|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'm sorry if the ideas I'm talking about are supported by various scientific publications I've read and don't come verbatim out of one of them. If you don't think there's a scientific basis for what I'm saying you're full of poo poo. If you want to play pedant and pick apart my arguments without actually addressing them feel free, but don't pretend like you're doing anything but wasting space in the thread. If it's actually as hopeless as you portray, this thread is nothing but wasted space.
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
yellowyams posted:Is there anything we can do to make the ocean a bit colder around certain areas? The ice is being melted by warm waters isn't it? And I assume those waters didn't use to be as warm so it wouldn't be too catastrophic to try to change that would it? I feel way in over my head with science stuff so this is probably completely unreasonable, simplified and stupid but I want to think of something. You can't make something colder without making something else hotter, and the issue right now is that the entire globe is too hot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 16:42
|
|
I think the ice melting thing should take a big priority right now because of how dramatic it just got.
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Well I mean if you're going to adopt "life is suffering" as a mantra I don't know why you'd think posting about it on forums would do anything but get you laughed at. A person who believes that nothing matters is probably not going to hold your opinion of whether they should post in high regard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Jesus panels and gunmills.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Where would you move the largest coral reef in the world so that it'd be safe from both temperature changes and ocean acidification? Also the Dubai story is from a source that has a censorship process dictated by the UAE, so its probably going to be pretty optimistic about the environmental impacts of moving coral.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:And while I am perhaps disappointed that there are so many human beings who lack any sort of intellectual ambition or basic valuation of the future, I knew that they existed before Trump, and am only surprised by the degree of hatred and brutality with which they aim to see their hollow, factless, and ultimately inhuman agenda realized. At the same time, I am seeing those who value science, logic, and environmental sustainability with a new level of appreciation that I had not had previously, realizing that while I may not enjoy their company, necessarily, or even like their personalities, they are now, whether I like it or not, my comrades in arms in what is likely to be a very dirty political war. Same, but with a deep paranoia that the compulsive focus on knowledge depth created the lack of organization and political influence which got us to this situation. Is it possible to have leadership that is deeply scientific if the hubris, drive, and time needed to advance politically is fundamentally incompatible with deep understanding of scientific issues?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
I think it's good that someone is spending a billion dollars to help mitigate climate change. This is a controversial opinion but I feel strongly about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:No he bloody doesn't. It's 2016, we've known about global warming for several decades now. And have you never heard the parable of the widow's mite? Ok come on. Can't you step back see what you're saying? "He didn't do it soon enough" or "It could have been more money" or "We could have just not lived under opressive capitalism in the first place". It's a textbook example of letting perfect be the enemy of good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:The fact that the super-rich have a vast overabundance of money--and that a few dozen rich people have more than enough money to pretty much solve climate change--is a key part of the systemic problems causing climate change. There are two things I object to here. First, money is not an omnipotent force that can accomplish anything. Capitalism ingrains a lesson in us that you can purchase anything given sufficient money , but the organizational elements of something like solving world hunger are not simply for sale. Second, this thread has a long history of people rejecting any solution that is not all-encompassing. If someone says that they biked to work instead of driving there will be some rear end in a top hat posting right after explaining that they didn't accomplish poo poo. If the alternative is that Bill Gates gives zero dollars towards this issue than maybe we can suck it up and say that it's a step in the right direction.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:The human population has already hit peak child so any population growth is pretty much baked in at this point. I think that this piece of logic is remarkable. Essentially; the statistics of population growth means that having a child won't increase the total population. It reminds me a lot of: "It doesn't matter if I vote because the polls show my candidate ahead by 5%" or "It doesn't matter if I buy an SUV instead using public transit because global warming is unstoppable" or maybe "it doesn't matter if I eat this piece of cake because this is a cheat day for my diet anyway".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I would kinda point out that it's decidedly unstrategic, giving how we know children inherit their parents' viewpoints, to have all the dickhead selfish morons continue to breed while everyone who gives a poo poo removes themselves from the genepool. Purely thinking in terms of 'hey a future human will emit more than the lack of a human' is rather reductive. Maybe your child will persuade 100 others to reduce their emissions. Maybe your child will invent tech that will very literally save the world. If we're in the position of having a breeding competition to settle the politics of global warming then I'm officially pushed over the fence into advocating against the creation of sentient life to observe the future of Earth. Fangz posted:This is basically a variant on the 'if you think CO2 emissions is important why are you using electricity to get on the internet?' argument. The answer, if you want to make that choice, is that you think there's upside potential. I think you're right about this, except it's true that we should be using less carbon in our daily lives. I think it's better to acknowledge that we could be doing more as individuals than to pretend we don't each have a role to play in causing the issue. I think that it's better to acknowledge it even if we do it while continuing our bad carbon habits.