Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

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

«‹›3 »

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

StabbinHobo posted:

lol edit triple-beat

# ¿ Jul 12, 2017 13:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:20

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Telephones posted:

How can I personally accelerate climate change?

Become a property developer and buy and fill in wetlands and other dense biomass areas to convert to new suburbs. Make sure all the homes are poorly-insulated.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2017 17:48

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Thalantos posted:

It wouldn't have mattered, he burnt Atlanta to the ground and they were still loving idiots when they rebuilt.

Five million one way roads all called Peachtree

Gonna confound the northern aggressors the next time around. Defeat the Yanks through the accumulated cost of "wrong way" tickets accrued by the drone tanks.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2017 05:05

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

the old ceremony posted:

permaculture = you will not make a profit. a central tenet of permaculture is the rejection of profit. profit is an outdated concept. money is an outdated concept. permaculture is about subsistence: meeting everyone's basic needs, without anyone expecting to live in obscene luxury. abandoning the idea of money is the first step toward realising this dream, because money is hosed and it has led us to where we are today

Money is just the unit of account for trade between two entities that lack the necessary resources to engage in barter or the necessary community to engage in prestation.

Someone using the internet to propose that we abandon the societal developments that made scientific progress (and thus, the internet) possible by returning to subsistence farming is colossally stupid. While some people use their excess money to live lives of what many people would consider excess, other people use their excess money to fund research or help those in need. A return to subsistence farming means all those things go away, not just the one that you don't like.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2017 20:35

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

enraged_camel posted:

The flip side of the coin is that a lot of people get these nostaljic notions about how things were better back in the day and push for policies to go back to those days without a thorough, nuanced understanding of why our society and its systems evolved into what they are today.

Of course things aren't perfect under capitalism, and there are huge problems with sustainability especially when it comes to managing and benefiting from natural resources. But the solution absolutely does not involve a big push for going back to subsistence farming. Ultra-local projects where people grow some of their own vegetables in their backyards are great. To suggest that such practices can make a demonstrable and appreciable dent in the grand scheme of things is laughable.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2017 10:44

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

enraged_camel posted:

That... I don't think it means what you think it means.

You're responding to someone benefiting from the existing system by explaining that their position fails to take into account an understanding of how they got to the point where they could promote a return to subsistence farming. That's exactly the point I was making with my previous post.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2017 10:55

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

call to action posted:

Nobody said it will, douche. Life is going to get a lot more miserable though.

Show us where anyone in the latest round of responses actually said

call to action posted:

"we'll pull through it because we always have, no I don't have any real reason to believe that"

or gently caress off forever.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 16:32

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

the old ceremony posted:

if you like eating fish, it's pretty easy to set up an aquaponic system that'll provide enough tilapia for you and your family with a positive environmental impact (however small)

it's not going to save the world but it's a step, and fish is so delicious and good for you

Source? Because I just read a LCA placing aquaponic tilapia on par with pork and chicken for global warming potential.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 13:02

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Fojar38 posted:

I, too, believe vague reports from government officials in an autocratic state.

What, if anything, could China realistically do to persuade you that they're serious about environmental cleanup?

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 20:31

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Fojar38 posted:

Allow growth to tank to the degree that would actually be required to make a dent in industrial pollution instead of trying to sell the fantasy of both 6.8% growth and massive drops in pollution.

And what degree is that? Give us the largest percent growth that would convince you, so we can watch you backpedal if it happens.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 20:59

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Fojar38 posted:

Any number I provide would be arbitrary. It would depend on how fast it happens and China's pollution statistics from non-government sources, and how much debt is still being pumped into the Chinese economy at the time.

So a function of the rate of change of percent GDP growth, the change in emissions (from which non-government sources?), and debt. What is that function, please?

Because I don't think you have one and the only action which would convince you is "China stops being a communist nation".

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 21:41

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Mozi posted:

There is a difference between preventing famine and allowing for exponential population growth.

In an ideal world where developed countries were happy to share their abundance with developing ones, sure. Otherwise, not so much.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2017 18:09

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Minge Binge posted:

Thug lessons is so loving liberal he literally can't comprehend a world where we reduce consumption.

Okay, reduce your consumption by 20% of whatever it is now.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2017 04:06

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

GreyjoyBastard posted:

that said I'm curious about what happens, in carbon sink terms, if a human imbibes ethanol produced from CO2

does it get reemitted as a gas? does waste processing or whatnot turn it into a gas?

