# Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

I have to say that I'm so proud of these teens that are refusing to have kids until we fix the issue of climate change.  God speed to these brave kids that are willing to sacrifice themselves for a brighter future.

It's great to know that they will not be breeding their ignorance and blind conformity into our next generation and, hopefully, stop the belief in this sham science to leave more room for the much smarter, less gullible humans of the future that we so desperately need now.  I hope they stick to this plan for the sake of humanity.

*No future, no children: Teens refusing to have kids until there's action on climate change*

Source: here

*Story Highlights*

As teens across the globe plan to skip school Friday to protest climate change, one Canadian student is starting another protest.
18-year-old Emma Lim launched a pledge, #NoFutureNoChildren, that teens are signing to spur action on climate change.
A Canadian teen's pledge not to have children until her government takes serious action against climate change is drawing support from young people around the globe.

Emma Lim, 18, launched a climate change movement this week called "#No Future, No Children" that includes a website where other teens can take her pledge.
"I am giving up my chance of having a family because I will only have children if I know I can keep them safe," she says on her website. "It breaks my heart, but I created this pledge because I know I am not alone. ... We’ve read the science, and now we’re pleading with our government."

By Thursday afternoon more than 1,200 kids had signed on.

Jacob Diercks, 18, lives near the North Sea in Meldorf, Germany. He signed onto the pledge, saying that in his lifetime he has seen the North Sea warm considerably. He said farmers there are in trouble due to flooding and summers so hot they burn the fields.
"I see it as irresponsible to bring children into such dangers," he wrote. "Our government is doing too little to protect the climate and thus our region."

In Stockholm, Sweden, 18-year-old Isabelle Axelsson signed on.
"I am taking this pledge because I don’t want to give birth to a child that will feel the same climate anxiety and fear as I do," she wrote. "I don’t want any more children to have to face the consequences of our inaction."

Lim writes that she always imagined herself being a mother someday. She says she loves children so much she has worked as a nanny. But she is concerned about the world she would be bringing her children into.
"I want my children to see all of the beautiful things I see," she says. "I want them to go swimming in the ocean with me. I want to take them camping in the summer and for drives to see the changing leaves in the fall. I want to go sledding with them. I want to teach them how to grow a garden.
"I want my children to be free to chase their dreams, but everything will be more expensive with climate change."

Another teen, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, 16, put a youthful face on the global movement last year when she began skipping school on Fridays to stand outside the Swedish parliament holding a sign protesting inaction on climate change. She has been invited to speak around the world.

Lim's pledge comes as tens of thousands of high school students across the United States plan to skip classes Friday to attend Global Climate Strike marches calling for immediate action to end climate change. They will be part of a global protest aimed at the adults who they say are fueling the destruction of the planet.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

Holy fuck, you're seriously a climate change denier?  Are you a flat Earther and anti-vaxxer too?

The education system in this country certainly did you no favors.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Holy fuck, you're seriously a climate change denier? Are you a flat Earther and anti-vaxxer too?
> 
> The education system in this country certainly did you no favors.



Uh, no, I believe in actual science.  Not the fake science of some disgraced ex-vice president that couldn't even beat GWB in a presidential election.  Next, you'll tell me he was being totally serial and that man-bear-pig is real but nobody believes him.

When 99% of climate scientists say that something is bogus, I tend to believe them over the 1% with an agenda.

I should illustrate my point further.  The fact of climate having the tendency to change is real, but man-made climate change that consists of "global warming" and will destroy the planet in 8-12 years is fake as hell.  We may have another ice age in a couple hundred million years, but nothing catastrophic until then.


----------



## qqq1 (Sep 20, 2019)

Haha! What a joke. Check back in a few years and I'll bet quite a few of these people will have had happy little accidents.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Holy fuck, you're seriously a climate change denier?  Are you a flat Earther and anti-vaxxer too?
> 
> The education system in this country certainly did you no favors.


I don't deny climate change at all but I also agree with OP that this is pretty stupid. Protesting and/or refusing to have kids because of climate change is pointless and absurd


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> When 99% of climate scientists say that something is bogus, I tend to believe them over the 1% with an agenda.


Ohh, so you've got dyslexia.  See you read that backwards, about 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.  3% or less are studies funded by oil companies and others with a vested interest in denying the science.


----------



## Chary (Sep 20, 2019)

I’m all for fixing issues with the world, especially environmental ones. And I’m all for protests to bring attention to it. 

But this is...a...very odd “ultimatum” they’re trying to use as the headline of their protest.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Ohh, so you've got dyslexia.  See you read that backwards, about 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.  3% or less are studies funded by oil companies and others with a vested interest in denying the science.



You missed this -  "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of *actively publishing* climate scientists agree"

You also forgot the "*".

*_Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are *explained by a hypothesis* (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be *tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved)*.
_
This is just junk science that some liberal posted as a joke on the NASA website.

Plus I added an edit to my previous reply: 
I should illustrate my point further. The fact of climate having the tendency to change is real, but man-made climate change that consists of "global warming" and will destroy the planet in 8-12 years is fake as hell. We may have another ice age in a couple hundred million years, but nothing catastrophic until then.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

DarkFlare69 said:


> I don't deny climate change at all but I also agree with OP that this is pretty stupid. Protesting and/or refusing to have kids because of climate change is pointless and absurd


I agree that it probably isn't the most effective way of forcing politicians to act on climate change, but really there is no effective means of accomplishing that short of a nationwide general strike.



morvoran said:


> _Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are *explained by a hypothesis* (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be *tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved)*._


Is this seriously the first time you've read a brief explanation on how the scientific method works?  Like I said, the education system did you no favors.



morvoran said:


> This is just junk science that some liberal posted as a joke on the NASA website.


Holy fuck that's the dumbest thing you've ever said, and the bar was already really low.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 20, 2019)

Looks like they wont be able find someone to fill the role of MTV's Teen Mom now


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I should illustrate my point further. The fact of climate having the tendency to change is real, but man-made climate change that consists of "global warming" and will destroy the planet in 8-12 years is fake as hell.


Per the link I already provided, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, and The Geological Society of America all state that the climate change we're seeing now is largely man-made.  Anybody with half a brain is going to believe the consensus of all these institutions over the opinion of one random moron on the internet.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I agree that it probably isn't the most effective way of forcing politicians to act on climate change, but really there is no effective means of accomplishing that short of a nationwide general strike.
> 
> 
> Is this seriously the first time you've read a brief explanation on how the scientific method works?  Like I said, the education system did you no favors.


Oh it's not the education system, at least I don't think it is. At the school I go to it's been talked about a shit ton. Then again, it could be just the education system and I got very lucky.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Oh it's not the education system, at least I don't think it is. At the school I go to it's been talked about a shit ton. Then again, it could be just the education system and I got very lucky.


It could be that morvoran went to an ass-backwards evangelical Christian school, or perhaps his only education was making moonshine with his redneck dad at home.  In any case, I'd have a bit more sympathy and patience if he wasn't making the deliberate decision to stay ignorant on so many topics for life.


----------



## 3DPiper (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Ohh, so you've got dyslexia.  See you read that backwards, about 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.  3% or less are studies funded by oil companies and others with a vested interest in denying the science.



Uh, no..

Check this link please:

http://humansarefree.com/2019/08/historical-climatologist-dr-tim-ball-on.html

Or better yet, listen to Dr. Ball himself in this interview (just happened today!) at 1:28:00:

https://omny.fm/shows/the-glenn-bec...climate-sins-guests-dr-frank-tian-xie?t=88m7s


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

3DPiper said:


> Uh, no..
> 
> Check this link please:
> 
> ...


There are nutjobs willing to call anything and everything a conspiracy nowadays, especially if it makes them a quick buck in the process.  This website looks like nothing more than politically biased clickbaity garbage, it's not exactly a source on par with NASA's scientific community.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It could be that morvoran went to an ass-backwards evangelical Christian school, or perhaps his only education was making moonshine with his redneck dad at home.  In any case, I'd have a bit more sympathy and patience if he wasn't making the deliberate decision to stay ignorant on so many topics for life.


See there?  I try to be nice and let you think you won an argument which causes you to get an inflated head, and ego, causing you to start with the personal attacks. Just like a leftist.  Shame!
Good thing somebody came through and slammed your bs for me while I was gone.

Oh, by the way, if we are going to suffer from a catastrophic event in the next 8-12 years and the oceans are going to rise, why did the Obummers just spend millions on beachfront property that, according to these wack-o predictions, will be under water in the next several years? Seems like your ex-leader, who almost single handedly destroyed the US during his term, is a climate change denier also, huh?  I wonder if his daughter's are taking this "no kids" pledge as well.  God, I hope so.

Oh, and don't get me started on patience.  Wow, I can't believe you said that.  You sure are sympathetic, just minus the "sym".


----------



## Mythical (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> See there?  I try to be nice and let you think you won an argument which causes you to get an inflated head, and ego, causing you to start with the personal attacks. Just like a leftist.  Shame!
> Good thing somebody came through and slammed your bs for me while I was gone.
> 
> Oh, by the way, if we are going to suffer from a catastrophic event in the next 8-12 years and the oceans are going to rise, why did the Obummers just spend millions on beachfront property that, according to these wack-o predictions, will be under water in the next several years? Seems like your ex-leader, who almost single handedly destroyed the US during his term, is a climate change denier also, huh?  I wonder if his daughter's are taking this "no kids" pledge as well.  God, I hope so.
> ...


What you're describing is nothing of leftist or rightist. It's a personaly quality you see in them. Nothing to do with politics. Grouping either side in such ways detracts from real discussion about politics,
one person's decisions don't reflect the world's and
in this case wouldn't it be your ex-leader as well?
-edited for grammar


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> See there? I try to be nice and let you think you won an argument


There is no "argument" here, there's the consensus of the worldwide scientific community, and then there's your dumbshit uninformed opinion which you formed while huffing paint and watching Tucker Carlson.  The rest of the world does not view climate change as a politically divisive issue.  That's exclusively a hill that lead-poisoned American conservatives want to die on.  Thankfully most of them are obese geriatrics, so die they shall, sooner rather than later.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2019)

Hey, here's a way to tell if climate change is real. Is the highs and lows where you live and the amount of severe weather been occurring more often and getting worse and worse each year? Then you may have climate change. Or you can just check data if you don't want that, reputable data please.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Holy fuck that's the dumbest thing you've ever said, and the bar was already really low.


I'm glad people are willing to keep up with his nonsense. He is clearly nitpicking information and being willfully ignorant, if not just straight up trolling, to fit a narrative with all these threads he has been making. Idk how you do it.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 20, 2019)

@morvoran Looks like all the liberals are teaming up on you. I guess you're going to have to make 20 more threads to expose their evil.


----------



## DKB (Sep 20, 2019)

This thread shows me that the cancer known as the human race needs to be wiped off this planet already, me, included. We need to be burned away with magnifying glass, also known as a _civilization-ending_ comet.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 20, 2019)

DKB said:


> This thread shows me that the cancer known as the human race needs to be wiped off this planet already, me, included. We need to be burned away with magnifying glass, also known as a _civilization-ending_ comet.


No need to be so dramatic


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 20, 2019)

Funny yet also sad that the primary concern of many Swedes is a climate change hoax rather than being systematically raped, murdered and replaced by an infinite influx of migrants who will never adhere to this particular line of nonsense.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Sep 20, 2019)

Okay now its clear you're just a fucking troll. Seriously why aren't you banned yet?


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

Thats actually interesting but from a different angle. The current popular climate action initiative more or less originated in Germany and the scandinavian countries.

We in germany had the exact same 'scandal' around a women teacher pledging the exact same (https://www.spiegel.de/karriere/ver...ifest-gegen-das-kinder-kriegen-a-1256963.html), causing a slew of articles about if this can be proper - having the mainstream side on - no, not really, but having this notion of 'there is something to it' still around.

Mathematically the argument is sound:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

Statistically - European countries will loose 30% of their residents within the next half century (but not because of this, but because of long term trends, and urbanization). (Keep your conspiracy theories at bay.)

But the most interesting angle is, that this is now happening again in the US:

Saving grace for rightwing folks.
- Mainstream in Gemany decided - no, thats certainly not the solution
- Climate debate in the US is, far, far less pronounced than in germany or the scandinavian countries

(Which hurts our long term interests and those of China most. I have still to figure out how exactly (despite from cracking the isolationist american trend - but stuff like this speaks a clear language: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/s...ordern-schaerferen-klimaschutz-a-1287462.html (German - coalition out of 515 finantial actiors (thats the minority of financial investors in terms of capital) including Deutschebank and Allianz insurance group, signs demands to pivot towards the 1.5°C goal. This comes in the week before the UN climate summit in NY. All of them together hold investment capital of 10 times the GDP of germany. Which still is the minority.)

