|
Thug Lessons posted:Or, more realistically, we can have emissions decline over a period of decades, and limit global warming to a greater or lesser degree based on how quickly we do it. This isn't a particularly unlikely position, most advanced economies have had declining emissions for over a decade (2007 and the resulting crash being the turning point), though it may not happen fast enough to reach agreed-on climate goals. Generally I would say this is a better tack to take than giving yourself mental illnesses by listening to people who use their crystal ball to determine the reductions will never happen and everyone will die. i thought the argument for avoiding catastrophic climate change was the IPCC halting emissions scenario you just apparently agreed was fantasy
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Your arguments are poor regardless of your efforts to attribute them to the IPCC. The reality is you will find zero support for these sorts of statements anywhere in the IPCC. They're unhinged doomerism that has much more to do with an out-of-control internet subculture than anything resembling climate science. If you don't believe me, read it and find out. Conspiratiorist posted:No, it means "it's too late to stop climate change from affecting you", which is something people need to tackle if they're to live in reality. I don't agree with the video in question on many things, but this here is the real climate grief. Yes, it is too late to stop climate change from affecting us, because we've already reached >1C warming. This is different from unimaginable catastrophe. I live in a coastal city that was hit with a hurricane whose effect was exacerbated by climate change. I didn't die, my life wasn't ruined, I'm not hosed, but I did lose power for a week. These are the sorts of impacts we can expect to become more likely as climate change ramps up, not the unimaginable suffering that gets doomers rock-hard. Anyway, I would say it's weird to frame 2C as "hosed" when until very recently, basically before the SR15 report, it was the generally agreed-on climate goal for decades. The SR15 report did little to change our perspective on its impacts, though it did e.g. emphasize much greater risk to coral reefs under 1.5C vs 2C. I expect eventually climate activists/online people will succeed in lowering the threshold to 1C, which we've already crossed, but all this will really demonstrate is how arbitrary these goals were in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:We can't stop climate change because we can't stop emitting carbon dioxide and methane. Doing so would require ending modern human civilization. That should be self-evident. And engaging in political and social activism in order to speed up the things we are starting to do collectively as societies and nations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
Raine posted:i thought the argument for avoiding catastrophic climate change was the IPCC halting emissions scenario you just apparently agreed was fantasy Nope. As I explained earlier the point is that future warming is entirely dependent on future emissions, and has no dependence on a hypothetical zeroing of emissions tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:We can't stop climate change because we can't stop emitting carbon dioxide and methane. Doing so would require ending modern human civilization. That should be self-evident. It's not self-evident, it's a useless talking point engineered to frame the discussion in the most apocalyptic terms possible as a way of giving people a sense of meaning in their lives, miserable as that meaning might be. Carbon emissions are a result of burning fossil fuels, we have other sources of energy besides fossil fuels, and we can transition to them. What warming we get will be dependent on how quickly we transition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Yes, it is too late to stop climate change from affecting us, because we've already reached >1C warming. This is different from unimaginable catastrophe. I live in a coastal city that was hit with a hurricane whose effect was exacerbated by climate change. I didn't die, my life wasn't ruined, I'm not hosed, but I did lose power for a week. These are the sorts of impacts we can expect to become more likely as climate change ramps up, not the unimaginable suffering that gets doomers rock-hard. Take a step back and re-read this thing that you actually wrote. Does your attitude not strike you as incredibly selfish and self-centered, not to mention tone deaf? You're basically saying "ok yeah my city got hit by a hurricane but all I had to deal with was lack of electricity for a week, not a huge deal!" when literally several days ago a humongous tornado wiped several towns off the face of the map and killed over a hundred people. I think that qualifies as "unimaginable catastrophe" for those people and their loved ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's not self-evident, it's a useless talking point engineered to frame the discussion in the most apocalyptic terms possible as a way of giving people a sense of meaning in their lives, miserable as that meaning might be. Carbon emissions are a result of burning fossil fuels, we have other sources of energy besides fossil fuels, and we can transition to them. What warming we get will be dependent on how quickly we transition. Carbon emissions are not just a result of burning fossil fuels, I'm not sure how you came to believe that. The livestock that feeds human civilization emits enormous amounts of methane for example, and the clear-cutting farmers do to make room for that livestock decimates ecosystems and releases the carbon that was trapped in those sinks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Take a step back and re-read this thing that you actually wrote. There's no conclusive evidence that climate change