Humans can metabolize ethanol.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2017 03:58

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Conspiratiorist posted:

Counterpoint:
https://twitter.com/MattOswaltVA/status/903834627768324096/photo/1

I have yet to eat a veggie burger that tastes even remotely like the real thing. Just covering the patty in artificial smoke flavor doesn't fool anyone.

There's a little vegan restaurant in downtown KC that offers dried, shredded, and spiced jackfruit as a meat substitute, cheese made from cashew cream, and a mayo/sauce substitute that I think involved cucumber. I quite liked their sandwiches, but never for a second thought "this tastes just like beef/chicken/fish" or whatever meat their menu claimed a given sandwich was a substitute for.

If someone's primary objection to veggie "meats" is "I want it to taste like the thing it's supposed to replace", they still have a valid point.

However, there are vat-grown meats that are still working on becoming commercially viable. Hopefully, we'll see those get subsidized and start coming to market within a few years. Maybe we should start stigmatizing vat meats as something only poor people would eat, so anyone who primarily votes to spite the poor/minorities will support initiatives to make it more affordable than "regular" meat.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2017 01:38

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Shady Amish Terror posted:

...so I appreciate the occasional discussion of actual articles in here, but is there a newsfeed on anthropogenic climate change I can follow so I can avoid the endless pages upon pages of different people arguing that I should give up on everything forever but in different ways for different reasons? I get that part already, the minutiae of whether I should give up trying to understand things because all the models are broken or that I should give up trying to change my consumption habits because that has minimal effect or that I should give up on politics because I have no personal ability to destroy capitalism or that I should give up on discussion because no one argues in good faith or that I should give up on humanity because we all deserve to die, all of that seems kind of academic at this point.

I get that what's coming is bad. I get that no one knows exactly how bad. That much has been made very abundantly clear, at least.

If you put Rime and a few shitposters who sporadically visit the thread (of which white sauce is the latest) on ignore, that pretty much prunes out the majority of the "it's hopeless" posts.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2018 07:44

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Grouchio posted:

Is it that hard to get a clear answer or am I being laughed at?

What exactly is the question? Unless we work out a way to break some important laws of physics, we're never leaving the solar system. Out of all the planets and moons within our solar system, only one is substantially Earth-like... and it happens to be the one we already live on. If we can't manage to fix this planet, there's no reason to expect that we'll be able to radically transform another celestial body to make it more habitable than Earth.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2018 07:23

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Grouchio posted:

This sounds like the stupidest climate change solution I have ever heard.

No, it's just the person you're quoting. Rime lives in a fantasy world where nothing except draconian laws will reduce human population, even though we're already below replacement rate in pretty much every country with a decent standard of living.

Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Jan 10, 2018

# ¿ Jan 10, 2018 07:53

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

ChairMaster posted:

Assuming that the world maintains the ability to feed all the people on it (hahahaha),

Red text earned, I guess. Feeding people for the foreseeable future is and will remain a political problem. You can pick up a used copy of Limits to Growth (3rd Ed) pretty cheaply and should probably do so.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2018 04:57

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Hopefully, the increased water usage they're seeing is people stockpiling water.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2018 19:51

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Cingulate posted:

fishmech explained

I found your problem.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2018 03:32

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Unormal posted:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/958444765535666177

I've been trying to find decent information on how long they expect local aquifer systems to be able to keep up with demand, but not having much luck. Just a news article from a few weeks ago where a consulting group determined the capacity was at least 150 million L/day. That would be about 50% more than the metro area needs if they're rationing at 25 L/capita-day.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2018 07:25

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Perry Mason Jar posted:

I'm folding in my belief that we will not do enough to slow (and then stop, as is required) emissions to stop the trends that, by your own admission, will lead to extinction. I'm also folding in my belief that we will not be able to geo-engineer our way out of the problem like the Marshall Plan mentioned therein, and every other extinction-precluding model, necessitates.

Is there any reason at all that anyone else should give a flying gently caress what you believe if you don't have any evidential basis for it?

# ¿ Feb 21, 2018 00:18

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Senor P. posted:

Let's blame them for everything, and you know not hold our selves responsible for our own consumption or inaction.

Was anyone actually saying that blame is either 100% the fault of one entity or 100% the fault of "everyone" or did you come to that conclusion yourself?

# ¿ Mar 17, 2018 00:33

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Senor P. posted:

So are you saying capitalism and consumption is not to blame?