Their argument for why they are doing it, follows this explanation:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-bank-of-canada-financial-system-review-1.5137625

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The whole thing (popular movement), as far as I can tell is mostly there to get the public 'engaged in it' so that they will take carbon prices (carbon taxes, or carbon fees), which are part of the agreements that followed the paris climate accord, that the US officially left (but some of your states still follow conceptually).

edit: Other things you can do to 'safe the climate' on the individual level is to reduce meat consumption by 2/3s (vegan is better than vegetarian, but low meet consumption is sometimes better than vegetarian (on less resource intensive meat) - because vegetarians need cows for milk products), and cut fuel intensive stuff like flying. And what actions the state can take (apart from cutting economic growth)  depend on the individual state - because of value add calculations (so what you can do without ruining your economy). In germany thats mostly to invest in thermal retrofiting housing projects, and reduce individual traffic emissions..

Moonshot initiatives in green new tech arent likely in europe - so from my perspective, the entire popular movement is mostly there to explain to millenials, why they should do nothing about becoming a lost generation (no economic growth during the most important years of their life). I'm not in favor of this. Although there are reasons for why it (recessions (or in the US - cutting growth) and decoupling economies from the growth paradigm) arguably has to be done now.

Also - there is a UN movement to pledge nations to be carbon free by 2050. Which will be discussed at the NY summit, but as far as top level sources have said two weeks ago - europe is not ready to pledge to do it as a whole, although we will be maybe next year.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 20, 2019)

The reality is that i dont see humanity going past 2050.
Lets keep pumping shit into the air cuz it triggers the libs

the whole nothing is wrong with our current world, lets not even try to reduce our footprint is a form of sad self low expectation.



SG854 said:


> @morvoran Looks like all the liberals are teaming up on you. I guess you're going to have to make 20 more threads to expose their evil.



HE TOOK YOUR JOB SG854. YOU HAD 1 JOB!!!



Chary said:


> I’m all for fixing issues with the world, especially environmental ones. And I’m all for protests to bring attention to it.
> 
> But this is...a...very odd “ultimatum” they’re trying to use as the headline of their protest.



and you, thank you for existing and reminding me that conservatives can be sane well thought out individuals.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

Read my posting, I'm informed. 

This is my jam.  (Because there is a part of me that hates it.  )

Western countries (europe especially) will be least affected by direct effects from climate change, but the indirect effects (like migration or economic impact) are kind of killer.

'Life as they know it' for the kids protesting (in Europe, in the US) will hardly change in the next 100 years. (From direct climate effects.) But thats not so much the point. The point is, that changes  have to be layered in now, or the rate of change later (in 100 years at lets say 4°C warming trajectory) will be too much to handle.

US disagrees officially, but thats the Trump administration..


----------



## SG854 (Sep 20, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> The reality is that i dont see humanity going past 2050.
> Lets keep pumping shit into the air cuz it triggers the libs
> 
> the whole nothing is wrong with our current world, lets not even try to reduce our footprint is a form of sad self low expectation.
> ...


I guess I'm going to have to make a thread called "The Liberal Agenda: Who What When Where Why and How"


I never got as much hate as this morvoran guy. I hardly get called idiot or retard, unlike this morvoran specimen. So this guy is on some other planet.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 20, 2019)

well, i am pretty sure he is just outright trolling at this point but who knows.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I guess I'm going to have to make a thread called "The Liberal Agenda: Who What When Where Why and How"


Or call it the insurance companies agenda, because they are also on the forefront of it.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 20, 2019)

I kinda think he's genuine, a little bit. But this guy is becoming obsessive. Too many threads. I bet you he's like "yes this will show dem liberals that'll show that Xzi guy a hyuck."


----------



## matthi321 (Sep 20, 2019)

fine with me, i would rather have an robot to wipe my ass when i get older anyway


----------



## J-Machine (Sep 20, 2019)

during a time when we are going to struggle with replacing the workforce in the near immediate future a protest movement like this would actually hurt the economy a lot. not saying it's going to work but if it ever picked up enough steam we'd need to really double down on immigration and actively recruit from poorer nations to take thier skilled labour or migrant workers and automation will take hold at an accellerated pace which would really hurt a countries buying power.

Still a crazy idea I won't deny that.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

Its not an actual protest movement. Its like - rebel, rebel on the flags, but then compatible to 6 out of 7 of our political parties - because the gist of it is a UN program on sustainable development. Its like - 'do something' (what exactly we dont care about), the movement.

Which means - at this point in time - people are convincing themselves of a new need/principal.

Also in Europe the near future working population until now (lets see what happens until the 27th - where the next big protest rally internationally is announced) isn't a substantial part of it. So its mostly the old folks (boomers), and the kids who want pony farms. (Transnational, liberal pony farms.  )

But old folks are whats deciding elections. (Because they have the numbers. Still.)

(Old folks - intrinsicly want millennials (of which they made fewer) or their kids to have more time for them, so they LOOOOOVE ruining the economic outlook for our generation. Because they already have money - and they can dangle that carrot in front of their kids, so they come visit more often. This is an edge opinion, but in terms of mass psychology - not wrong. Also they want to act as if they werent the baddies who caused that mess (by not acting - when they got the info, right around the year 2000ish), and now want to do nothing about it except pretend. (If growth slows down - economic inequality will rise, and standards of living will fall.))) Pretend - because they still don't produce Moonshot projects - or more equality (in a time where inequality will rise).

They - because in europe they have the money we want to 'restructure' society in the energy transformation to renewable energy sources. Collectively.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Sep 20, 2019)

DarkFlare69 said:


> I don't deny climate change at all but I also agree with OP that this is pretty stupid. Protesting and/or refusing to have kids because of climate change is pointless and absurd



Mass disruption and action is only way significant change has ever been achieved.


----------



## erikas (Sep 20, 2019)

Regardless of whether climate change is real or not, all talks about it in the west have offered no actual solutions and are only used in order to push socialism. The thing that proves this is that in every factor that contributes to it, USA and Europe have the smallest contributions of all the world. The green new deal is just about creating a socialist country, and China, which is already socialist, gets no mention in these discussions, even though it causes much more pollution (also "per capita" is a meaningless statistic if you're trying to solve a problem rather than virtue signaling).


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

erikas said:


> Regardless of whether climate change is real or not, all talks about it in the west have offered no actual solutions and are only used in order to push socialism.


Well - that is wrong. The first part.

On the second first.  They are only there to push socialism. Well - on some level - yes. Because here is the deal. The climate - kind of is global. So you cant safe it in one, or three of five countries. You need the G7 (top 7) at least. So yes - this is something that brings all nations onto one table again. Saying that America also has responsibility for Africa and such.

On the first part - no, they are solving it. They are just not solving it fast enough for it to have no impact on western societies.

So the way thats phrased in the prediction papers is, that -- middle class will have to lower their "growth expectation" -- to generate more time. Which is where the popular movement comes in.

So we 'can't just technologically 'innovate'' ourselves out of it.
-

If you are looking for 'one step solutions' - you are out of luck. Geoengineering the sun away (dust in the atmosphere) is messy, because wind (and suddenly you have an international incident with another country), and sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere by any other means than planting trees and then not burning them again - is very costly. Today.

So burn less oil. And until we are there to replace that with other technology, curb demand at the expense of middle classes (and the poor). Because the rich dont spend so much on heating.

In the short term also - eat less meat, because methane (cow digestive gas) is a much more potent climate gas. But it stays in the atmosphere shorter. So - if you kill all cows - which we can do (its just that ... food production), the methane problem is solvable. CO2 is the harder problem, because it adds up over time, and its hard to get it out of the atmosphere.

And if you dont believe in that. There is always peak oil. 

And growth curves on that oil stuff - kind of look like that:


----------



## erikas (Sep 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> Well - that is wrong. The first part.
> 
> On the second first.  They are only there to push socialism. Well - on some level - yes. Because here is the deal. The climate - kind of is global. So you cant safe it in one, or three of five countries. You need the G8 (top 8) at least. So yes - this is something that brings all nation onto one table again. Saying that America also has responsibility for Afrika and such.
> 
> ...


1. I don't think you understand what socialism is.
2. Why is America responsible for Africa? Why not the other way around? Africa is not exactly "green".
3. There is a solution, it's called nuclear power. No further innovation necessary on this point. Just implementation. Gas and diesel cars will be replaced by electric ones in the not so distant future, but i do not plan to get one before i can actually afford it.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

erikas said:


> 1. I don't think you understand what socialism is.


1. I simplified immensly. You having responsibility for others by not following (current) market logic. This thread cant also hold a debate - where we try to explain to americans, that socialism (with a market attached to it still), has far, far less of a bad wrap in europe (and about a third of the world - because thats what we have).

2. Why is America responsble for Africa. The climate logic goes - because it is responsble for climate - as one of the top polluters. So no small nations vs nations argument - but the big, simple one.  Africa then factors in, because its cheaper to solve the problem there (f.e. plant trees to extend time tables).

Now here is the deal. If America shuts itself off, and does nothing. Because of geographical and energy needs considerations. America also can coast it out the longest. (No real impact for your generation economically f.e.)

But then as the issue doesnt go away - when America comes out of this phase in lets say 50-70 years - depending on what everyone else did - its almost impossible to engineer the problem away then. (As far as we know now.)

Also - another reason why you have to have everyone do it at once 'logically' is that we are introducing 'another cost factor'. So if only 6 out of the G7 countries do it (to still 'safe the climate'), then the one that doesnt will profit so immensely, that.... Everyone will hate them. 

Now - since this also is 'design' we have to make sure that countries will contribute to it voluntarily - since we could literally dial in 'the next winner' here at the debating table, if we force it. (And if we dont resort to war.) Thats why its important that everyone comes to the table voluntarily.

Logically its all flashed out.  Its sound. But then - people dont like 'technocratic' solutions. So now you have them discover the problem on their own. If the popular movement takes off in the US you'll have a hippie revival for a while - how does that sound to you.. 

(I'm still not sure, that I like that too much... I'm on the side of the still have as much short term growth as possible without messing it up camp, because - my agegroup would profit most from it economically.)


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

If you take socialism literally. No, because the kids in the climate movement are actually mixed. There are 'communists' among them as well (right wing talking point ) - but it actually started with children of parents in rich 'globalism friendly' neighborhoods (Bobos - „bourgeois bohémiens" (Conservatives in jeans)), or simply put 'winners of globalization'.

So they arent for cutting markets out. 

Right wing media then says - but the communists will take over. Apparently (saw one video.. ) but thats not likely. 'Communitsts' also like it from the globalist perspective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International roughly).


----------



## spotanjo3 (Sep 20, 2019)

Haha. You can't change the global warming at all but you can slow it down with improvement technology and reduced pollution.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Haha. You can't change the global warming at all but you can slow it down with improvement technology and reduced pollution.


Which is the same.  Also at one point you might become so good at sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere with 'some future tech', that you can entirely stabilize.

People are trying to stabilize something there.

The positive argument around it is 'you are saving the planet', the negative arguments around it are

- food security
- migration
- water shortages
- more natural disasters (if water warmer, more water in air)

At first - mostly not in western countries.

And that you are dealing with exponential curves - so 'tipping points' so - if you wait too long to do something, problem becomes far worse.

Its the same as when we saved the banks.  Hurray! (*grr*)

But we are only, and always arguing about when, and how much (cost (money) involved.).

Again insurance companies are also on the forefront of the movement.. 

Private investment firms are not - because they are invested in growth in other economies as well. So - they still profit for a while in growth in china or india. F.e.

Oh yes - and China will overtake the west in terms of economic imporance in a few years. And india and others are still on a growth spurt. Using old tech (carbon rich) to catch up. So that has to be balanced as well. Fun.

(America, China and India are responsible for more than half of the worlds CO2 emissions.

Germany is 2.3%, Europe combined at around 10% )

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also if you look at f.e. migration pressure, Europe suddenly has much more of an issue with it than the US f.e. - short term.

But again, exponential warming curves mean, that we would have to act earlier, because its far, far easier. (But still will cost millennials.)

Now you see interests colliding. (How fast..  )


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

MythicalData said:


> What you're describing is nothing of leftist or rightist. It's a personaly quality you see in them. Nothing to do with politics.


  I was describing how leftists such as @Xzi  use hatred and insults as arguments and always resort to them after thinking they proved some insanely false point.



Xzi said:


> which you formed while huffing paint and watching Tucker Carlson


 It's like you have a mirror into my life.....  stop bringing up my bad habits.



KingVamp said:


> I'm glad people are willing to keep up with his nonsense.


