrong in the right direction", on the whole they're also resistant to alarmist claims that lack basis in the science. If you don't believe me, try reading this article addressing David Wallace-Wells's litany of false or misleading claims, headlined by Michael Mann, probably the most prominent climate scientist on Earth besides James Hansen. If that's not enough you can check out this one on Johnathan Franzen's false claim that 2C represent an irreversible tipping point, this one panning unsupported claims of climate change causing the collapse of civilization in the next thirty years, this one disputing a popular NYT editorial claiming scientists have underestimated global warming, or any of the other stories tagged as alarmism. In any case, I'm certainly not perfect and make all sorts of mistakes, but the fact I sometimes come across as "minimizing the problem" is partly because the people I'm arguing with have a polarized view of climate change that refuses to admit any possibilities between "the extermination of all human life" and "everything is fine and nobody should worry about it". This perspective helps no one and makes nuanced discussion almost impossible. I mean really, in the post you're quoting I say climate change threatens millions of lives. This is only "minimizing" in comparison to totally hyperbolic nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Waroduce posted:guys the whole permafrost virus kills everyone is super overblown. I used to work for a defense thinktank and it was on the radar to discuss a few times but such regions are generally remote/isolated, don't have a bunch of people traveling at a high volume and the incubation period of a hypothetical virus would be too short to remain undetected to allow widespread growth over a significant timeline. theres just alot of factors that kind of mitigate this Or something gawdawful jumping from some bat or monkey down in someplace equatorial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Even if that was true, (it isn't), it doesn't explain why doomers used to be saying they were imminent and now they're suddenly happening too slowly for us to notice. This is ad hoc reasoning in action. Because doomers are generally driven by millenarian impulses, like many people within christiandom's influence zone, and latch onto what are physical realities that are playing out over centuries (overpopulation/exploitation and the elimination of resilient wild spaces leading to ecosystems collapse, the rise and fall of oil availability and the ensuing tech races to maintain supply/find alternatives, ditto the more rare metals, and most of all climate change), extrapolating them forward into the immediacy of their own lives. It doesn't make them totally wrong, just varying degrees of premature. Much more reasonable than believing that growth-based systems can be unbounded. I also didn't say they were happening too slowly to notice, I said too slowly to care. Our dumb brains are capable of taking in something like "people have been saying the system is doomed for 50 years! We're still here!" and acting like it's a meaningful length of time because it's long to us. This makes us really susceptible to normalcy bias.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
I still haven't been able to figure out how infinite growth in a finite planet works. It seems very contradictory. Does anyone know when the sea floor mining was going to start in full? I thought it was this year but it may just be 'testing'
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:In any case, I'm certainly not perfect and make all sorts of mistakes, but the fact I sometimes come across as "minimizing the problem" is partly because the people I'm arguing with have a polarized view of climate change that refuses to admit any possibilities between "the extermination of all human life" and "everything is fine and nobody should worry about it". This perspective helps no one and makes nuanced discussion almost impossible. I mean really, in the post you're quoting I say climate change threatens millions of lives. This is only "minimizing" in comparison to totally hyperbolic nonsense. Ah yes, the middle of the road solution, which is pretty much the reason we are where we are. Centrism is such a curse. You are unwilling to commit to anything is what you are saying, nuance is just an excuse to say "Well, it might not be THAT bad" and even your comment about "threatens millions of lives" is some half-hearted "It MIGHT happen" when really there is no doubt. At this point, the question of how many millions will be effected, and how many will suffer and perish. The IPCC's scenarios and forecasts have been steadily outpaced by climbing CO2 and temperatures. Really, at this point, your middle of the road benefits nobody but those who look to profit till the bitter end from ignorance and noncommittal attitudes like yours. Honestly? Between your condemnation of people throwing up warning flags as "Doomers", you are making the argument for Global Warming skeptics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
"It's a problem, but is it really that much of a problem?" gently caress I cannot stand these people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
How are u posted:"It's a problem, but is it really that much of a problem?" gently caress I cannot stand these people. I wonder what step on the Denial Staircase that is... quote:Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring,[37] pushing the degree of denialism to the verge of the delusional. quote:A third but smaller breed has positioned itself between the "warmist/denier" dichotomy — the "lukewarmer." Unlike the other two labels, however, "lukewarmer" is often used as an un-ironic self-descriptive term. Lukewarmers tend to eschew outright denying climate science in favor of systematically low-balling IPCC estimates (see also Bjorn Lomborg).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
You'll note, the most entrenched lukewarmists, presenting the most thorough arguments for their positions, are hardcore neoliberals. (I'm using "entrenched" here loosely because they intentionally try to keep their personal positions vague so as to make them unassailable - I'm only discussing the science, why aren't you reading the science? You're an even bigger science denier than denialists!). Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You'll note, the most entrenched lukewarmists, presenting the most thorough arguments for their positions, are hardcore neoliberals. Arguments like what he's making is why Gretta's outspoken warning is important: Because the middle of the road will lead to little to no change, and just leaves everything to chance, while the reality is if we don't make changes, and fast, we're setting up a world for our children, for MY children, that is going to be growing incredibly difficult to thrive in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 01:05
|
|