causes tornadoes. But yes, climate change is likely to increase deaths from extreme weather in general, and is already doing so, but the average person (especially in a developed country) is very unlikely to directly killed, have their life and livelihood ruined, etc. at the levels of warming we're likely to experience in our lifetimes. More likely, it will be inconveniences and hardship. Yes, every death is a tragedy, but that doesn't mean that every death is comparable to "we're hosed", i.e. everyone's lives being ruined, the end of human civilization, or the extinction of all human life. If that strikes you as selfish and tone-deaf, so be it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Carbon emissions are not just a result of burning fossil fuels, I'm not sure how you came to believe that. The livestock that feeds human civilization emits enormous amounts of methane for example, and the clear-cutting farmers do to make room for that livestock decimates ecosystems and releases the carbon that was trapped in those sinks. Carbon emissions are overwhelmingly the result of the burning of fossil fuels, and future warming is almost entirely determined by the future burning of fossil fuels. Livestock (specifically cattle and sheep, ruminants) do convert biosphere carbon to methane, but methane does not accumulate in the atmosphere the way that CO2 does. You could also add NO2 production as a result of agriculture here, along with the land-use changes cited, but ultimately zeroing fossil-fuel emissions would be an indisputable climate "win" and in itself would be enough to prevent uncontrolled warming over the timescale of decades to centuries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:There's no conclusive evidence that climate change causes tornadoes. But yes, climate change is likely to increase deaths from extreme weather in general, and is already doing so, but the average person (especially in a developed country) is very unlikely to directly killed, have their life and livelihood ruined, etc. at the levels of warming we're likely to experience in our lifetimes. More likely, it will be inconveniences and hardship. Yes, every death is a tragedy, but that doesn't mean that every death is comparable to "we're hosed", i.e. everyone's lives being ruined, the end of human civilization, or the extinction of all human life. If that strikes you as selfish and tone-deaf, so be it. im gonna sidestep the embarrassing "no conclusive evidence that climate change causes tornadoes" and just say that yeah extreme weather is the smallest problem climate change gives us (except maybe wet bulb events though) the geopolitical implications of climate change are the scariest doomeriest thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:There's no conclusive evidence that climate change causes tornadoes. But yes, climate change is likely to increase deaths from extreme weather in general, and is already doing so, but the average person (especially in a developed country) is very unlikely to directly killed, have their life and livelihood ruined, etc. at the levels of warming we're likely to experience in our lifetimes. More likely, it will be inconveniences and hardship. Yes, every death is a tragedy, but that doesn't mean that every death is comparable to "we're hosed", i.e. everyone's lives being ruined, the end of human civilization, or the extinction of all human life. If that strikes you as selfish and tone-deaf, so be it. Thanks for clarifying. So in your opinion, the only people who can reasonably adopt a "doomer" mindset without being judged by people like you are those living in developing countries, because they are the ones who are likely to be killed or have their lives ruined?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
Oh look, another source of carbon dioxide that is not "fossil fuels" https://twitter.com/alfonslopeztena/status/1470806996794462209
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Raine posted:im gonna sidestep the embarrassing "no conclusive evidence that climate change causes tornadoes" and just say that yeah extreme weather is the smallest problem climate change gives us (except maybe wet bulb events though) I would recommend typing "does climate change cause tornadoes" into Google, you will get all sorts of results from mainstream publications like the BBC underlining my point. This is simply the state of climate science, whether you like it or not. We can attribute hurricanes, heat waves and all sorts of extreme weather events to climate change, but there is no consensus that climate change will increase either the occurrence or severity of tornadoes. What's embarrassing here is your ignorance. As far as geopolitical implications go, as soon as you get outside of geophysical impacts that can be modeled and projected, everything is really conjecture. We don't, and can't, know what the stock market will do tomorrow, much less predict what the geopolitical effects of an extraordinarily complex phenomenon like climate change are going to have decades into the future. Social sciences aren't predictive in this sense and can really only offer narratives, and which narratives we have confidence in tends to say more about our ideological standpoints than the course of future human history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Or, more realistically, we can have emissions decline over a period of decades, and limit global warming to a greater or lesser degree based on how quickly we do it. This isn't a particularly unlikely position, most advanced economies have had declining emissions for over a decade (2007 and the resulting crash being the turning point), though it may not happen fast enough to reach agreed-on climate goals. Generally I would say this is a better tack to take than giving yourself mental illnesses by listening to people who use their crystal ball to determine the