  So Truth/facts = nonsense..... oh, got it.  You definitely are a leftie.  Keep spreading your hate and lies, but just know that the hot air you're blowing is causing global warming.



WD_GASTER2 said:


> well, i am pretty sure he is just outright trolling at this point but who knows.


 Look at me, I'm posting the truth about liberals/leftist proving how ridiculous they are and hurting your emotions.  Oh, I'm such a troll!!!!!  Yeah, try coming up with a new line such as, oh i don't know..... something that isn't leftist hate.  Try actually adding something to the conversation other than your yokel nonsense.




SG854 said:


> @morvoran Looks like all the liberals are teaming up on you. I guess you're going to have to make 20 more threads to expose their evil.





SG854 said:


> I never got as much hate as this morvoran guy. I hardly get called idiot or retard, unlike this morvoran specimen. So this guy is on some other planet.





SG854 said:


> I kinda think he's genuine, a little bit. But this guy is becoming obsessive. Too many threads. I bet you he's like "yes this will show dem liberals that'll show that Xzi guy a hyuck."


 It doesn't bother me that these libtards are attacking me.  Being a logical person, I don't think of speech as assault.  I wouldn't even call it attacking me as it is more like throwing a hissy fit like special needs children.  I know they are only capable of spreading hate, lunacy, and outright lies when their leaders' agendas are exposed or just don't have the intelligence level to come up with their own valid argument. 
"Too many threads" is an opinion and you're allowed to think that, but I only create about 1 thread a week unless I see a story that I feel must be shared, then I might post 2.  I wouldn't post so much if there wasn't so much content available. 
These people here "attacking me" have only heard/read the lies about the Democrat policies that have blinded them to their actual agenda, and I'm only exposing the truth which is not something these people have been shielded from to keep them on the Democrat plantation.  They just don't know how to handle the truth other than reverting back to their most basic animal instincts of flight or fight.

Plus, come on, people!!!  First, liberals came up with the idea to go on a sex strike to keep having abortions.  Now, they're not having kids to fight climate change?  Then, I'm called a troll?  Give me a break!!
The climate is always changing on its own without the help of human intervention.  This whole idea of some catastrophic event happening soon is just pure idiocy.  Regardless, these kids will not follow through, but if they did, I say good riddance as we don't need them to continue to infect our gene pool.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

"But those liberals are attacking me..."

And I'm out.

"Stupid is, what stupid does."
"But I'm not stupid"
"Ok maybe, maybe you just need more info..."
"Yeah, but climate is always changing on its own and the liberals are attacking me for..."

Yes climate is always changing on its own (part of that also is human made) - and now it becomes an issue.

Because of
- food security
- migration
- water shortages
- more natural disasters (if water warmer, more water in air)

Says the UN.
Says 515 financial investors.
Says a mass movement in - well mostly europe.
Says china (but they are top dog at producing new green energy tech that scales at the moment (solar))

But it always changes on its own - so why should I have to learn...

You like simple - dont you? Siiiiiiiimple. And big words.

Biggly - like "Fat sex therapist really said thing". Could you imagine how this might ruin - idk - fact based, oder deeper - less emotionally (I win because I feel) like discussion?

I actually like trolls. If they troll intelligently. But this?

Well. You'll come around eventually hopefully.. 

Also you have to read. At least the references.

If you want to win thread on 'well climate always changes' *shrug* what do you bring to the table?


----------



## Searinox (Sep 20, 2019)

I think by this point we can all agree that he has demonstrated he cares about an agenda of pushing ideas and not genuine debate on topics. I believe we call this propaganda?


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

Searinox said:


> I think by this point we can all agree that he has demonstrated he cares about an agenda of pushing ideas and not genuine debate on topics. I believe we call this propaganda?



What does this have to do with teens not having babies and/or climate change?  You talk about someone "pushing agendas and not genuine debate" on topics while you spout hypocrisy by pushing your own agenda that I'm dog whistling while not even bringing anything to the debate of this thread.  Yeah, that's what I call propaganda.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Sep 20, 2019)

erikas said:


> The green new deal is just about creating a socialist country, and China, which is already socialist,



Do the workers control the means of production in China?



erikas said:


> The thing that proves this is that in every factor that contributes to it, USA and Europe have the smallest contributions of all the world.



This is objectively false. The United States has contributed more co2 to the atmosphere than any other country in history. Currently, China produces more co2 than we do, but they are also a much more populous country than we are. Per person, Americans produce more co2 than Chinese people.
Hell, the US military produces more co2 than most countries.


----------



## Reiten (Sep 20, 2019)

@morvoran As I understand from this thread and the other one about climate change, you think that the research about it is wrong or being manipulated to show that humans are the cause. This would mean that there is something like a worldwide conspiracy to keep the real research data hidden. As I can see the Chinese or Russian scientists jumping at a chance to show how incompetent the European and American scientists are.
In the other thread you wrote about the methodology of the initial climate study being wrong, do you really think that the scientists have continued to use the same methodology without verifying that it is accurate?


----------



## ghjfdtg (Sep 20, 2019)

China only produces so much Co² because WE want our shit made by them. Cheap, fast and not giving a fuck about the consequences. So we have to blame ourselves.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2019)

So basically they want people who care about the climate to die out while people who don't care about the climate continue breeding like rabbits and screwing up the planet.


----------



## 3DPiper (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There are nutjobs willing to call anything and everything a conspiracy nowadays, especially if it makes them a quick buck in the process.  This website looks like nothing more than politically biased clickbaity garbage, it's not exactly a source on par with NASA's scientific community.



Did you even read the article or listen to the Dr.?
Somehow I doubt it..

Perhaps read these two articles:

NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s solar orbit, and NOT because of SUVs and fossil fuels

Global warming or bad data?

Sorry, but I'm probably older than everyone else on here..
I lived through:
70s- global cooling will kill everyone (I was living in Florida at the time, the orange groves were freezing)
80s- acid rain will kill everyone
90s- ozone layer depletion will kill everyone
00s- global warming will kill everyone
10s- climate change will kill everyone

None of that came true.. Al Gore's 'hockey stick' was completely proven untrue, not only by Dr. Ball but just the fact that enough time has lapsed and none of it came true..
It has been much warmer than it is now, and much cooler as well.. 
I'm not saying don't be good stewards of our planet, but I am saying I don't think humans contribute to the natural climate changes.. What hubris!


----------



## smilodon (Sep 20, 2019)

Is being controversial a new fetish? Because some people here makes me belive that.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

Nuclear power as a sole solution cant scale fast enough. (Oil and coal was that 'good' of an energy source.) It will be part of the mix though. Meaning - you actually always want ho have a mix of technologies to guarantee energy production safety (as you do now). Some countries will decide against it - some wont. Thats up to them.

On a very basic level, we are introducing a 'carbon price' (another cost factor) - which might be lower for developing nations (they probably will get screwed anyhow, later..) - and then every country can decide on their own - how its getting there. But if one of the major polluters doesnt - we have a problem. The smaller ones we can 'force' wth trade negotiations, but we need alliances on the big ones - if there is a cleft , it doesnt work. Especially not in free market societies.

And even if - lets say nuclear alone would work - you couldnt scale up purely electric vehicle traffic as fast as needed.

To give you an indication. Germany has just pledged to reach 0 CO2 emissions by 2050 and 55% of that by 2030. Much of that will come from individual traffic. And its a mix of everything, so planting trees in Africa, making sure South America doesnt need to cut away its forrests at the 'ususal rate' in trade deals, going into electric car production, thermal retrofitting on houses, implementing smart grids and wind and solar power - to a larger extent and cutting back at the middle classes - with impacts on the poor as well.

(You then say, that you'll compensate the poor, but thats actually tough, if you do it at low growth to recession - because what usually happens is sector inflation in 'food products' for 1-2 years, and all of the benefits for the poor are gone again (Because you gave them out equally) and suddenly they are in the food sector. So the bulk of what you gain by a CO2 price will always come from middle classes (and industry, but you want them to use that for innovations), and the poor likely will always suffer most.)

If you would go only solar, you'd benefit China most. But solar also is the most efficient of the green energy sources currently. But then its also not so efficient in germany (sun), so in the end its always a mix.

Also germany will not use nuclear power - but that was also a democratic decision (because of dangers, and the cost that come from storing the waste).


On storing nuclear waste. There is still no designated 'final storage' area/facility in the world. Governments usually can 'freeze' dedication/purpose of a patch of land for about 100 years. Some waste compounds from nuclear energy have a half-life time of a few billion years. This is actually how the story really went. In the 50s (think Fallout  ) the entire world was more or less excited about free energy - and thought, that the waste problem would be an afterthought. So they just stored the waste next to facilities to 'concentrate' uranium. Then they found out, that that might not be such a good idea. Science to look for final storage facilities for nuclear waste was done by some oddballs, with no utterly convincing results so far. Now china also is engaged in it - so maybe. You usually look at desserts, but they also have to have the right rock layer formations, and all in all - you are making the issue bigger and bigger, for generations after yourself. So if you think that you dont have to - you try to mostly cut out nuclear, or cut it out entirely. From todays perspective. You can still have some (just make sure the problem doesnt get to big, by making it a trend basically.)

Solar is actually very efficient already. But the issue is, that you have to keep the amount of energy in the grids stable. And solar is everything but that (cloudy day...) - so you need a mix of other energy reactors you can click online, if solar goes off. And you need new forms of energy storage. (Pump water generators in the mountains arent enough, and also environment...) And you need new forms of transnational power transmission solutions ideally ('power from the dessert'), but thats then a political issue, and probably wont do..  So that has an impact on time tables (because everything isn't just viable at once), and...

Yeah. So you remove growth expectation from millennials.  in Europe. In the US, we'll have to see.


----------



## Bonehead (Sep 20, 2019)

We should burn teenagers as a fuel source.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Sep 20, 2019)

The only real solution to nuclear waste (as i see it) is packing it into rockets and goodbye but it's expensive.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

ghjfdtg said:


> The only real solution to nuclear waste (as i see it) is packing it into rockets and goodbye but it's expensive.


Rockets are fulled by...  The weight of the entire Apollo 11 missions landing module was? 



> Short answer: Stored waste in the U.S. is roughly 60,000 tons (high-level waste). Take that and multiply it by four since the U.S. has 104 of the 400+ world nuclear plants and we get 240,000 tons.


Extrapolate from that.


----------



## DBlaze (Sep 20, 2019)

lets just go back to the stone age and play with our rockstations


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

Oh and remember, if you bring back 'chinese labor' (f.e. on solar cells) to the US, you'll only do that with very high automation - so producing only few jobs. To keep cost at the current level, which factors in into energy efficiency on solar panels - which only last 30 years. Fun.  And the transport fuel you can cut isn't 100%, because you need the raw materials. Nowadays also controlled by china (on solar), mostly.  Fun.

If you leave production in china, they'll probably also automate (slower), driving cost down - raising energy efficiency. But also continue their growth path - while most of the western world isnt.

Chinese Exec types then laugh at our former german foreign minister an tell them, that they think Europe will have a few revolutions..  (Thats what helps millenials in the climate debate - because politics _knows_ that.  )

So you look at the fact, that european populations are shrinking by 30% in the next half century - and you suddenly end up with service economies, and 'virtual goods and experiences' as growth sectors for millennials. But ideally don't focus on that, because I do - and Its not fun. 

You are basically talking about virtual economies, that produce 'experiences' and highly specialized, automated work forces, that produce trade value. (Andrew Yang 2020.  Huge social/pay gaps that we then have to do something about as well. Also millenials never to be owning anything physically in their lives again. Because carbon taxes - make stuff more expensive.

So Uber! Renting! Virtual goods! ...)


----------



## DCG (Sep 20, 2019)

Yes, the climate changes, like everything in the universe it has cycles.

I know this is but one side of the coin, but still (refering to the famous 97%, and I believe the formula for global warming).




Also, flat earth is real!
https://www.tamiya.com/english/products/81752/index.htm

In all honesty, I'm not certain humans are the cause, or are only accelerating it a bit.
I also found a video once saying we're likely a cause (cause, effect wise) in a bigger picture.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

US to 515 international investors and the UN:

"Everything is cyclical man!" 

If we get people behind it. It will matter now.

Now that said. I lobbied in germany (in a small internet community that doesnt matter) against - the goals of the popular kids movement. Because they are 'lofty' and impact the economic future of my generation.