I'm not sure how you would even get that from my post, given that I explicitly called you out for saying that blame could be 100% assigned to one end of the spectrum or the other.

quote:

So again screaming "Exxon hid the facts." I would have called people stupid for believing them in the first place.

Being stupid isn't a crime, which is probably a good thing for you. Deliberately misleading the public is.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2018 07:54

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Minge Binge posted:

I have a feeling that Senor P. is STEM that works in some way for resource extraction. These arguments are often used by nervous fucks trying to defend their opulent lifestyle that's been built on the destruction of the biosphere.

I follow the engineering thread in A/T:B,F,C (I complete my bachelors in environmental engineering in about 2 months) where he also posts. He's a Mech E that's worked overseas in Africa and recently posted about possibly working for Saudi firms, so you're almost certainly correct.

He's not a total poo poo, like He Who Shall Not Be Named, though: when it was pointed out to him that work in Saudi Arabia meant he'd probably be involved with work crews that blurred the lines between wage slavery and literal slavery, he appeared to back off from the idea. The guy who got triggered by the replies to him was pretty funny, though.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2018 22:40

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

froglet posted:

Yeah I'm just consumed with despair at this point.

I don't want to die, but I don't want to live, either. It's all so patently unfair, that the decisions were made before anyone who had to live extended periods with the consequences got to have a say.

Yeah, I've said that recently. I want to do something but this problem is so huge and all-encompassing it's not like there's much that can be done, especially by random internet people with no real skills or qualifications.

Good news! Your natural lifespan won't be long enough to see the really bad stuff come to pass anyway.

That said, starting small is what you do. Start a recycling program at work. Join (or start) a local conservation group. Eat less meat. Encourage people looking to have kids to consider adoption. Maybe run for city council (or whatever the equivalent is down under). By doing these things, you're adding fuel to the zeitgeist of environmental awareness and action.

Or keep wringing your hands and feeling like poo poo. That's cool, too.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2018 09:42

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

call to action posted:

And here we are, with 80-ish years of BAU being about the limit for organized human civilization.

Cite sources or gently caress off, please.

e: VVV You, too.

Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Mar 30, 2018

# ¿ Mar 30, 2018 05:42

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

the h in GWh is "per hour" of course the yearly one is much higher, it's like 8766 times higher!

GWh != GW/h

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 20:51

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Cingulate posted:

what's left is hoping Elon Musk invents American Bald Eagle-shaped solar cells hand-assembled by red-blooded Texans within the next 3 years?

Incentivize green manufacturing plants in traditionally conservative areas with high unemployment? That's not a terrible idea.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2018 14:33

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

If you're not volunteering to be one of the slain, perhaps you should rethink your metric for "best".

If you are volunteering, there's a way for you to both reduce your emissions earlier than that and to lower the number of people that need to be killed by this hypothetical bioweapon.

Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 15:27 on May 2, 2018

# ¿ May 2, 2018 15:24

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

VideoGameVet posted:

There is this thing called storage and as I claimed, much of the cost of nuke/coal/gas is externalized to the public in the form of taxes and fees to clean up and treat the outcomes (like building sea walls eventually).

You probably should have read the linked wikipedia article.

# ¿ May 7, 2018 20:38

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

RealTalk posted:

Oh poo poo, really?! The Southern Poverty Law Center?

I'm so sorry I didn't dutifully ask the SPLC's permission before reading an unapproved source. What, pray tell, does the SPLC say about the Mises Institute?

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd surmise they're probably a bunch of white supremacist, neo-confederate racists, anti-semites, homophobes, people who don't brush their teeth, who smell bad and routinely jaywalk.

Am I in the ballpark?

Libertarian zealots have a thread they're not allowed to post outside of:
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3636681

Try arguing with folks there.

# ¿ May 21, 2018 00:15

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

self unaware posted:

Alright but just saying "It has intrinsic value" doesn't mean anything. Why is the question people are looking for you to answer.

Two bears, one is about to attack a deer, one is about to attack a human being. You have one bullet. Which one do you shoot?

Don't goonsay about your aiming ability or whatever. This is an allegory about intrinsic value.

Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 23:47 on May 29, 2018

# ¿ May 29, 2018 23:45

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

self unaware posted:

Depends on the person

I mean, I agree that human lives have more worth than deer lives. But it's not because humans are intrinsically more valuable than deer, it's because humans are just more valuable than deer period (unless they are dead, in which case the deer offers more value probably since you can eat it).

More valuable as decided by who?

