Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›8 »

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Why we are not going to effectively combat the problem:

FizFashizzle posted:

https://twitter.com/strikedebt/status/1034761966458425344?s=21

# ¿ Aug 30, 2018 03:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 17:23

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqa9HNR9KTc
10C temperature swings in a human lifetime sounds fun.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2018 01:51

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Kindest Forums User posted:

you have no way to prove this. how do we know that Elon Musk's anti public transportation stance is doing more harm than good. We should be focusing on a viable, proven, and existing solution to transportation: public transportation and high density living. Doubling down on the suburban lifestyle is a bad idea. But no, we're further drilling it into everyone's head they can maintain their status quo lifestyle. That's a bad pathway to solving climate change.

You have to look at the whole picture when it comes to emissions. Using a single point to describe a positive or negative emission reduction is really really dumb. If you did that, the real heroes of climate change would be the shipyards that build the 'ultra large container vessels' with high efficiency 2-stroke diesels. Or OPEC when they reduce oil production to increase prices. Or the Americans when they bomb the middle east.
All these events significantly reduce emissions in some way or another; but instead of doing this things we should reduce the amount of international freight, reduce oil demand, and stop killing people.

Same with Tesla, the efficiency of the vehicle isn't the problem. It's the amount of cars we have. We need to end our reliance on personal car ownership. Not build more cars for gently caress sakes.

It is something people forget about; manufacturing a new vehicle imposes a considerable carbon cost compared to reusing an existing vehicle.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2018 17:00

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Nice piece of fish posted:

Tuned in to a public broadcasting program on nuclear power yesterday on the state channel. Was pretty interesting. The question of the programme was "Considering climate change, why aren't we switching to nuclear power and how dangerous is it really?". They went to Chernobyl, examined that and Fukujima and Three Mile, interviewed the heads of the major environmental organisations and the best radiation scientists on the globe working with the UN and poo poo, even people who were on-site in Chernobyl.

The conclusion was that nuclear power is likely the only way forward, it's the safest way to produce energy we know, it has almost no emissions, the environmentalists are complete disingenous bullshitters when it comes to nuclear power, we have solutions for every problem with nuclear power including long term waste storage ready to go. Also, some interesting facts: From what the best scientists from an aggregate of UN, national and international sources can figure, about 85-90 people died from the Chernobyl accident, about 9000 cases of thyroid cancer were caused and about 15 children died from that from a lack of medical care, zero people died from radiation from Fukijima and Three Mile, there is no evidence that can be found for otherwise statistically raised cancer risks or incidents of any form, nor birth defects or other damage from the Chernobyl accident. It just didn't do much damage at all if you disregard psychological damage, and all the crazy numbers that have been operated with (tens or hundreds of thousands dead) either include completely unrelated deaths or are mathematical/statistical assumptions based on the assumption that low-level radiation (as in not much more than background radiation) causes elevated cancer risk and death. Which, again, the actual investigating scientists have never been able to find any evidence of.

All in all an interesting if slightly less than informative watch. All I was really left with was that nuclear is the solution, it also has an insane PR-problem and people (and particularly environmentalists) have completely lost perspective and are disingenously unreasonable when it comes to the question of nuclear power as a substitute for coal, oil and gas.

Great. Not that it's any news to any of you, but we're basically going to stupid ourselves to death. It's very frustrating.

Also we're going to get dumber (or at least less able to think clearly) over time as CO2 levels continue to increase.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2018 23:12

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

IPCC's SR15 put us on a 3-4C range under current Paris Accord commitments.

This is an astoundingly horrific finding.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2018 00:53

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Doorknob Slobber posted:

What can a person do to reduce their foot print by half? Realistically how many people can make the choice do actually loving do those things? I tend to agree with the notion that individual footprint reduction is privileged rich liberal wankology so that they can feel good about themselves while they consume more than most poor people do already simply because poor people can't buy a new iphone/car/computer/whatever every year.

Literally the best thing that individuals could do is get involved in local politics to attempt incremental changes.

Here are some issues that would help, even if they seem silly:
- Paint roofs white, mandated by local ordinance.
- Solar power promotion.
- Wind power promotion.
- Advocate for women's rights.
- Promote family planning.
- Recycling aluminum and some other things.

Your footprint probably doesn't matter compared to things like that.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Oct 17, 2018

# ¿ Oct 17, 2018 00:52

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Frightening Knight posted:

Ace if you want to keep posting in this thread, you need to calm the gently caress down lol.

Ace was a latecomer to the horrors of climate change, read the thread, and it broke him.

e: Speaking of breaking things, guess who won the Brazilian presidency?

SKULL.GIF posted:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1056668775536312321

Someone who will destroy the Amazon. That means even faster carbon emissions / less sequestration, if he can accomplish it.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Oct 29, 2018

# ¿ Oct 29, 2018 01:44

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Rip Testes posted:

Bolsonaro won so forget the Amazon as a carbon sink.

Yeah, this ain't hyperbole folks:

tacodaemon posted:

https://twitter.com/dougf24/status/1056567381080899585

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the Paris accord fell apart rapidly at this point and governments started preparing for the worst.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2018 04:50

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Admiral Ray posted:

Governments aren't going to prepare except insofar as to stab other countries and steal their poo poo.

Yes, that is a form of preparation. Russia is far ahead of the curve, there.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2018 05:03

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Do you like animals?

Chris James 2 posted:

Good morning everyone

https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/1057060359230631941

Well, don't get too attached.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2018 05:07

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Because things are just fine:

brugroffil posted:

also, AK could go tropical

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1057694524053602305

# ¿ Nov 1, 2018 02:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 17:23

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Paradoxish posted:

Natural gas plants are honestly a bigger problem since they're being sold as a lower emissions alternative to coal (which they are), but since they aren't zero emissions they're still part of the problem rather than the solution and we're continually bringing new plants online that will emit for decades and decades. Tearing down profitable, relatively new infrastructure is basically unprecedented on the scale that's needed.

At least most people are willing to admit that coal is bad.

It does however provide an incentive to trap natural gas to be used later instead of just letting it vent or immediately flare it off.

I guess that's something... imagine how much natural gas has been just flared into the atmosphere during oil extraction before it became somewhat profitable to capture it.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 05:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›8 »