(I'm going with the technocrats.  (h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2plWBiDE8fw))

But then - most of the popular movement is just to spread the idea of a carbon price. So populations will accept it. Imho.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Sep 20, 2019)

I actually made a post not too long ago that shows their are no significant trends that suggest man made climate change. I'm glad I'm not the only one


----------



## Bullseye (Sep 20, 2019)

Lol at the comments about "sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere" together with "killing all the cows"... there's just too many fronts to counter this, but just some questions:

-What do plants use for Photosynthesis?
-What do you do with other wildlife responsible of that "bad" CO2 gas? (Wild beast, etc)
-What does phytoplankton use to feed?
-How is animal life sustained in oceans where phytoplankton lives?

Ridiculous arguments and "solutions" in this thread... Ridiculous "solution" from the teens in the OP as well. A lot of laughs with this one XD


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

Thank you for your believes.

Here is the point. If Germany and the entirety of Europe and pretty much every other nation in the entrie world, except the US, will start acting on the notion that CO2 emissions are a problem, and thereby everyone in their societies has to pay for it. And that that money will then be funneled into energy transition projects.

Will the US then still say but climate is cyclical - and we have enough oil for 50 years? So buy our products, because we dont have that cost that everyone else agreed on having.

To save the climate?

You can tackle it that way.
Or tackle it by understanding that oil is running out and that it drove entire generations conceptions that yearly growth is always at 2% or higher, and what 'progress was'
Or tackling it by understanding that if the US only enters at a 4°C target, food security for 8 billion people already will have collapsed or, ...

We are actually past 'but it isnt real, or it isnt manmade' arguments. We gave you the 95% of science agrees it is manmade warning what - 19 years ago?

Now its economic.

There is still some leeway. But even for the US your energy security only lasts 70 years. And then you will have to do it anyways. And you dont want the world in shambles by then, because you could be the last one to join. And honestly really - the last one of the developed nations.


----------



## Kraken_X (Sep 20, 2019)

Even Exxon-Mobile admits climate change is real.  When even Big Oil agrees with the scientific community, how can people keep denying it?

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy-and-environment/environmental-protection/climate-change


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

Bullseye said:


> -What do plants use for Photosynthesis?
> -What do you do with other wildlife responsible of that "bad" CO2 gas? (Wild beast, etc)
> -What does phytoplankton use to feed?
> -How is animal life sustained in oceans where phytoplankton lives?


- There are EU projects in Africa to plant vast amounts of trees to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere - and bind it. The problem is, that the amount of land, that those projects use - isnt available for typical food production. And the trees can never be burned to 'get energy' from them - otherwise the CO2 is in the atmosphere again.

// Insert CO2 doesnt break down as fast as methan on its own, it stays there for 100 years. Methan just goes away after a few years if you stop new stuff being added ('kill all the cows' (slowly - make people eat less meat)). //

If you keep trees that you plant, you can f.e. have 'nutfarms' beneath them (or other stuff), but you cant have cows. So... Also not a 'single solution' just part of the mix. There will be cows, ... less of them, and so on and so forth...

- What about wild animals - they only are about 4% of remaining living beings with a vertabrate (spine (non insects, ..)) so they dont factor in much. Human cattle accounts for 60% of them, humans for 36%.

- phytoplankton:
Same as with trees. You then cant have life in the oceans anymore (people eat fish, economies need fish) because this: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom) Trees store CO2 more effectively also - so we go with planting those.  Also we plant them where we get more 'efficieny' for the buck - so f.e. Africa - but then they have trees, and less food production (also for export) - so... still somewhat problematic.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> man-made climate change that consists of "global warming" and will destroy the planet in 8-12 years is fake as hell. We may have another ice age in a couple hundred million years, but nothing catastrophic until then.


You are probably right about that last part. What I heard is that soon however the events that have been set in motion will be irreversible. We might not live to see the harmful effects of global warming, but if our generation doesn't do something about it, it might be too late for future generations to be able to change the course of events.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2019)

Also most of it will probably be not regulated by people voluntarily or not changing their diets. Its more like, drive less, fly less, pay more for mobility - make industry pay more for putting out CO2 (but then give them the money back selectively so they can innovate in 'solutions'). Also give money back to people selectively so the dont rebel.

Because the 'rich/poor' gap will become more problematic - because rich folks could decide to just 'pay' the additional taxes and keep the old life - and poor folks are actually aided by subsidies f.e on individual mobility. You cant just say we cut those - gas prises rise, go buy electric cars. Those will not come down in cost fast enough. And even if, their energy currently still is produced largely with fossile fuels, so the green forms of energy generation arent there yet. So there will be transitioning time. For which you'll ned regulation, and public understanding.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 20, 2019)

As I said before, I don't really get climate change deniers.

accept climate change + turns out climate change was real =  better and newer tech and a safer planet to live on
accept climate change + turns out climate change was not real = better and newer tech and a safer planet to live on

There's no positives of being such a big denier except in the hope that you can say "lol I was right." Meanwhile the worse case scenario, well, is really bad.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

The Real Jdbye said:


> What I heard is that soon however the events that have been set in motion will be irreversible. We might not live to see the harmful effects of global warming, but if our generation doesn't do something about it, it might be too late for future generations to be able to change the course of events.


  The whole "irreversible" climate change is just used to induce fear in people, so they believe we have no future unless we stop using plastic straws, stop cow farts, and stop flying in planes.

It is true that the events happening that cause actual climate change are already "irreversible" due to the fact that humans have no power over the sun, the earth's revolution around the sun, or the earth's axis tilt changes.  All these factors will occur eventually, and we will be powerless to stop them.  

Man-made issues such as the "green house effect" or "fossil fuel burning" will not effect the climate enough to cause the human race to eventually end except in cases where our kids are brainwashed to the point that they agree not to have kids themselves until the climate stops changing, thus human kind may end due to our own influence.  
Carbon dioxide will never be an issue as long as we have plants, both in the ocean and on land.  More carbon dioxide means stronger plants that absorb more carbon dioxide.  Fossil fuels' effects can be controlled by better technology to increase efficiency in their use and using better filtration to decrease their damage to our air quality.  Neither will have the same impact as a random solar flare that effects our atmosphere.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The whole "irreversible" climate change is just used to induce fear in people, so they believe we have no future unless we stop using plastic straws, stop cow farts, and stop flying in planes.
> 
> It is true that the events happening that cause actual climate change are already "irreversible" due to the fact that humans have no power over the sun, the earth's revolution around the sun, or the earth's axis tilt changes.  All these factors will occur eventually, and we will be powerless to stop them.
> 
> ...


Some things, we do have power over, given enough time. We are likely screwed either way, but I'm not willing to give up yet.It's too early to say we're all doomed. Fuck anyone who tries that tactic.


----------



## 3DPiper (Sep 21, 2019)

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...ver-top-experts-expose-scam-at-freedom-confab

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

Another couple of good articles, the second one specifically talks about the Medieval Warm Period, where it was warmer than it is today.
How can that be?
Plus: with more CO2, everything flourished and thrived!
" Its effects were evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 500 km north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 m, but from about 1100 A.D. to 1300 A.D., vineyards extended up to 780 m"

Just look at the true historical facts, not predictions.

Do you really believe scientists can predict future climate?
So far every prediction has not come true

Heck, we just had a hurricane come through our area (Dorian). Every day they charted it and told us where it was going to go.
It didn't go the way they said at all! 

As  German meteorologist Klaus-Eckert Puls’s comment:

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data — first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”


----------



## morvoran (Sep 21, 2019)

3DPiper said:


> the second one specifically talks about the Medieval Warm Period, where it was warmer than it is today.
> How can that be?


  I bet you anything that these "believers" will blame it on "horse farts" since there was a lot more of them and that was the main mode of transportation back then.  That or they'll say that somehow it was Trump's fault. 

Logic doesn't suit some of these people, so they may turn their hate towards you.  I'm not saying you need to worry as they are harmless and only begin to insult people when they are shown proof their leaders have lied to them.

I'm just glad somebody else around here has good sense.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Sep 21, 2019)

I find this very ironic, because having less or no kids is supposedly one of the best ways of reducing your carbon footprint.

So as long as they keep their pants on, I guess they're succeeding?


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 21, 2019)

_Logic doesn't suit some of these people_

What a quote machine.


----------



## GhostLatte (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Holy fuck, you're seriously a climate change denier?  Are you a flat Earther and anti-vaxxer too?
> 
> The education system in this country certainly did you no favors.


Morons are going to be morons.


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 22, 2019)

GhostLatte said:


> Morons are going to be morons.


Precisely. This member is like an algorithm. Feed any info to it and you get bitter conspiracies on the other end. When will we see a creationist-thread and an including fanclub for the old sad dude in the big white building?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 22, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> As I said before, I don't really get climate change deniers.
> 
> accept climate change + turns out climate change was real =  better and newer tech and a safer planet to live on
> accept climate change + turns out climate change was not real = better and newer tech and a safer planet to live on
> ...




Like most of the 'progressive', socialist-democrat platform, the "climate change" protest is an anti-Capitalist, anti-Western Culture movement. The goal is to handicap & damage capitalism by hanging the 'climate change' stone around its neck, while polluting socialist China and southeast Asia surge unabated. Those countries are the source of all that plastic waste you hear about in the Pacific, but they outlaw plastic straws in California. Yeah, that'll fix it.

So no, I don't see it as "it's all good either way."

The crew of the sailing ship that brought Greta Thunberg across the Atlantic flew back, while another crew flew over for the return trip. Her family is commie antifa. It's all B.S. 

Oh, and Climate Change protests are what pollution looks like:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ed-hypocrites-leaving-litter-strewn-city.html

I'll start taking it more seriously when the people who are trying to tell me how to live start acting like it themselves. We had this discussion before. Turn off all your electric shit including the computer you're reading this on, and maybe I'll believe you.


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 22, 2019)

Climate Change deniers. You (dudes!) are priceless. In your tin foil hats.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 22, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Climate Change deniers. You (dudes!) are priceless. In your tin foil hats.




Sorry, can't hear you over the sound of the fossil fuels burning to generate the electricity to run the computer you're reading GBAtemp with.


And it's not so much denying climate change. Climate change is a definite reality of earth's existence. 400 years ago there was a 'little Ice Age.' The Thames River froze over so solid they put up buildings on it. What caused that? And if there's climate change in the other direction now, what's causing that? You cannot say with certainty it is caused by man. Correlation does not equal causation. Even more ridiculous is the idea that, if you are correct and we are causing this, that we could ever stop it. In terms of carbon footprint I am a grain of sand on the beach that is Al Gore & friends. 1700 private jets converge on Davos every year so the elite can 'confer' on climate change!?? Haha. When they all ride to Davos on donkeys, I'll start considering that they really believe this shit.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 22, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Like most of the 'progressive', socialist-democrat platform, the "climate change" protest is an anti-Capitalist, anti-Western Culture movement. The goal is to handicap & damage capitalism by hanging the 'climate change' stone around its neck, while polluting socialist China and southeast Asia surge unabated. Those countries are the source of all that plastic waste you hear about in the Pacific, but they outlaw plastic straws in California. Yeah, that'll fix it.
> 
> So no, I don't see it as "it's all good either way."
> 
> ...


"People and things aren't perfect and other people are doing wrong, so we shouldn't even try."



Hanafuda said:


> Sorry, can't hear you over the sound of the fossil fuels burning to generate the electricity to run the computer you're reading GBAtemp with.


Maybe we should work on getting companies and countries to move to cleaner energy so you can hear better. No wait, that's a conspiracy.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 22, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> "People and things aren't perfect and other people are doing wrong, so we shouldn't even try."



Idealism and immaturity is no way to deal with things.





KingVamp said:


> Maybe we should work on getting companies and countries to move to cleaner energy so you can hear better. No wait, that's a conspiracy.




You mean like telling American corporations who have set up facilities in China they should move their shit back home?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Sorry, can't hear you over the sound of the fossil fuels burning to generate the electricity to run the computer you're reading GBAtemp with.



You don't know where some of us are getting our electricity.
The fact that some of us are using fossil fuels to generate the electricity to visit this website with is irrelevant to whether or not human-caused climate change is a real concern. It's not hypocritical to talk about climate change while living in the modern world.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 22, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Idealism and immaturity is no way to deal with things.


Defeatism and tin foil hats is no way to deal with things either. 



Hanafuda said:


> You mean like telling American corporations who have set up facilities in China they should move their shit back home?


Not sure what you are getting at. Whether here or aboard, they should be transitioning, if not already there, to green energy.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> And it's not so much denying climate change. Climate change is a definite reality of earth's existence. 400 years ago there was a 'little Ice Age.' The Thames River froze over so solid they put up buildings on it. What caused that? And if there's climate change in the other direction now, what's causing that? You cannot say with certainty it is caused by man. Correlation does not equal causation. Even more ridiculous is the idea that, if you are correct and we are causing this, that we could ever stop it. In terms of carbon footprint I am a grain of sand on the beach that is Al Gore & friends. 1700 private jets converge on Davos every year so the elite can 'confer' on climate change!?? Haha. When they all ride to Davos on donkeys, I'll start considering that they really believe this shit.



