Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

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

«‹›3 »

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

theblackw0lf posted:

I think people are really underestimating the power of peer pressure, especially when non-compliance could adversely affect diplomatic relationships with other countries. Also remember they have to come back in five years with new proposals and showing that they have taken steps to comply to the targets and their already communicated plans.

A lot will hinge on the U.S. continuing with their targets (which are almost all driven by executive action that don't need congressional approval). So the effectiveness of this agreement really hinges on whether Democrats keep control of the White House.

lmao, which countries are going to apply "diplomatic" pressure when non-compliance inevitably happens.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 20:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 6, 2024 22:24

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Trabisnikof posted:

Looks like the binding HFC treaty was finally negotiated:

LOL funny how even this article states that post-treaty, the world is still on track for 4C warming but pats on everyone's backs!

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 01:44

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Wait so you're heralding a treaty which actually doesn't do anything and still leads to a 4C+ scenario?

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 02:02

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Nah, we all know that you're a climate change minimizer but it's funny how you're lying about +.5C when the linked paper states that HFC mitigation, specifically, would have an impact of ~0.1C.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 02:14

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Says the guy who thinks the solution to global warming is taking away AC from the global south.

More like

quote:

In December, the Tyndall Centre hosted a conference on "radical emissions reductions" that offered some eye-popping suggestions: Perhaps every adult in wealthy countries could get a personal "carbon budget" tracked through an electronic credit card. Once they hit their limit, no more vacations or road trips. Other attendees suggested shaming campaigns against celebrities with outsized homes and yachts.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 02:30

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

How are treaties like this binding? Look at the failure of the EU ETS or the repeal of the Australian equivalent to show how meaningless these agreements are.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 02:38

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Nah, look at the Kyoto Protocol to see how comprehensive of a failure any attempt at treaty-based climate change mitigtation is.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 02:50

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Considering that the Paris Agreement is still pretending that a 1.5C target is achievable, it's pretty clear it's useless.

LMAO, it was +1.3C for the 1st half of this year.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 12:51

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Hey, aren't you the guy saying that pension funds are going to save us with market based solutions since they're reducing their investments in O&G?
We're laughing at you and trabisniskof for being climate change minimisers

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 12:58

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

What I find peculiar is that everyone here seems to have accepted 2C change as happening but because we're attempting (poorly) to prevent a 6C scenario, everything is fine.

everythings-fine-on-fire.jpg

What's even funnier is that even the climate change scientist credited with first proposing for a 2C max target in the 70s is now saying 2C is too much.

Folks like trabisniskof strike me as suggesting two bullets in the head is good because hey, at least it's not 6.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 00:52

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Trabisnikof posted:

More like I'd rather play Russian Roulette with 2 bullets in the revolver instead of 6.

And any movement we can make towards fewer bullets is good even if doesn't get us to put the gun down.

Says the guy in favor of clean coal and is anti-nuclear power generation.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 01:03

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Nah, i think stuff like limited nuclear exchanges and reproductive limits are more realistic solutions but apparently people prefer "let's use energy saving light bulbs" faux solutions.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 01:05

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

GlyphGryph posted:

How is this in any way a solution, though? It's still just 'things get constantly worse but slower' territory.

Look up-thread at folks who talk big about climate activism but go denialist when faced with the statement that not having children is the biggest singular thing they can achieve in their lifetimes to reduce their carbon footprint. Or at a societal level for a polity to impose restrictions on reproductive rights. The one child policy in China, now dead, is probably the single government policy that has had the most impact on climate change.

I'm not going to give up my kids are you?

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 01:10

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Squalid posted:

However there exists among many in the climate activist community an opposite personality, who systematically over estimates the risks of climate catastrophes. Every new threat is treated as a certainty, regardless of how preliminary the data or limited our understanding. All the risks have to be addressed yes, but we should understand that even in worse case scenarios not every calamity must come to pass.

LOL, yeah those climatologists are always overstating things

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 01:12

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Man James Hansen saying 2C is too much is certainly equivalent to "go commit suicide right now"
Exactly the kind of bullshit I'm talking about

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 01:15

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

computer parts posted:

You saying "we need population control and nuclear exchanges" is equivalent to that.

Looking at Syria, I think we're already in the midst of GCC-driven conflict so too late.
But let's go back to magitech CCS solutions that you're fond of

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 01:18

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Squalid posted:

It's kind of weird how you appear to be using the word denialist like a slur. Trabisnikof hasn't made any statements remotely reminiscent of climate denialism, even if I still think his position regarding the effect of personal family planning is false.

What's your deal anyway. You haven't really made any coherent arguments in this thread, you're just kind of flailing angrily about without any discernible purpose

No I take issue with someone being pro-coal and anti-nuke pretending to have a solution for GCC.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 01:20

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Squalid posted:

What

Of all the things to call Trabisnikof want to call him pro-coal?