I suspect you don't understand what "intrinsic" means in the context in which Cingulate is using it.

call to action posted:

gently caress your retarded allegories and gently caress your stupid rear end kids that will only ever be worthwhile to someone else as a consumer and advertising absorber

Lecture to us some more as you wear your Bangladeshi child made T-shirt about how every child deserves a good life

I don't normally see your posts, but it turns out they show up when I'm replying. You're a worthless shitposter and can go gently caress yourself.

# ¿ May 29, 2018 23:54

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

self unaware posted:

As decided by whomever the person is. My reason for valuing human lives has nothing to do with "intrinsic" value and everything to do with the practical value.

But yes, the problem is that I don't understand the definition of intrinsic and not that you and a bunch of other lazy thinkers can't think of a reason outside "it just is!" for why humans could be more valuable than an ant or a deer

You don't know the person and don't know the deer. What practical value are you assigning to the human's life over the deer's?

e:

self unaware posted:

Like hell, you can even use the word intrinsic. The question is still "why does this have intrinsic value" (which can be answered, despite your protests and stupid allegories)

This right here indicates that you don't understand what "intrinsic" means.

# ¿ May 30, 2018 00:07

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

self unaware posted:

Option two is actually the correct one if you take "intrinsic" to mean "for no reason". Spoiler alert, it doesn't and you're just lazily avoiding answering the question of why.

You're almost as bad as the guy who tried to die on the hill of "what does 'externality' mean"

But that's not what "intrinsic" means.

I do like that you're referencing another argument where you didn't understand the terminology being used and arbitrarily declaring the other person as bad. In both cases, the problem has been you.

# ¿ May 30, 2018 00:49

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

self unaware posted:

Yeah I don't know how to tell you any more clearly than when a guy says "according to who" he's not looking for a "well, intrinsic value means it isn't decided by an authority" he's asking what the justification for the statement is. But I guess you're hell bent on not arguing in good faith and would rather dunk on the guy than answer a harmless question.

You're asking a nonsensical question if you understand the terminology.

# ¿ May 30, 2018 00:53

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

self unaware posted:

imagine how many less posts you'd have to make if you ever provided justification for whatever it is you're saying. how about some content instead of performance? what is it that I don't understand, it should be pretty simple for you to lay out. and no "would you kill a deer or a human? checkmate" does not count

the worst part is people like you only do this stupid poo poo when you're dead wrong. i'll be sitting here as a skeleton before you actually even attempt to explain whatever dumb poo poo you're trying to imply. but feel free to give an honest attempt at explaining why something being intrinsic can or cannot be justified (since that seems to be the point you're trying to make, but honestly I have no clue)

Imagine how many fewer posts everyone would have to make if you took the time to understand the terminology being used before posting at all. Neither this argument nor the previous one about externalities would have ever happened.

"Intrinsic", when used in argumentation, is the same thing as "basic", "foundational", or "core". It's a starting point and requires no justification. That's not the same thing as "unjustified", because unjustified implies that justification is a factor. Either you agree with the foundational statement(s) and discussion can proceed or you don't and there is no discussion.

Cingulate is resolving the question "should we value human lives more highly than other animal s' lives" with "let's assume 'yes'". You can agree that "yes" is an acceptable answer and move on to discussions that assume you both agree with that. You can disagree with "yes" (which covers both "no" and "maybe, but I think the question is worth discussing without assuming an answer"). By declaring the question resolved with a foundational statement, Cingulate is saying they want to proceed with discussion using that as a starting point, rather than questioning the assumption.

The silly thing is that you've already agreed with the premise, but you're not trying to move past that point. Instead you're demanding that Cingulate tell you why they agree with you. Stop being a fuckwit.

# ¿ May 30, 2018 01:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:20

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

self unaware posted:

that's called axiomatic, not intrinsic. they actually mean different things, hth

glad we could clear up your misconception

and in this case, you don't need to just say "I accept that human lives have more value than animals as an axiomatic belief" (while that's perfectly fine), it's pretty lazy an unnecessary imo. there are plenty of good reasons to think that beyond "i assume it to be true because it is core to my belief structure". you're not going to win any hearts and minds by just claiming things are because we accept that they are

No, they're the same thing. Saying something has an intrinsic quality is axiomatic.

No one is saying the argument can't be justified. What we're saying is that we don't see the point for purposes of discussion. We already agree, so why reinvent the wheel?

# ¿ May 30, 2018 01:53

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

«‹›3 »