Unfortunately, things like truth and facts are overruled by these liberal idealists' feelings of "my leaders told me differently so I don't believe your facts" and "my emotions tell me it's getting warmer outside".  If they see ice in a cup melting, they run for the hills.  
It's also unfortunate that these people trying to "save the world" would destroy a whole forest just to save one tree, but at least they did a good thing today, right?  

Good luck trying to show them the light, but until they take off their blinders, they will never see the truth.  Just as with people like @Rolf12, most would rather make jokes while the world burns around them and point fingers at you while their leaders stab them in the back.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Unfortunately, things like truth and facts are overruled by these liberal idealists' feelings of "my leaders told me differently so I don't believe your facts" and "my emotions tell me it's getting warmer outside".  If they see ice in a cup melting, they run for the hills.
> It's also unfortunate that these people trying to "save the world" would destroy a whole forest just to save one tree, but at least they did a good thing today, right?
> 
> Good luck trying to show them the light, but until they take off their blinders, they will never see the truth.  Just as with people like @Rolf12, most would rather make jokes while the world burns around them and point fingers at you while their leaders stab them in the back.


Human-caused climate change is real. The Earth is getting hotter, and it's a direct result of burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth has never seen before.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Human-caused climate change is real. The Earth is getting hotter, and it's a direct result of burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth has never seen before.


 Check this out - here

Those who promote the belief in so-called "man-made climate change" may have a meltdown of their own upon learning this.

A ship carrying 16 "climate-change warriors" looking to document purported melting ice conditions got trapped in ice last week in the Hinlopen Strait, halfway between Norway and the North Pole.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Check this out - here
> 
> Those who promote the belief in so-called "man-made climate change" may have a meltdown of their own upon learning this.
> 
> A ship carrying 16 "climate-change warriors" looking to document purported melting ice conditions got trapped in ice last week in the Hinlopen Strait, halfway between Norway and the North Pole.


The existence of ice at the poles doesn't do anything to counter the science that human-caused climate change is happening.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Human-caused climate change is real. The Earth is getting hotter,



Conceded, possible anyway.





> and it's a direct result of burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth has never seen before.



Speculation. As I said above, correlation does not equal causation.


----------



## DuoForce (Sep 22, 2019)

DarkFlare69 said:


> I don't deny climate change at all but I also agree with OP that this is pretty stupid. Protesting and/or refusing to have kids because of climate change is pointless and absurd


They don't speak for anyone.  This is a HUGE minority.  I want to have kids and I'm barely an adult (18)  Websites need to stop making these into a big deal when hardly anyone is actually going through with it


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Conceded, possible anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correlation does not equal causation. However, we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, we know the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is from burning fossil fuels, and we know it's what's causing the warming.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Correlation does not equal causation. However, we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, we know the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is from burning fossil fuels, and we know it's what's causing the warming.



What caused the little ice age? What caused the medieval warm period?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> What caused the little ice age?


There were a lot of probable causes, but more importantly, we need to note that:

It wasn't a real ice age.
It probably wasn't global.
It didn't last long.



Hanafuda said:


> What caused the medieval warm period?


There were a couple probable causes, but more importantly:

It wasn't a real warming period (separate from the interglacial period we are in now).
It probably wasn't global.
It didn't last long.
We know why these events occurred, but the fact that these events occurred does not do anything counter the science of human-caused climate change.


----------



## Dimensional (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There were a lot of probable causes, but more importantly, we need to note that:
> 
> It wasn't a real ice age.
> It probably wasn't global.
> ...


True, but it does leave open the possibility that there are other factors for the climate change that aren't human-caused, and there's the chance one of these factors is a bigger contributor to it than the burning of fossil fuels. While human-caused does appear to be the prevalent and most obvious cause to it all, there might be a few others. What if the Earth's orbit around the Sun isn't exactly how we thought? What if once every few thousand, or million years, the Earth is a little closer to the Sun than normal? That would take some research, which I'm sure has been done and discounted, but it's still a thought. What if there's more radiation coming from the sun, or stars, or even a black hole we haven't seen yet, that is making the surface of the Earth warmer than normal? Heck, what if aliens have secretly invaded, set up power plants all over the world to purposely pump green house gasses out to make the world hotter and livable for them? Yes, that last one is a reference to an old movie, and isn't a serious question. But I had to throw it in in the hopes everyone would get a small chuckle.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

Dimensional said:


> True, but it does leave open the possibility that there are other factors for the climate change that aren't human-caused, and there's the chance one of these factors is a bigger contributor to it than the burning of fossil fuels. While human-caused does appear to be the prevalent and most obvious cause to it all, there might be a few others. What if the Earth's orbit around the Sun isn't exactly how we thought? What if once every few thousand, or million years, the Earth is a little closer to the Sun than normal? That would take some research, which I'm sure has been done and discounted, but it's still a thought. What if there's more radiation coming from the sun, or stars, or even a black hole we haven't seen yet, that is making the surface of the Earth warmer than normal? Heck, what if aliens have secretly invaded, set up power plants all over the world to purposely pump green house gasses out to make the world hotter and livable for them? Yes, that last one is a reference to an old movie, and isn't a serious question. But I had to throw it in in the hopes everyone would get a small chuckle.


There are a ton of factors that affect climate. I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, the science of greenhouse gases is sound. We are definitively warming the planet with carbon emissions, and we are putting out carbon emissions at a rate never seen by the Earth before by a longshot. The math very clear on this, as is the science.

Side note: The "little ice age" might have in part been caused by the deaths of a lot of humans in Europe (the Plague) and the deaths of Native Americans from European pathogens, and thus fewer carbon emissions.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 22, 2019)

Kraken_X said:


> Even Exxon-Mobile admits climate change is real.  When even Big Oil agrees with the scientific community, how can people keep denying it?
> 
> https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy-and-environment/environmental-protection/climate-change


I'm glad Exxon Mobile admits to climate change, now all my purchases and CO2 admissions will only be from them from now on.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There are a ton of factors that affect climate. I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, the science of greenhouse gases is sound. We are definitively warming the planet with carbon emissions, and we are putting out carbon emissions at a rate never seen by the Earth before by a longshot. The math very clear on this, as is the science.
> 
> Side note: The "little ice age" might have in part been caused by the deaths of a lot of humans in Europe (the Plague) and the deaths of Native Americans from European pathogens, and thus fewer carbon emissions.


You are doing the lord's work by being patient and explaining, but OP thinks he is above any & all research because science is just a "liberal's defence" or something like that, instead of actual, provable, irrefutable facts about the universe. Simply by virtue of being commonly understood and agreed upon it is no longer general knowledge but "liberal sheeple being brainwashed by media/the government". Clearly, he is too clever.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 22, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Conceded, possible anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sometimes correlation does equal causation. The saying is "correlation doesn't always equal causation." But there are times it does. I'm on the side that climate change is caused by us. And we need to reduce. The problem is so many things run on fossil fuels it hard to cut down on it at this moment, and transition to green energies is a slow process. And many people are not going to change their lifestyles or drop their conveniences.

Maybe people are hypocritical, but I think sometimes you have to be a hypocrite if the end results is beneficial like a better more green situation and push companies towards more green tech and stop them from junk science. We are hypocrites ya, but we benefit. And that hypocrite push by people will eventually make us not hypocrites anymore once we have more green tech available to us because of that push. Sometimes you can't be that perfect model citizen of being consistent and need to break that depending on the context of the situation.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 22, 2019)

notimp said:


> Which is the same.  Also at one point you might become so good at sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere with 'some future tech', that you can entirely stabilize.


The future is now, thanks to science!


----------



## Seliph (Sep 22, 2019)

I love that I can read the name of a thread and automatically tell that you're the op


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Sometimes correlation does equal causation. The saying is "correlation doesn't always equal causation." But there are times it does. I'm on the side that climate change is caused by us. And we need to reduce. The problem is so many things run on fossil fuels it hard to cut down on it at this moment, and transition to green energies is a slow process. And many people are not going to change their lifestyles or drop their conveniences.
> 
> Maybe people are hypocritical, but I think sometimes you have to be a hypocrite if the end results is beneficial like a better more green situation and push companies towards more green tech and stop them from junk science. We are hypocrites ya, but we benefit. And that hypocrite push by people will eventually make us not hypocrites anymore once we have more green tech available to us because of that push. Sometimes you can't be that perfect model citizen of being consistent and need to break that depending on the context of the situation.




You're right, the standard wording of the statement is "correlation does not necessarily equal causation.' i.e. they're not mutually exclusive. But I don't think I was saying that, either. But thing is ... even so, your opinion that climate change, to the extent it genuinely exists, is caused by human activity, is still just your opinion. And you're entitled to it. Know who else is entitled to theirs?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You're right, the standard wording of the statement is "correlation does not necessarily equal causation.' But they're not mutually exclusive, yeah. But I don't think I was saying that, either. But thing is ... even so, your opinion that climate change, to the extent it genuinely exists, is caused by human activity, is still just your opinion. And you're entitled to it. Know who else is entitled to theirs?


Humans burning fossil fuels is causing global warming and climate change. This is a scientific fact, not an opinion.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You're right, the standard wording of the statement is "correlation does not necessarily equal causation.' i.e. they're not mutually exclusive. But I don't think I was saying that, either. But thing is ... even so, your opinion that climate change, to the extent it genuinely exists, is caused by human activity, is still just your opinion. And you're entitled to it. Know who else is entitled to theirs?


It's a givin' that people are entitled to their opinion whenever anyone talks about these topics. And me saying, "I'm on the side" expresses that, using the word "I" implies that based on what I've researched and this is what I think. That last part makes it seem like you're defending yourself against me trying to force you to think like I do, but I didn't make any indications like that. All I was saying was that I think this and this.


I think trying to go green whether or not Climate Change is caused by us is beneficial either way. One, it satisfies Liberals ideas of saving the planet. Two, it satisfies the Conservative want to create more new jobs with new green tech that be available. Going Green satisfies both sides. Planet preservation for Liberals and job creation for Conservatives.

Even if Climate Change wasn't caused by us, It always better to play it safe, because in reality like you said it just your opinion at the end of the day. There's no 100% assurance with that type of language from you. One side is right, but we don't know because of our limited knowledge of this topic. So we can debate whether or not it's real, but playing it safe I think is still better no matter who's right or wrong, and no matter how the arguments go. I think this is the better choice.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 23, 2019)




----------



## 3DPiper (Sep 23, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Climate Change deniers. You (dudes!) are priceless. In your tin foil hats.



Please explain to me the medieval warming period.


----------



## bodefuceta (Sep 23, 2019)

There's a good reason why older people would govern in almost every society that ever worked. And you're not helping by bringing attention to some teenagers. Or perhaps you are? It does make them look stupid. Though I think humanity would be better off simply ignoring this type of thing.


----------



## 3DPiper (Sep 23, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Humans burning fossil fuels is causing global warming and climate change. This is a scientific fact, not an opinion.



You have provided nothing to prove your 'fact'.
I have given several links and videos to scientists saying the exact opposite of your statement, they provide tons of evidence and explain it very simply so everyone can understand (I assume no one has watched them).  Just one event- the medieval warming period- completely ruins your 'fact'.
My own witness has shown and proven nothing they have predicted has come true.
Just saying something without evidence proves nothing.
Sorry, I see no 'facts' in your statement


----------



## Josshy0125 (Sep 23, 2019)

3DPiper said:


> You have provided nothing to prove your 'fact'.
> I have given several links and videos to scientists saying the exact opposite of your statement, they provide tons of evidence and explain it very simply so everyone can understand (I assume no one has watched them).  Just one event- the medieval warming period- completely ruins your 'fact'.
> My own witness has shown and proven nothing they have predicted has come true.
> Just saying something without evidence proves nothing.
> Sorry, I see no 'facts' in your statement


I think if you're denying this, you're deciding to close your mind to the obvious, and that's the issue with advancements in today's world, globally, societally, and scientifically. If you took the time to do literally any amount of research, with effort, you'd know this is the case. But unfortunately, we live in a society, post-trump, in which idiots can pick and choose what they 'believe' to be fact, even if there's substantial evidence, common knowledge, fact, etc., to prove otherwise. This is the issue with hard-core republicans and Trump supporters; they delude themselves into the believe that facts are "opinion".


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Sep 23, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> I'm glad people are willing to keep up with his nonsense. He is clearly nitpicking information and being willfully ignorant, if not just straight up trolling, to fit a narrative with all these threads he has been making. Idk how you do it.