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Well a few nihilist westerners deciding not to have children because "the future is doomed to hellscape" honestly won't have any effect on the world population no. Do you understand that for each child born the population of the world increases by one (1) person? Oxxidation posted:I'm fine, dude. There isn't any garment-rending going on here. Some people have just needed to re-evaluate their futures a little in light of impending events. There is no utility in this type of hopelessness. Worrying about the future is only useful if it drives you towards more positive/informed behaviors and greedily min-maxing your income at the expense of ever being able to retire is not positive or informed. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Sure, I just don't believe it to be a net negative effect on our planet. Also I'm confused about the ad-hom of calling someone a nihilist. A nihilist would claim that nothing matters and that there is no significance to our decisions. The choice between having a child or not having a child would have equal cosmic weight and it wouldn't matter which choice you made. In contrast, if I say that it's a tremendous responsibility to choose to have a child I'm very directly rejecting nihilism and giving value to the consequences. Personally I believe that giving sentience to something is the most significant decision a human can make and I support those who decide against it because they can't assure the happiness or success of their offspring.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Because a number of posters have given up not just on fighting climate change but on the future in general, and they feel the need to convince others to give up on the future as well at every opportunity (while ignoring the logical conclusions of their own arguments because it would personally inconvenience them) This thread isn't being inundated with posts, so perhaps if you'd like a certain type of content you could post it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Not generating waste to live is almost a trick question. First, good on Potato Salad for trying to use less and getting creative to do it, I think that's really cool. Ultimately of course you are generating waste/pollution to some degree when you consume anything, and it's only a matter of how far back you have to go through the production chain to find it. That makes it a good litmus test for finding bloviating trolls, because anyone who claims that their food is waste free is obviously lying.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'm not claiming my food is waste free, I'm claiming that not generating garbage for 24 hours is trivial and if it's something that overwhelms you it may be best you just give up now on trying to pretend to be "ecologically aware" Why do you think I was talking about you? You self identify as a bloviating troll?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It kinda is? I mean, not completely, but that's because the entire region is much wetter. It's still steppe/savanna/monsoon climate on the map, and even monsoon climate can be pretty dry for most of the year. If you add a bunch of rain to a desert you're going to get a pile of wet sand. You might hope to generate 1 centimeter of soil in 100 years and maybe be able to plan crops in 1000.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:As long as that was all undertaken with zero emissions technology and the dead trees were kept in a moisture and oxygen free landfill. Also, your plantations never undergo drought, disease, or fire. 10 gigatonnes of carbon emissions per year, divided by 1000kg of carbon per tree = 10 billion trees per year right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You seem to be kinda going against the conventional wisdom in this thread by claiming that global warming won't result in major temperature increases across the world (and especially at higher latitudes) over the same period. Major temperature increases across the world is 100% compatible with land temperatures falling.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Can you expand on this? I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at? My objection to Conspiratiorist's post was him seemingly ignoring that the same period where you'd see these ice sheets melting would see great increases in global temperatures too. I don't deny that in some regions this might not be enough to offset other effects that cause a regional drop in temperature, but as far as I can tell the region is actually getting warmer at the moment, so a drop in temperatures following a shut down of the Gulf Stream would see a drop from a higher level. Or is your argument that the increase in temperature we see presently is driven by the Gulf Stream pumping heat into the region, thus the eventual drop just grows larger as temperatures increase? Tell me more about the map that you made because I read through the study you linked and it left me with overall more questions about what you've been posting in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Look, I'm just a man who tries to see the best in every bad situation. Glad I've made you think though, it's always good to reexamine our beliefs. Most typically you would try to see the best parts of reality rather than inventing a new reality which has more better parts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Random terrified question: is it unthinkable that runaway global warming in fact goes so far off the rails that something might happen like has happened on Venus? Or is that not quite on the menu yet? All of the fossil fuels we're burning were already in the air at one point, so no, that is not a realistic concern.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Whatever else you can say about the post, the person did actually make the distinction. "Ocean ice is melting, which doesn't affect sea levels, while land ice is increasing, meaning there's no need to worry", is basically what's being said. They made a distinction, but the distinction is a red herring / false depending on the semantics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
vermin posted:I live on a hill I'm not roman BUT I do live on one of 3 hills in the capital of a rotting civilization! ama