reductions will never happen and everyone will die. For someone sticking to the "reports" as his backing of authority, that's not what's going to happen, even by the reports and what we know about supply chains. It's not going to be "decades" before this impacts all of us on a level we can't really ignore. And we will try, just like we currently are doing with Covid. And we're now at a point in feedback loops where saying "limit global warming to a greater or lesser degree by how quickly we have emissions decline". Yeah, that's again, a magic bullet that so far we as a human race have shown to both not know how to and refuse to do. I'm not dooming in the sense that I think we all have ten years before full society collapse, but I'm saying it's odd when people think that the regular 1st world American life will exist even close to its current state in say 30 years. Like, this is a post that went big today, and it's because a lot more people are waking up and "get it". https://twitter.com/theyylovekj/status/1470391547233505291?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Thanks for clarifying. So in your opinion, the only people who can reasonably adopt a "doomer" mindset without being judged by people like you are those living in developing countries, because they are the ones who are likely to be killed or have their lives ruined? Developing countries have also made tremendous strides when it comes to climate resilience. In 1970, a typhoon hit Bangladesh and killed over half a million people. Today, with infrastructural improvements and general human development, typhoons that hit Bangladesh will kill dozens, maybe hundreds in a true catastrophe. However it is undeniable that poorer countries generally are going to have less resources to protect their populations from increasingly extreme weather impacts and are likely to face the most extreme risks, as usual the poorest will get the poo poo end of the stick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Carbon emissions are overwhelmingly the result of the burning of fossil fuels, and future warming is almost entirely determined by the future burning of fossil fuels. Livestock (specifically cattle and sheep, ruminants) do convert biosphere carbon to methane, but methane does not accumulate in the atmosphere the way that CO2 does. You could also add NO2 production as a result of agriculture here, along with the land-use changes cited, but ultimately zeroing fossil-fuel emissions would be an indisputable climate "win" and in itself would be enough to prevent uncontrolled warming over the timescale of decades to centuries. Your dismissal of land use importance is contrary to the IPCC’s assessments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:For someone sticking to the "reports" as his backing of authority, that's not what's going to happen, even by the reports and what we know about supply chains. It's not going to be "decades" before this impacts all of us on a level we can't really ignore. And we will try, just like we currently are doing with Covid. And we're now at a point in feedback loops where saying "limit global warming to a greater or lesser degree by how quickly we have emissions decline". Yeah, that's again, a magic bullet that so far we as a human race have shown to both not know how to and refuse to do. I'm not dooming in the sense that I think we all have ten years before full society collapse, but I'm saying it's odd when people think that the regular 1st world American life will exist even close to its current state in say 30 years. Okay. My perspective differs. I think the regular first world American life will be mostly unchanged in thirty years, and the aging doomers will still think the climate apocalypse is coming but we just had the timeline slightly off. Why? Because this is how the environmental movement has functioned since before we were born, all the way back to Malthus. It saw a resurgence in 1960s and 70s with books like The Club of Rome's Limits of Growth and the Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, which respectively predicted imminent natural resource exhaustion and widespread third-world famines as a result of stagnant food production and growing populations. Neither of these catastrophes materialized, but their adherents (at least those who are still alive) haven't had their minds changed at all. If you ask the Club's surviving members or Paul Ehrlich what they think, they think they're still right, the predictions still hold up, they were just early. Views like this will meet the same fate. Ultimately, doomerism isn't a scientific, even a social-scientific, theory, it's an ideological worldview. It's an expression of longing, an ache, for any escape from the boredom and inanity of modern Western consumerist life, no matter how diabolical the means necessary to achieve it are. But it's not coming. Nothing is coming to save you from your miserable life. If you want that change, you have to make it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:
Well said. My doomerism disappeared when I got off my rear end and tried to do something positive with my life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:There's no conclusive evidence that climate change causes tornadoes. But yes, climate change is likely to increase deaths from extreme weather in general, and is already doing so, but the average person (especially in a developed country) is very unlikely to directly killed, have their life and livelihood ruined, etc. at the levels of warming we're likely to experience in our lifetimes. More likely, it will be inconveniences and hardship. Yes, every death is a tragedy, but that doesn't mean that every death is comparable to "we're hosed", i.e. everyone's lives being ruined, the end of human civilization, or the extinction of all human life. If that strikes you as selfish and tone-deaf, so be it. IT. IS. DECEMBER.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:IT. IS. DECEMBER. Yes, and?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Your dismissal of land use importance is contrary to the IPCC’s assessments. I don't think it is, most projections expect the overwhelming majority of future emissions to come from fossil fuels, not land-use change, which expected to decline as a contributor to overall forcing. After all, global farmland (the primary driver of land-use emissions) has already peaked and is expected to decline as agriculture modernizes. There was also a recent study making waves in the climate community that suggested land-use emissions have been systematically overestimated, thereby decreasing its historical importance as well, though we should be cautious about novel results. However if you know something I don't, feel free to share so I can evaluate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
I live in Texas, which is the second most populous state in the US. Less than a year ago we had an unusual polar vortex that lasted a week, and most people were without power (and heat) for several days. After the initial casualty figures, later investigations found that in fact hundreds had died, some by freezing to death, some because their medical equipment failed or because they couldn't access essential services, others by carbon-monoxide poisoning as they attempted to use their stoves to stay warm while they slept. Before it was shut down, the grid was mere minutes away from total collapse, which would have plunged the entire state back to the middle age for a month if not longer (collapsed grids are very difficult to repair and bring back online). Texas was of course widely mocked for having its own grid that was also not properly weatherized, we were called a third-world nation and so on, but guess what: no US state is prepared for these types of extreme events, despite what people's hubris may lead them to believe. And everyone is going to find that out the hard way, probably sooner than we think. If you think that as a citizen of a developed nation the most you'll likely experience is some inconvenience and hardship... well, it's people like you who will be the most unpleasantly surprised. Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:IT. IS. DECEMBER. Always blows my mind how climate forums people effortlessly pivot from making fun of denialist cartoons with a guy throwing snowballs and saying "So much for global warming" and making posts like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Just dropping in to say that the paper I've been collaborating on with colleagues across the country is finished. We've comprehensively analyzed Green New Deal legislation related to the our industries and pointed out exactly how they will fail and be coopted while providing alternative paths that would help achieve the sociopolitical goals necessary to prevent the worst of the worst. We've since had meetings with key federal legislators, planting seeds of future collaboration. We've been asked to endorse upcoming legislation, provide names for task forces related to resiliency and adaptation, and have future meetings to discuss our positions. We've done this with no institutional support, no financing, and no obligations to entrenched power, which allows us to tell the truth about the industries we work within. Who knows if the task force will convene or legislation will pass. I do know that, for the low price of a couple dozen hours, I've found some community and a viable path that has a very small chance of affecting a small amount of change. As small as it is, it is a lifeline for me away from doomerism. I don't have much hope, but as long as I'm involved in the struggle I'll be ok. Also, It Could Happen Here podcast had a great episode last week about direct action in Cascadia for forest defense. Definitely worth checking out, for those of us who are action oriented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:28
|
|
|
How are u posted:Yes, and? Thug Lessons posted:Always blows my mind how climate forums people effortlessly pivot from making fun of denialist cartoons with a guy throwing snowballs and saying "So much for global warming" and making posts like this. Always blows my mind how you react. Maybe look at the data for once before immediately deciding where you stand on something and that your position is unassailable with this preposterous ridicule you espouse. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/permonth_by_state/ https://www.spc.noaa.gov/new/SVRclimo/climo.php?parm=sigTorn Know what the 25 year average for tornadoes in Kentucky in December is? Less than 1. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:28
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:I live in Texas, which is the second most populous state in the US. Less than a year ago we had an unusual polar vortex that lasted a week, and most people were without power (and heat) for several days. After the initial casualty figures, later investigations found that in fact hundreds had died, some by freezing to death, some because their medical equipment failed or because they couldn't access essential services, others by carbon-monoxide poisoning as they attempted to use their stoves to stay warm while they slept. I think this is a pretty accurate assessment of what the impacts of climate change-linked extreme weather events are going to look like. Systems that are unprepared are going to be hit with shocks that cause hundreds of deaths, with the potential for extreme failure that could push those deaths into the thousands. And rather than being a once-in-a-lifetime event, they'll become increasingly common, and more and more resources will have to be diverted to preventing them from reaching crisis levels. But what consistently surprises me is that climate people are seemingly incapable of distinguishing