Someone should tell me about the next topic our good 'ole buddy here morvoran starts; I have an idea for a first post that I think will be hilarious! 83


----------



## Lacius (Sep 23, 2019)

3DPiper said:


> You have provided nothing to prove your 'fact'.
> I have given several links and videos to scientists saying the exact opposite of your statement, they provide tons of evidence and explain it very simply so everyone can understand (I assume no one has watched them).  Just one event- the medieval warming period- completely ruins your 'fact'.
> My own witness has shown and proven nothing they have predicted has come true.
> Just saying something without evidence proves nothing.
> Sorry, I see no 'facts' in your statement


I already explained how the existence of the  Medevil warming period is irrelevant to human-caused climate change.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 23, 2019)

For the climate alarmists here:

*Climate Alarmists Foiled: No US Warming Since 2005*
Source: Here

When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly _cooler _than they were 14 years ago.


----------



## 3DPiper (Sep 23, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I already explained how the existence of the  Medevil warming period is irrelevant to human-caused climate change.



If you are talking about post #93, 
I stand by my statement that you are just bleating on here without providing any evidence.
Nothing you have stated has any merit
Please listen to Dr. Timothy Ball or read his book


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 23, 2019)

While on my bicycle this morning I wondered why some people are cocksure about things you cannot be cocksure about. It dawned on me that mentioned group is unable to perform critical thinking. They are stuck in a "livslögn" (lie of life) that forces them to find support for it. By actively searching for articles, "proof" and in every other post claim that someone just "proved them right" independent of what that person wrote.
Are you too proud to admit that you can be wrong? Are you embittered? Do you think society has done to little for you? Are you in secret envious of other people and their "smelly food"? I honestly would like to know.


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 23, 2019)

3DPiper said:


> Please explain to me the medieval warming period.


Nothing i would provide to you would ever be enough, even momentarily, to take you out of that safe room you are in. You are immune to opinions that dont confirm your own. Isn't that funny?


----------



## morvoran (Sep 23, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> While on my bicycle this morning I wondered why some people are cocksure about things you cannot be cocksure about. It dawned on me that mentioned group is unable to perform critical thinking. They are stuck in a "livslögn" (lie of life) that forces them to find support for it. By actively searching for articles, "proof" and in every other post claim that someone just "proved them right" independent of what that person wrote.
> Are you too proud to admit that you can be wrong? Are you embittered? Do you think society has done to little for you? Are you in secret envious of other people and their "smelly food"? I honestly would like to know.


 ok, I'll have some of what you're taking.  I must be missing out on some goods stuff that's been going around.  Either that or sniffing your own smug farts causes hallucinations.
I hope you were looking in a mirror while typing that and retrospecting on your own life and actions.  Do you really believe the world is going to end soon? Are you upset the oceans are polluted and air quality is bad?  Do you see someone else litter and tell them they're wrong for doing so?  Do you volunteer to not have kids until climate change is stopped?  Have you asked yourself, while looking into that mirror, "self, what have I done to help out today?" Do you blame others for your problems while sitting at your desk doing nothing to help yourself or others, or riding in a fossil fuel burning vehicle while telling people they need to go green?  
I really want to know.  If you judge others for their opinions, what have you done to back up yours?


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 23, 2019)

morvoran said:


> For the climate alarmists here:
> 
> *Climate Alarmists Foiled: No US Warming Since 2005*
> Source: Here
> ...



you are quoting a pro fosil fuel conservative group. UH MAY ZING.

for anybody who wants to see the twitter ran by those clowns:

https://twitter.com/realclearenergy?lang=en


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 23, 2019)

morvoran said:


> ok, I'll have some of what you're taking.  I must be missing out on some goods stuff that's been going around.  Either that or sniffing your own smug farts causes hallucinations.
> I hope you were looking in a mirror while typing that and retrospecting on your own life and actions.  Do you really believe the world is going to end soon? Are you upset the oceans are polluted and air quality is bad?  Do you see someone else litter and tell them they're wrong for doing so?  Do you volunteer to not have kids until climate change is stopped?  Have you asked yourself, while looking into that mirror, "self, what have I done to help out today?" Do you blame others for your problems while sitting at your desk doing nothing to help yourself or others, or riding in a fossil fuel burning vehicle while telling people they need to go green?
> I really want to know.  If you judge others for their opinions, what have you done to back up yours?


Cool your jets. I dont blame others for their opinions. I do notice though when someone is stuck in an agenda and is not even trying to peek at the arguments of others to see if they have something to it. And raising their voices to strengthen their argument.

I try to question my motives and arguments regularly. I dont blame people for driving cars, I have one myself but prefer to bicycle when possible. I do think global warming is gonna be a big problem within 5-10 years. To say it is a hoax coming from a leftist agenda and claiming that 99% of scientists agree that it is not a problem is just plain ridiculous.

By the way, teenagers have always been like these ones. A bit silly. But they are trying. Which is admirable.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


>


You just gave another reason why we should move to Clean Green Energy, Air Pollution. Look at what Coal Burning has done to those places. The Air is hardly breathable. And all the health problems that come with it. Even if not for Global Warming it's for breathable air.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 23, 2019)

@Hanafuda If we get pass the over exaggeration of the Dangers of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Energy causes death just like every other industry, but in comparison to oil and Gas it is much safer. Many people die bringing us oil and gas, it is one of the most dangerous industries. Not only we get those benefit's I listed on my above post, we also reduce the amount of work related deaths switching to green energy, which satisfies the Menist's that complain about wahmen not dying as much because we have all the dangerous jobs. Its always about scale, both are dangers but Nuclear is the safer option and tech has gotten better compared to past Nuclear Energies.


When taken as a whole we did as a Country Practice what we preach.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapie...es-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#119570513535

U.S. lead all other countries in carbon emission reduction. You can't completely get off the stuff because our lives are so integrated in it, we drive to work and need electricity, and our economy is so based on it that it will crash if we completely went off the stuff without finding a good replacement. So having reduction to complete zero would be a ridiculous and unrealistic, but we are making progress and practicing what we preach.




But recently a slight rise after years of making progress, probably because people are not going Green due to recent disbelief and up push that humans are not causing climate change.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/8/18174082/us-carbon-emissions-2018



So rhetoric like yours is probably having an impact. Still U.S. has big reductions compared to previous years when we were hugely pumping a lot of that nasty stuff to our atmosphere. And lots of people still practicing what they preach.



But even if not for saving the planet, there is still lots of benefit's to going Green. Job creation, playing it safe, air pollution reduction and breathable air, and job death reduction. It satisfies both conservatives and liberals. Benefits I think out weigh any opinions on Climate Change.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Sep 23, 2019)

When you consider the fact that the US Military is currently the single greatest threat to both the free world and the environment, any effort we as consumers could put forth is done in vain. I think we need to look into ending the war machine before we start adding a bunch of taxes and banning cow farts lol.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 23, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> you are quoting a pro fosil fuel conservative group. UH MAY ZING.
> 
> for anybody who wants to see the twitter ran by those clowns:



Can you disprove their findings?  Their information, supposedly, came from the NOAA(which are hacks too,huh?)  
If you look at many of these so called "climate change models" by the alarmists, you'll see most of them are way off base or just completely wrong.
Look into the beach front property the Obama's just bought.  According to alarmists who think the world is going to end in 8 years and rising ocean models, their new house will be underwater soon.  Hmm, for climate change advocates, they sure are ballsy to take that chance.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 23, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Cool your jets.


 I'm cool.  I do not get angry or give hate to anybody.  I was just asking questions as you were.



Rolf12 said:


> I do think global warming is gonna be a big problem within 5-10 years. To say it is a hoax coming from a leftist agenda and claiming that 99% of scientists agree that it is not a problem is just plain ridiculous.


 If you think we are going to suffer and the world is going to die, why not live your life to the fullest now before it's all over?  "Go out with a bang" as some would say.  Why waste our last few years having discussions on the internet?

About the 99% of scientists that think human-caused climate change is a hoax, I may have overestimated a bit.  The number is actually 98.4%.  So sorry.  I can't believe how ridiculous I was thinking to overstate the actual number like that? Shame on me.
Plus, that whole 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human-caused global warming is based on 33 out of 34 published papers agreeing that it is real.  Not a very big consensus to start changing how we live in dramatic ways such as banning cow farts, planes, and cars (just to push a leftist agenda).  Still, a lot of these so called "climate" scientists' global warming models/predictions are either completely false or did not happen anywhere close to their predictions.  

It's a shame that people take hearsay and run with it before looking into the matter themselves.  I guess that is herd mentality for you.  What a shame.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Sep 23, 2019)

Of course you don't want any children if the world is going to die anyway, I mean that makes perfect sense.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Sep 23, 2019)

In an attempt to get back at the origin of the thread, why is it such a big deal that these kids are promoting abstinence in reference to climate change? If it turns out they're wrong, then they've successfully wanked themselves out of existence, which I guess in the long run makes it harder for people to laugh at them, their beliefs, and their proposed solutions. If on the other hand it turns out to a big, global wide deal, well then it certainly makes sense that governments will take notice. After all, it's hard to run a  country profitably if the new generation of citizens aren't breeding and the oldest generation is dying off. I think it could prove a serious point if taken seriously, but then again that might be hard to do. While I think it pales in comparison from a civil rights point of view, people also had a hard time (in the U.S. at least) allowing non-white-males the ability to vote, hold office, own property, so on and so forth, yet here we are. It was also hard for a lot of people to accept (not necessarily promote) the one child policy in China, which in the long run did help with overpopulation and food distribution, among other things. Are either my last example or the point of the thread morally just? Maybe, maybe not, but if either option helped on a nationwide, or a global scale, for the growth and advancement of society, who are we to judge?

With that being said, I still don't understand the appeal of being anti climate change. I know the question was more or less asked previously, and if it was answered directly instead of being hidden behind "he said, she said"/"leftist liberal, right wing conservative" arguments, then I must've missed it. The only arguments against climate change seems to be "Well I'm not causing it, why should I do anything about it" and something about "anti-capitalism" propaganda, which honestly doesn't make much sense but also seems trivial when compared to many other anti capitalist agenda arguments one could make. If we move forward with "going green", even if the ultimate agenda is flawed, in the meantime we'll create more jobs, boosting the economy, and we'll slowly usher in a new generation of progressive thinkers, just like when nuclear power came around and electricity before that, which if there are any history buffs here, should remember that these "movements" were laughed at as well before taking off and taking the world by storm. Do I believe in climate change? Of course. Barring the Mendela(sp?) Effect, I do specifically remember periods of time where the seasons would start at different times, having varying temperatures and lasting times, periods of intense rainfall over long periods of time and the reverse. I don't think humanity at any point in history is 100% responsible for climate change in any capacity, but why can't we be responsible for what we have done? Need an example? Look at the Amazon rainforest. We could speculate all we want about how much it will affect the local, and possible the global climates, but we can't argue with the fact that humanity does have a lasting effect on the planet in some capacity, and if we want our grandchildren to live here without it looking like a poorly made Fallout sequel, we should probably take better care of it.


----------



## kumikochan (Sep 23, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I'm cool.  I do not get angry or give hate to anybody.  I was just asking questions as you were.
> 
> If you think we are going to suffer and the world is going to die, why not live your life to the fullest now before it's all over?  "Go out with a bang" as some would say.  Why waste our last few years having discussions on the internet?
> 
> ...


Actually herd mentality is believing in pseudoscience like denying climate change and conspiracy theories, it's always funny how the believers in conspiracies call other people sheep when they're actually the ones acting quite herd like. One of these scientists that believe climate change is a hoax says he himself is an expert in finding water using dowsing wich is a pseudoscience and not real at all. Another one calls himself a scientist but is actually a politician, an adviser, a journalist and an inventor of a stupid puzzle so because of that he can be called a scientist ? Then there's one other guy that is mentioned in those links you provided who's main research branch is finding oil (lol). You should google a bit the names of all those scientists that believe climate change is a hoax before you take them seriously instead of just seeing mentioned in the article that it is a scientist and believe instantly what that person says because the article says so. That my dude is herd mentality wich you are quite guilty of.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 23, 2019)

Carbon emissions, Asia/Pacific region vs. US and Europe






This graph is China-specific, vs. USA and EU







https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapie...de-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#2f5d2b8f628c


As the author of this article suggests, Greta Thunberg should be preaching her gospel in China, not New York.

http://thedailychrenk.com/2019/09/22/greta-goes-guangzhou/

Greta and her parents sporting the latest in ANTIFA apparel.