Yeah, to be fair I guess it shouldn't be surprising that someone is sanguine about GCC if they're pro-coal at the same time.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 01:26

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Equivocating family planning/one-child policy analogue to 'mass murder' kinda says it all

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 01:32

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

I'm not in favor of nuclear conflict but I think there's more than an even chance of a limited exchange or conventional conflict between China/India and China/Russia this century due to climate issues, not to mention the Middle East becoming uninhabitable due to rising temperatures. The reduction in population won't be a bad thing from a carbon emissions standpoint.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 01:37

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Factory farming insects seems pretty promising

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 05:45

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

No but you see, we managed to get India and a bunch of other third world countries to promise to reduce their use of AC by an unenforceable treaty by 2045 so we don't need to change our way of life.

Our GHG emissions is 10x higher than India per capita? Who cares

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 16:14

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Ol Standard Retard posted:

As much as people bemoan the actions of individuals as well there is literally nothing stopping a given person from actively choosing to take proactive steps in their life. The futility also reads a lot like that comic that I can't be arsed to dig up where the guy stands up at a convention and says "Whoa whoa, what if we create a better world for nothing??"

Except "not having kids" is the solution on an individual level and that's a non starter

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 16:17

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

It takes a special kind of delusion to start with the failures of both the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols and forecast a non-6C scenario.

The logical next step for climate deniers like computer parts and trabisniskof seems to be arguing for non action on the part of the West and preventing the third world from achieving first world developmental status.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 23:27

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

In a way it's kinda cool to see the evolution of climate deniers by the nature of argumentation.
Most educate folks are aware that GCC is happening these days so arguing that it's not a thing doesn't work
So they have to transition into talking about how the onus is on India and China to stop pollution and that the West is actually doing great.

Look at Trabisniskof supporting coal and fracking and being anti nuclear while purportedly supporting collective action.

Or the painting of voluntary depopulation as un-American.

Pretty funny to see climate denialists practice their arguments here. You wonder whether you'll see public ads changing similarly.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 23:33

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Looking at the differences in reaction to Katrina and Sandy, I don't think liberal climate change activists mind if poor slash minority Americans are Sandy murdered by the effects. If anything, it'll be good fodder for ads.

The discourse is pretty much "too bad for the global south, you're going to have to eat it " - you can extend that to the American underclass.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 00:07

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Create some kind of reproductive rights trading platform. Maybe every couple gets by default the right to a single child and can buy or sell rights.
Forced abortions for people that breach this.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 03:13

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

The depressing thing about the US Prez elections is that wrt climate change, you have to decide between a candidate that believes that GCC is an invention of China and one that pays lip service to the notion of it but will gleefully push for TPP and TTIP that will lead to increased emissions.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 03:17

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Banana Man posted:

Who would handle the forced abortions

Just get mobile vans operated by Planned Parenthood like they do in China

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 03:53

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Yeah, pretty skeptical of science by political committee (e.g., Paris Protocol, IPCC) when they tend to lie about targets - look at Paris aiming for +1.5C by 2100 when we're are at +1.6C today. Kinda hilarious if you think about it

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 04:46

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

I guess I can understand the emotional response of these drive-by posts: "all this must be alarmism" because in other spheres of life, things can typically be fixed. But in the case of AGC, that's not the case unfortunately

Cranappleberry posted:

If what you are saying is correct, what can be done?

1) Voluntary depopulation
2) Reduced consumption (e.g., meat products, cheap manufacturing of disposable goods)
3) Shift to 100%

Funny how all three solutions are verboten by climate minimisers

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 04:58

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

@BattleMoose

Can't say I think much of your plan for solving AGC using fusion

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 05:12

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Given that the HFC treaty accounts for mitigating a 0.1C (remember not actually reducing temperatures but avoiding an increase), we need 60 treaties of this magnitude to avoid a +6C scenario.

And looking at how Kyoto failed, I'm not expecting this to work.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 05:22

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Not really. Labeling a bunch of scenarios from worst to best seems pointless since every scientific forecast dating back to the 70s has had to be revised for the worst.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 07:00

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

And for the reader, we're past RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and are realistically looking at 8.5+.

Not to mention each revision of the models have had to push the forecast further up in terms of temperature and effect.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 07:09

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Patting yourself on your back for joining an environmental club seems pointless when you're not willing to consider the two actions that are meaningful on an individual level - not have kids and to give up meat.

That they're not starters for Western materialists really summarises the impossibility of modern western society dealing with AGC.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 07:54

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Speaking of which
https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/788061946880729089

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 07:59

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Just throw money at Elon Musk and his Mars ambitions. Forget about the Earth and just rebuild from scratch over there.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 10:23

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

a whole buncha crows posted:

We have x years to reduce emissions until we are at the point where catastrophic global climate change will be certain.

can we agree on the x value in this thread?

-26

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 11:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 6, 2024 22:24

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

The sad thing is that these governmental agreements that you mention in passing are magic bullets, except even more convoluted.

Look at the HFC one that Trabisniskof is trying to persuade us is effective - no meaningful cuts imposed on the BRIC countries till 2045. Forecasted impact is the avoidance of a +0.1C increase. No solution for getting India or China to reduce emissions beyond reducing AC uptake. No enforcement mechanism although he keeps on saying "it's binding".

We need 60 of these magic bullets to work in perfect sync.

I'd rather we put money on SpaceX and Uber as emissions mitigation strategies than throwing money at diplomats spending hundreds of millions of dollars on fake treaties.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 11:58

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

«‹›3 »