between this reality and far more dramatic events that threaten, variously, "our way of life", civilization, or the survival of the species as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Always blows my mind how climate forums people effortlessly pivot from making fun of denialist cartoons with a guy throwing snowballs and saying "So much for global warming" and making posts like this. Because it's obvious that there's apples to oranges. Historic heat waves in the middle of December, once in 100,000 year events twice or three times a year does in fact imply that none of this is "fine or normal." I mean, we just experienced the coolest summer we're ever going to experience going forward. The fact that you think 30 years from now life in the USA would by and large be the same is so laughably silly I don't actually know where to start. Even if Climate change didn't exist, we're very close and will likely fall into a full dictatorship Christian state even if it's held up by a different name in the next 15 years. Your post is the equivalent of the white male liberals telling women who were crying when Trump got elected that "it's not a big deal, nothing will fundamentally change for your reproductive rights" Also, your examples and use of Texas fails to take into account how it effects so many other countries that will be devastated, which will lead to mass migration we haven't even seen yet, resource wars, and so on. We almost had society shut down over a virus (supply train wise). Now imagine not actually being able to produce a lot of things everyday people rely on, because those plants, locations, resources simply don't exists anymore. LionArcher fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
How are u posted:Yes, and? It's kind of the dying with Covid not of Covid class of denialism. Thug Lessons posted:But what consistently surprises me is that climate people are seemingly incapable of distinguishing between this reality and far more dramatic events that threaten, variously, "our way of life", civilization, or the survival of the species as a whole. What would you call it when California is on fire every summer from now on and major distribution hubs are continually shut down or outright destroyed? Do you believe that those events are not going to happen or will not erase what we consider our current way of life? Sedisp fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Because it's obvious that there's apples to oranges. Historic heat waves in the middle of December, once in 100,000 year events twice or three times a year does in fact imply that none of this is "fine or normal." I mean, we just experienced the coolest summer we're ever going to experience going forward. It's a strange opinion; for example, the US has approximately 14 years left of natural gas production from proven reserves. Shame that we flared or vented so much of it already, even ignoring the climate impacts of such. Yet, the US has been moving increasingly towards natural gas for electrical use, just like Germany (which only has about 4 years left itself). In fact, most of the powerful Western countries have less than 30 years in proven reserves, with the most notable exception being France (since it produces so little). I guess nobody has been making a fuss about this so it's not an issue worth considering; obviously things will continue as normal! Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
Migf I think your theoretical doomers will be pointing to the mass casualties of the third world and be right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't think it is, most projections expect the overwhelming majority of future emissions to come from fossil fuels, not land-use change, which expected to decline as a contributor to overall forcing. You try to be pedantic by saying “read the IPCC” and when people do read it and call you on bullshit claims, your next step is to say that part of the IPCC report is unimportant. The IPCC highlights more than burning fossil fuels. You ignored all but burning fossil fuels, got called on the bullshit claim which contradicts the IPCC and so have to walk back to “ok, sure, but it doesn’t matter that much.” Why make the bullshit claim the first time around?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I think this is a pretty accurate assessment of what the impacts of climate change-linked extreme weather events are going to look like. Systems that are unprepared are going to be hit with shocks that cause hundreds of deaths, with the potential for extreme failure that could push those deaths into the thousands. And rather than being a once-in-a-lifetime event, they'll become increasingly common, and more and more resources will have to be diverted to preventing them from reaching crisis levels. But what consistently surprises me is that climate people are seemingly incapable of distinguishing between this reality and far more dramatic events that threaten, variously, "our way of life", civilization, or the survival of the species as a whole. Nobody can predict the future, obviously, but it is becoming entirely clear that climate change might in fact seriously threaten our way of life. Whether the mental shift and the accompanying changes happen gradually, or come upon us suddenly in the form of a monster Category 6 hurricane that flattens Miami or some other major wealthy city and finally wakes everyone up, is to be seen. (Yes, Category 6 isn't a thing. That's my point.) But I think the second order effects of climate change will be much more severe. Things like increasingly scarce fresh water sources, and adverse local climates triggering mass climate migrations, will put immense pressure on basically every nation. Just consider: one hundred thousand refugees from Syria swung the political pendulum hard to the right in many European nations. Now multiply that by fifty, even five hundred! I fully expect large-scale wars to be fought in the next thirty years or so as a result of climate change, such as parts of the world becoming uninhabitable. For us here in the US, climate migrations from Central and South America will make our current border crisis look like child's play. Will we still be having brunch with friends and flying to see relatives regularly? Perhaps. Then again, who knows?