----------



## FoxMcloud5655 (Sep 23, 2019)

I mean, there are more people living, and people breathe oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.  Not saying that it's necessarily something we can't take care of, but as more and more people live, you'll have more and more emissions of varying amounts.  For the people predicting climate changes (whether hotter or colder), hasn't history already proven that we have many, many other changes in climate?  It gets hotter over many years, then colder, then hotter again as our planet orbits awkwardly.  Again, not to say that people shouldn't do something about helping our planet; as we make plastics and non-biodegradable materials, we have to be more responsible in making sure they are handled appropriately at their end-of-life.

Now, as for the kids protesting, great movement!  Yeah, no.  I doubt it's going to get very far in today's society.  The number of people that won't have kids won't be near enough to do anything, especially since most of them nowadays are taught that it's okay to fool around, as long as you're "safe" with it.


----------



## burial (Sep 23, 2019)

Good.....theres too many goddamned people already.

Oh and at least they believe in reality.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 23, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Actually herd mentality is believing in pseudoscience like denying climate change and conspiracy theories, it's always funny how the believers in conspiracies call other people sheep when they're actually the ones acting quite herd like.


  Yeah, just keep following your leaders as they guide you over the cliff.  There are a few people here trying to explain that the cliff is dangerous, but others here, as well as you, would rather blindly jump over the cliff without checking it out first.  Same with some kids that would rather humanity die out through giving up on having kids than to actively go out and try actual solutions that will change the way of the world.

I'll just check out the cliff first to make sure it's safe before listening to any leader (as I have none).


----------



## SyphenFreht (Sep 23, 2019)

morvoran said:


> ...Same with some kids that would rather humanity die out through giving up on having kids than to actively go out and try actual solutions that will change the way of the world.



See, this is where things get interesting. In your mind, and those of some of the others, what these kids are doing won't accomplish anything and are nothing more than something to laugh at, however in the minds of those kids and others who support them, what they're doing is revolutionary. I mean, they can't riot or protest in a way that impedes or endangers others, so this is probably the best thing they can think of. Or, you can look at it this way: 

Not having kids is hardly the long term, end goal here. Look at it deeper. They're sending a message, one that's getting retold every time someone logs on to Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, message boards like this one. They're getting coverage, exposure. People are sympathizing, asking questions, debating, straying away from the norm and exploring options, reasoning. Do you really think for an instant a group of people decided to not have kids because of climate change, post it online, and assumed that would be the end of it? Every time someone reads through this thread alone they're getting exposed to the underlying message, in this case something along the lines of "Something must be done or there won't be any future generations". Sure maybe the way they're sending the message doesn't suit you, but what would? What else could they do that would disrupt the norm enough to get people's attentions and get the subject to be talked about? As I mentioned before, they can't riot or impede others; they'll go to jail or get injured, possibly fatally. How much change can some teens accomplish from prison? Certainly a lot less than what they're accomplishing now, of that I'm sure we can be certain. Not to mention, it seems like no matter how something controversial is handled, someone always says "They could've done it better/differently". Fine, they probably could have from your perspective, but what about the perspective of someone else? 

That's the neat part about causing a scene. Even if you're against it, as long as you acknowledge it, you're helping either push the agenda, or furthering the divide.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 23, 2019)

SyphenFreht said:


> See, this is where things get interesting. In your mind, and those of some of the others, what these kids are doing won't accomplish anything and are nothing more than something to laugh at, however in the minds of those kids and others who support them, what they're doing is revolutionary. I mean, they can't riot or protest in a way that impedes or endangers others, so this is probably the best thing they can think of. Or, you can look at it this way



Maybe, you can look at it this way:  What if these kids, instead of expecting others to change the world for them while actually doing nothing, were to go out and actually make a positive change in the world?  Maybe, they could start a group that goes out and cleans trash off the streets and alleys.  Maybe, they could start a donation for food/money and take care of homeless people.  Maybe, they can do without cars, planes, buses, etc and ride bikes everywhere?  Maybe, they could get into politics themselves and advocate for change that is reasonable.  You know, things that actually have a positive effect the environment.

Why waste their time and effort by making pointless threats that only affect themselves?  Do you think India or China care if these teens don't have kids? Nope.  They're still going to keep burning coal and fossil fuels just the same.  What will not having kids actually change?  Less people to complain about global warming and pollution?  That's good for the big companies, not for the cause.


----------



## billapong (Sep 23, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I have to say that I'm so proud of these teens that are refusing to have kids until we fix the issue of climate change.  God speed to these brave kids that are willing to sacrifice themselves for a brighter future.
> 
> It's great to know that they will not be breeding their ignorance and blind conformity into our next generation and, hopefully, stop the belief in this sham science to leave more room for the much smarter, less gullible humans of the future that we so desperately need now.  I hope they stick to this plan for the sake of humanity.



Hey man. I'd like to first start off with letting you know that I'm brand spanking new here and this is my first post. I've been reading your posts for some weeks now and wanted to let you know that I'm generally rooting for you. It must have been tough to go what you went though. That is being homeless and pulling yourself out of a rut by taking responsibility for your actions, not blaming other people for your problems and then actually getting off your ass and making something of yourself. These aren't the sort of qualities you'd find in a Liberal. A Liberal would have wound up simply stealing from his friend, getting kicked out of his basement and then sitting in a tent doing drugs with free plastic needles that were given to him while wondering why he can't find a plastic straw to drink his kool aid with.

Anyway, about this topic matter. I find it pretty ironic that schools go to great lengths to censor or remove Conservative material from their premises, but then allow kids to skip school to protest relating to their Liberal agenda. Hey, if we're going to push politics on our children before they can even think for themselves then and if I didn't have a problem with such nonsense then it would be fair to allow our children to skip school to protest women killing their own children or whatever your agenda is about.

Addressing climate change. I believe the climate changes on a daily basis. I mean, it was raining a few hours ago. I also believe that dumping toxic waste into our oceans doesn't have a positive effect, but on the flip side I also believe that it's foolish to say we can control the weather or natural events and think we're doing so by paying rich people who rule over us to get richer, while they take no personal responsibility for their own actions that are supposedly negatively effecting our environment.

There's the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. It's a lovely place. In the late 80's I visited Mount Mitchell. At the top of the mountain they had a dead tree problem. Scattered around the site were these really fancy bronze and copper signs stating that acid rain had killed the trees and that it's destroying our world. It brought up lessons we were being taught in grade school about the effects of acid rain and how the world was going to end due to it. Some 20 years later I revisited the top of Mount Mitchell and to my surprise all of the trees were now flourishing. I did a little research and it turns out acid rain had nothing to do with their lack of life. It was a fungus or some sort of mold.

So we see the same over reacting "the sky is falling" sorts of people now when it relates to climate change. Heck, 10 years ago it was global warming, but now it's simply climate change. Yeah, well, the climate is changing and I think that doing your bit to help out the environment, be it using metal straws, reusable plastic bags, natural food wrapping, walking more, riding the bus, getting rid of your car, not flying in airplanes, buying organic food etc ... is a great idea. You just won't find me willing to give my money or vote to limit my freedoms to some phony Government that couldn't accurately predict the last path of the "most devastating hurricane to ever exist".

Sorry, if it seems like I’m ranting, but I like to elaborate when I type because I don’t want there to be a lot of confusion as reading comprehension isn’t a strong skill that most people have. Especially, the types that require a TR;DR because they have the attention span of a retarded dead rodent.


----------



## smf (Sep 23, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Maybe, they could start a group that goes out and cleans trash off the streets and alleys.  Maybe, they could start a donation for food/money and take care of homeless people.  Maybe, they can do without cars, planes, buses, etc and ride bikes everywhere?  Maybe, they could get into politics themselves and advocate for change that is reasonable.  You know, things that actually have a positive effect the environment.



While cleaning trash off the streets or taking care of homeless people are good things, I don't think they will help the environment.

Most of them look too young to be driving anyway. Greta Thunberg arrived by boat and was ridiculed for it.

They are too young to get into politics at the moment, but they are advocating for change that is reasonable and has a positive effect on the environment. You have to be quite old and know the right people to get into politics, it's going to take a while to get there so expect more protests like these to push the existing politicians into doing something.


----------



## mezz0 (Sep 24, 2019)

having no kids because climate sucks is stupid; 
that being said, stop dumping plastics and stuff in the oceans, that shit is sad and uncalled for.
Would you like it if a whale came out the ocean and took a dump on your lawn ? I rest my case.


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

mezz0 said:


> having no kids because climate sucks is stupid;
> that being said, stop dumping plastics and stuff in the oceans, that shit is sad and uncalled for.
> Would you like it if a whale came out the ocean and took a dump on your lawn ? I rest my case.



Not having children is their own choice and as a person I respect their choice. As a species I think it's a mistake. Not as bad as a mistake as killing babies after they're conceived, but still a mistake. I also think it's a mistake to pollute the environment. There's alternative to plastic that don't have a big impact, but they're not cost effective and take more labor to create.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2019)

billapong said:


> Not having children is their own choice and as a person I respect their choice. As a species I think it's a mistake. Not as bad as a mistake at killing the babies after they're conceived, but still a mistake. I also think it's a mistake to pollute the environment. There's alternative to plastic that don't have a big impact, but they're not cost effective and take more labor to create.


It's is a perfectly fine decision to not have children, and it's not necessarily a mistake.


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It's is a perfectly fine decision to not have children, and it's not necessarily a mistake.



If your goal is the betterment, advancement of longevity of the human race then not having children is counter productive to that goal. If you don't want children there should be no reason why you shouldn't be able to make that decision, but like most things in life there's positives and negatives to these decisions. I find that parenting is an overall rewarding experience, but I also see that how having less Liberal voters on the planet could benefit society. In the end it's not my decision to make, but you won't find me trying to stop Liberals from not reproducing.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2019)

billapong said:


> If your goal is the betterment, advancement of longevity of the human race then not having children is counter productive to that goal. If you don't want children there should be no reason why you shouldn't be able to make that decision, but like most things in life there's positives and negatives to these decisions. I find that parenting is an overall rewarding experience, but I also see that how having less Liberal voters on the planet could benefit society. In the end it's not my decision to make, but you won't find me trying to stop Liberals from not reproducing.


People are reproducing, so the survival of the human race is not contingent upon any specific individual choosing to procreate. Not having children is a perfectly fine decision and is not necessarily any worse of a decision than choosing to have children.


----------



## MacRoith (Sep 24, 2019)

The discussion of climate change has truly reached a sorry state as both sides have decided to stick to their creed and dogmatically enforce it without ever considering searching for reasonable solutions. It must be understood that climate change is undeniably happening- that much we can be sure of. The real discussion should, therefore, really be focussed on the implications of such change, and to what extent we as humans are effecting said change.

I must say it is very disheartening to see deniers utilizing pseudoscience, meteorological anomalies, and tragic events in an attempt to justify their positions (The most disgusting of which has been mocking the death of activists as they froze in the arctic). You are not doing any good by simply ignoring a potential problem. 

That being said, I am also very disturbed by the term "Settled Science" that has been going around activists of late. Now, this is a very dangerous attitude to hold, as it leaves you unwilling to accept new data that conflicts with your current perception. This has happened many times throughout history as academic strongholds do not wish to change what they teach, as doing so is an admittance of ignorance. Perhaps the most famous example of this is Galileo's challenging of Aristotle's model of the solar system. The Universities and Clergy of the time had reached a "consensus" that Aristotle's model was correct, and as such persecuted Galileo as a heretic. This is perhaps the greatest rutt of our enlightened scientific processes- bad ideas can get internalized to the point that they are the foundation of much progress, and as such, are hard to remove effectively, even with a peer review system.

Now, I wish to make clear that I do not consider climate change to be such a bad idea. But I do want to make sure that the possibility is at least acknowledged. After all, this talk of human CO2 footprint is not a new idea. In fact, it has been going around climatologist and political circles since the industrial revolution. It is also a profitable idea- ideologically and politically, as it serves as an excellent social motivator (Any perceived threat is) and a means to attack opposing financial powerhouses such as factory owners and the oil industry. This is perhaps what I take the most umbrage within the current climate change discussion: both sides only regard it as a tool for political posturing. I have trouble believing even hardball players like AOC actually care when it comes to this issue, especially when she produces a "plan" as ridiculous as the Green New Deal (Its only real purpose was to gather attention for political gains).

I really wish that the discussion could be depoliticized and moved back into purely scientific analysis, as the current rate of activism has confused much of the population, leaving very few with a good grasp on the issue. One of the most egregious examples of this is, in fact, humankind's actual impact on the climate. Too often I see activists point at a rising or falling temperature chart and simply say, this is our fault. Data alone means nothing in science without context, and most importantly, quantification. As much as I want to save the planet, the key thing missing from the climate change "believers'" arguments is quantification. I have seen countless studies detailing the correlation between human CO2 production and rising temperatures, but I have yet to find any studies dedicated to quantifying how much of the climate change is human-caused and how much is natural fluctuations. I find this to be a very glaring oversight, as the history of not only Earth but every other planet with an atmosphere in the solar system is a history of erratic and inconsistent climates (Relatively speaking), constantly undergoing change. I firmly believe that mankind is having some effect on the climate, but I just don't know how much. And without that quantifying data, it is very hard to justify making drastic societal changes that could drastically harm and disrupt the everyday person's life.