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Trainee PornStar posted:I'm getting on a bit now (48) but I pretty much remember the "we're all gonna die to atom bombs" of the cold war then we went to "we're all gonna die of aids"!! then we went to "OMG global warming... er.. I mean Climate change" then I just kinda gave up & got on with my life coz whatever!! Both atom bombs and aids killed an insane number of people. Aids is responsible for more than a million deaths each year, which is a staggering number and a black eye for our entire species. You can help through charity and political action. TRUMP! is talking about cutting all foreign aid and that is going to cause deaths in areas that we provide condoms and educational resources. Global warming is similar enough.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
call to action posted:We have the drugs to essentially defeat AIDS now and we still let a million die per year, versus climate change where most of the US and China don't even see it as a thing, let alone there being some sort of hypothetical plan that would work, let alone that plan ever being implemented. Similar enough! We have the technology to defeat global warming. There is no debate about its reality, only smoke and mirrors to fool the gullible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:How in the hell do we defeat climate change in a short timespan, by culling SE Asia? Public works projects with a total cost similar to world war 2 in which every country simultaneously enacts a radical and centrally planned program of carbon emissions reduction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:bold move posting something to do with climate change in this, the cynicism and dumb survivalist scenarios thread Actually, that polar bear dying is just "weather'.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Does anyone even still post here denying climate change? The whole reason this thread was rebooted was because it had just turned into a nihilist sanctuary for people like Stabbinhobo here. What kind of posts should we make?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
call to action posted:If you could tape four standard residential solar panels on to a Nissan Leaf, it'd take at least 36 hours of direct sunlight before it'd be fully charged. The only way this could work is if you stack a few heavy rear end panels in the hatch and then deploy them when you park. With a range of 107 miles that's 24 miles of charging during an 8 hour workday. That would actually cover 100% of my roundtrip commute.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
frytechnician posted:The comments on this one.... now that's depressing! Humanity deserves extinction. edit: sorry I thought this was the Trump! thread, my bad!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Good, your irrational thinking fits right into the society that created this completely ridiculous fate. The rate of shittiness is unprecedented though. We're hitting the gas pedal right now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
I'm a strong and independent corpse and no ecomutant is going to tell ME what seasonings belong on my liver!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Rime posted:TIL: Climate change is not going to increase the threat of a nuclear exchange between resource marginalized superpowers in any way. Not at all. Evolution can't respond in 100 years to the threats of industrialization. We're machines that are designed from top to bottom to consume, gently caress, and kill. What do you want from us? An ecological renaissance isn't going to happen out of ideology or hopefulness.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:When was the last time you threw a chair through a window in protest? I don't care if non violent protest are good or bad, but this is the dumbest fallacy. Imagine if an alcoholic told you that sobriety was the best way to live; would you smugly ask them how they'd know?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Twitter is mad about this and have ironically taken the site offline in an effort to check and scrape it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 15:11
|
|
I mean, we knew it was going to happen, but here it is.
|
My consumption is ethical, you see, because there are so many other people also consuming the same way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Isn't "virtue signaling" a term most commonly used by the alt right? Riding a bike to work is a lifestyle meme. A true man takes Super Male Vitality Testosterone Booster and drives a pickup truck.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:All individual actions to reduce emissions are meaningless in the grand scale of the climate threat. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. If you actually want to do something about the climate threat then the energy and time you'd devote to honorable pursuits like living carbon neutral would be much better spent in politics through participation or activism. That is where the future of this planet is ultimatelly going to be decided because for future generations to live good lives there needs to be systematic change. This is cognitive dissonance unfolding in front of our eyes. See? My emissions don't contribute to the problem if uh.. you like look at the GRAND SCHEME of things!
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
MiddleOne posted:If the looming environmental crisis could be stopped with individual action then we wouldn't be looking at a crisis in the first place. Last weekend I was picking up litter at a park I like which is about a mile from my house. I'm up there walking/running a few times a week so I don't mind doing a little work to keep it clean. I was standing at the top of a hill with a bag full of trash I had collected and I remembered that individual action doesn't matter, so I dumped the trash out and let the wind spread it out. MiddleOne posted:Ethical consumer choice has really poor history in enacting meaningful change. As long as living sustainably means actively sacrificing your own living standard (while others can opt out and keep theirs) then enough people will never get engaged. Ehtical consumption is in the end a fashion choice, your own piece of personal branding. That is fine for animal rights and labour rights where incremental change is better than no change, but we don't have time anymore with the environment. Change needs to happen on a state and supranational level and it needs to happen within the next decade. Ethical consumer choice is different than choosing not to consume. We have a situation where everyone needs to change, but nobody wants to be the only one not consuming as quickly as possible. If nobody is willing to be the first one to change then we need the entire world to change at once, and that seems a lot less likely to me. I would compare it to the odds of the entire world embracing global communism at once. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 14:53 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 14:48
|
|