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Okay. My perspective differs. I think the regular first world American life will be mostly unchanged in thirty years, and the aging doomers will still think the climate apocalypse is coming but we just had the timeline slightly off. Mask off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You try to be pedantic by saying “read the IPCC” and when people do read it and call you on bullshit claims, your next step is to say that part of the IPCC report is unimportant. You didn't call me on anything though, you just said "the IPCC contradicts you", didn't clarify what and how, and then posted this spiel. Harold Fjord posted:Migf I think your theoretical doomers will be pointing to the mass casualties of the third world and be right. Are you calling me Migf? I have no idea who that is and it doesn't resemble any name I've gone by.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You didn't call me on anything though, you just said "the IPCC contradicts you", didn't clarify what and how, and then posted this spiel. Got it. You disagree with the IPCC reports when they don’t support your posts but tell others “read the IPCC” otherwise when it might. It’s a method.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Mask off. It's more of an aspirational evil too. There's very little chance that first world ways of life will remain unchanged while all the manufacturing hubs for cheap affordable goods are some combination of underwater, on fire, nuked or just plain old abandoned. Unless they mean "My personal life will remain largely unchanged because I am very wealthy and will merely build my summer home using indentured labor"
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
right, and to sum up things are happening faster and when I said 30 years, I was being generous. https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1470884361557979139 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/13/climate/antarctic-climate-change.html?referringSource=articleShare
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Nobody can predict the future, obviously, but it is becoming entirely clear that climate change might in fact seriously threaten our way of life. Whether the mental shift and the accompanying changes happen gradually, or come upon us suddenly in the form of a monster Category 6 hurricane that flattens Miami or some other major wealthy city and finally wakes everyone up, is to be seen. (Yes, Category 6 isn't a thing. That's my point.) I'm going to respond to this rather than all the very similar posts: this is a certain narrative about climate change and its impacts on society, one that's internally consistent and follows a concrete chain of events. But I'm not evaluating it on those metrics, I'm evaluating it relative to other similar narratives that people have presented essentially since the beginning of modern history. And it turns out is that these kind of narratives always end up failing to pan out. We're perpetually constructing new apocalyptic narratives that correspond to our social upheavals: the population growth associated with the industrial revolution for Malthus and the broadening of that revolution beyond the West for the neo-malthusians like Paul Ehrlich, the Peak Oil craze that traces from around the turn of the century back to the oil shock of the 70s' and ultimately through every era since oil became an important resource, to more sociological, often reactionary, theories of civilization cycles from the likes of Spengler and Toynbee. None of these are actually useful for telling us about the course of future history, and just serve to reflect the bleakness of their adherents' worldviews back at them. Climate science is different. We have climate models from 45 years ago that, factoring in emissions over the intervening period, predict current temperatures quite well. We've developed systems to attribute and project impacts, both now and into the future. These are actual achievements, that allow us to actually understand the world and where's it going better, in a way that the Malthusian narratives will never achieve. Climate models can actually tell us something worth knowing, but stories about climate refugees flooding the Southern border only serve to fuel our darkest fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:It's more of an aspirational evil too. There's very little chance that first world ways of life will remain unchanged while all the manufacturing hubs for cheap affordable goods are some combination of underwater, on fire, nuked or just plain old abandoned. The very notion of successful adaptation while averting economic disaster requires wholesale infrastructure overhauls drastic changes in modern consumption models. The American Way of Life (which encompases an increasingly narrower proportional subset of the US population due to inequality) is incompatible with climate change. But what TL peddles is if we maintain the current course, with market forces organically switching us to renewables and EVs, then everything will work itself out. Why? Because that's the future that allows him to keep his cushy lifestyle largely unchanged, so as far he's concerned anyone who suggests otherwise is at best uninformed but more likely either deranged or actively malicious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:
Did he say that? I feel like you're projecting a bit, here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:58
|
|