However, I doubt that this is really going to change anyone's opinion, as each side seems to have formed a creed which they would enforce with an inquisition of "Science" if they could.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 24, 2019)

nvm. nuffs been said.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 24, 2019)

smf said:


> While cleaning trash off the streets or taking care of homeless people are good things, I don't think they will help the environment.


 Cleaning up trash and taking care of the homeless to help decrease the amount of trash will help the environment by keeping it clean.  It will help air quality by keeping feces and rotting food away from people.  Trash can cover the ground and prevent grass from growing.  There are several ways that these activities can help.  Recycling should also be a responsible activity to help.



smf said:


> Greta Thunberg arrived by boat and was ridiculed for it.


  It wasn't for the boat, necessarily.  It was for the carbon footprint created behind the scenes caused by her boat ride.  The issue people had was that while she was not burning fossil fuels to travel here, a crew had to be flown over here on jets in order to take the boat back to Sweden while she flew back on a jet herself.  Here's a news story explaining a little.



smf said:


> They are too young to get into politics at the moment, but they are advocating for change that is reasonable and has a positive effect on the environment.


 They may be too young to be elected into congress or be president, but they can still get active in either side by campaigning for their choice of politician, wearing clothes with the name of their presidential nominee while cleaning up litter or volunteering, fundraising for their candidate, etc.  Protesting angrily, vowing to not have kids, or punching nazi's are not positive ways to cause change.


----------



## kumikochan (Sep 24, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Yeah, just keep following your leaders as they guide you over the cliff.  There are a few people here trying to explain that the cliff is dangerous, but others here, as well as you, would rather blindly jump over the cliff without checking it out first.  Same with some kids that would rather humanity die out through giving up on having kids than to actively go out and try actual solutions that will change the way of the world.
> 
> I'll just check out the cliff first to make sure it's safe before listening to any leader (as I have none).


actually no that is what you are doing, since you're blindly following data by self proclaimed pseudo scientists without any real hard data to back up what they're saying as they've constantly taken back their claims and said sorry for it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



billapong said:


> Hey man. I'd like to first start off with letting you know that I'm brand spanking new here and this is my first post. I've been reading your posts for some weeks now and wanted to let you know that I'm generally rooting for you. It must have been tough to go what you went though. That is being homeless and pulling yourself out of a rut by taking responsibility for your actions, not blaming other people for your problems and then actually getting off your ass and making something of yourself. These aren't the sort of qualities you'd find in a Liberal. A Liberal would have wound up simply stealing from his friend, getting kicked out of his basement and then sitting in a tent doing drugs with free plastic needles that were given to him while wondering why he can't find a plastic straw to drink his kool aid with.
> 
> Anyway, about this topic matter. I find it pretty ironic that schools go to great lengths to censor or remove Conservative material from their premises, but then allow kids to skip school to protest relating to their Liberal agenda. Hey, if we're going to push politics on our children before they can even think for themselves then and if I didn't have a problem with such nonsense then it would be fair to allow our children to skip school to protest women killing their own children or whatever your agenda is about.
> 
> ...


I've worked with plently of homeless people who voted right wing and did the same thing also what you're doing is generalizing wich by itself is wrong. Also if a homeless can't vote then how can he or she be liberal or something else ? To my knowing you actually have to vote to be something. Just stop with the generalizing because that's one of the dumbest things there is and def not mature at all and behaviour that is mostly linked to the most lower class. The USA is also one of the biggest polluters in the world and has been run over the ages countless of times by republicans and democrats meaning ones side on the spectrum has not much to do with it since the difference ain't that big and minimal, the only difference would be when Trump became president and focused mostly on the worst of the worst ways to produce energy because eum jobs and money i guess.


----------



## smf (Sep 24, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Cleaning up trash and taking care of the homeless to help decrease the amount of trash will help the environment by keeping it clean.



It's like re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic after it hit the iceberg.



morvoran said:


> They may be too young to be elected into congress or be president, but they can still get active in either side by campaigning for their choice of politician, wearing clothes with the name of their presidential nominee while cleaning up litter or volunteering, fundraising for their candidate, etc.



Again, relatively pointless stuff that won't make a difference in the long term.



morvoran said:


> Protesting angrily, vowing to not have kids, or punching nazi's are not positive ways to cause change.



Of course they are. You just feel threatened by them.


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 24, 2019)

Sorry but so many here are just plain stuck.  So convinced. Without the need to mention anyone. 
But talk of herd mentality? Who says the one calling it isnt part of the herd? Am i it because you said it first? 
As already mentioned, those scientists. What a bunch. Perhaps i can convince some local squatters to call themselves researchers and balance thise numbers. Finding articles that suits oneself is so yesterday.
I wish you all luck on the way to nowhere. Because thats where this is going. May we all se the truth. Sorry, _truth isnt truth_


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 24, 2019)

@Rolf12 :well lets reverse the line of thinking here what would it take for you to be convinced otherwise? or are you just interested in being on the opposite side of things?




morvoran said:


> Can you disprove their findings?  Their information, supposedly, came from the NOAA(which are hacks too,huh?)


 
I am posting NOAA's graph below just to prove you are full of it. (green graph portion since i am sure you will just glaze over it)

its not heard mentality.
you know the motherfuckers that put a man on the moon? They believe shit is going down.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

the following back their findings:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

Please check the NASA webpage to find even more.

And this is under your daddy's administration. Go figure they must have forgotten to scrub this off their website.

either way im done. It doesnt matter. You will just quote some petroleum industry group or conspiracy theorist. The cool kids that want to be contrarians will defend you. I am sure next you will say the moon landing was fixed too.



billapong said:


> These aren't the sort of qualities you'd find in a Liberal. A Liberal would have wound up simply stealing from his friend, getting kicked out of his basement and then sitting in a tent doing drugs with free plastic needles that were given to him while wondering why he can't find a plastic straw to drink his kool aid with.


Welcome to the temp. sad to hear that you write off half of the country as a tired stereotype, just based on your beliefs. That is not healthy.

oh as a final note anybody that is saying that climate has not gotten worse since 2005? ill leave this here (courtesy of NASA, NOAA data as part of it to prove that you are LYING):


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> People are reproducing, so the survival of the human race is not contingent upon any specific individual choosing to procreate. Not having children is a perfectly fine decision and is not necessarily any worse of a decision than choosing to have children.



That's what I just said.


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

MacRoith said:


> However, I doubt that this is really going to change anyone's opinion, as each side seems to have formed a creed which they would enforce with an inquisition of "Science" if they could.



I don't trust people who say we need to do something a certain way, but then don't do it that way themselves. Politicians say we all need to change X and Y, but then don't think that applies to them. All the while they're profiting financially by charging us in various ways to listen to them or follow their ideals. They're basically playing us all to profit and have no intention of helping the environment themselves.

I don't trust science, because it's always evolving. A lot of these factual truths about various subjects 20 some years ago are now considered falsehoods. If history is any indication most of today's knowledge that has been rooted in science will also be proved to be inaccurate years down the road. So why make drastic changes or generally cause yourself to be unhappy and miserable based on something that's most likely not correct?

I don't trust Liberals because they put value in the politicians and science I mentioned, but the value lies in how they can use these things to control and manipulate others. They have no sense of belonging, their values are based on a sliding scale (no set morals means you don't have morals), they value dishonestly, they promote a sinful lifestyle, they cheat, they lie and then blame everything that happens because of their negative way of life on other people.

I'm not going to change what I believe or value on a whim. My values and the decisions I make are based on years of experience and learning. I'm not going to vote to support freeloaders, vote to make more laws (giving up more freedoms) or vote to raise taxes to please the aforementioned politicians, science believers and Liberals.

The world was supposed to have ended countless times throughout my life time. We've had the religious factions with their own end of times predictions and the same thing can be found coming from men of science. After countless years of hearing the same thing is going to happen over and over again one seems to lose trust. 

So, when's the world going to end this time?


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> I've worked with plently of homeless people who voted right wing and did the same thing also what you're doing is generalizing wich by itself is wrong.



There's a current consensus that generalization is somehow evil or wrong, but it's not and it's basically a starting point for diving into any specific issue. You can't simply list and address every single person and their individual values or traits, so you start with generalization. It's a useful and valid way to go about things. So is stereotyping. The problem people have is when you generalize or stereotype about something that offends them or they disagree with. Liberals have no problem generalizing or stereotyping about people they disagree with. So to use it to try to control an argument is going to work on me. I've got no problem with generalization or stereotyping regardless of who's doing it. Like I mentioned, both have valid uses.

Looking at the sky any saying "that's a beautiful blue sky" is generalizing about the color blue.



> Also if a homeless can't vote then how can he or she be liberal or something else ? To my knowing you actually have to vote to be something. Just stop with the generalizing because that's one of the dumbest things there is and def not mature at all and behaviour that is mostly linked to the most lower class.



Homeless people can vote as much as they want to. Registering to vote is free. Per say, if some junkie is too busy doing drugs and refuses to spend any money they earn by getting handouts to obtain the required material to register to vote than that's their fault. What is a more likely scenario is that a homeless person will simply "not have the time" or "wouldn't be willing" to either register to vote or go vote. They'll just sit in their encampment, drinking beer, smoking weed and blaming their sorry existence on everyone else. 



> The USA is also one of the biggest polluters in the world and has been run over the ages countless of times by republicans and democrats meaning ones side on the spectrum has not much to do with it since the difference ain't that big and minimal, the only difference would be when Trump became president and focused mostly on the worst of the worst ways to produce energy because eum jobs and money i guess.



Trump this, Trump that. Blame Trump for everything that happens. Trump is some almighty otherworldly being that controls every aspect of everyone's life. Everything that happens is because of Trump. Trump is the de facto reason why the world orbits the Sun. Trump controls the universe. Everything revolves around Trump. Yeah, right ... More like people are obsessed with the man and see Trump in their sleep. That's a personal problem that luckily I don't have. Sorry that you're experiencing these sorts of symptoms as they don't seem to be healthy. Maybe you should seek professional help.


----------



## pcwizard7 (Sep 24, 2019)

I don't put much stock in university students of today especially because all majors or degree require them to take a sociology course even when it has nothing to do with their area of interest. e.g. game designers are required to take this and are to brainwash them into think like them and are punished for having their own thoughts does this remind you of something (WE ARE THE BORG RESIDENT IS FUTILE) .

I found it strange that the teacher of this class didn't want their students to record their class and when students tried they were pulled from class

another university had few students that try to steal and tried to frame it towards the store that has been in business since the 1930s and they cause riots chaos and the reason why the school did nothing because they were afraid of their student and it's like being in a school of primary school children

so this new generation of students who expect when they leave school a job will be provided for them and found out how hard life really  is and ends up trying to sue the school which I find lmao

so I have little opinion when it comes of today's students and I leave it with one more fact all trouble started when parents and teacher took completeness away in sports this is where the everything is handed to me concept started


----------



## FR0ZN (Sep 24, 2019)

Yo ETA for XCI loader wen?


----------



## pcwizard7 (Sep 24, 2019)

also the idea of no kids before will fix the issue is stupid and has no logic to it. what if one of those children were part of the solution to an issue. and it won't change until its too late since the people in power won't do anything unless they forced too because of greed and money


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 24, 2019)

Trending, trending, trending. That's the only reason these kids are doing or saying anything. Because it's trendy.
Like, this Gretta girl. Yeah, ok hun, YOU are going to fix climate change. How? Another boat? Or perhaps 2 more planes?
You can tell she's being told exactly what to say or do. Seen that gif of her rolling her eyes just because trump walks past? OrANGe MaN bAd!!!!

I love how you're not allowed to criticize her either because she's a child. Like, ok then, we just supposed to nod and agree?
This is why they're actively trying to give children more power.
Notice how over the past number of years, parents have lost control over their children. Not allowed to discipline, not allowed to punish.

Yes, the climate is fucked, no kids, you aren't in a position to make demands. Very few people are.

And might I add, I highly doubt 90% of these kids who sign this "no children" bullshit will actually follow through.


----------



## pcwizard7 (Sep 24, 2019)

iCEQB said:


> Yo ETA for XCI loader wen?



the only xci loader that ever be will be from sxos team or someone who agrees people should be able to play their own backups

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



StarGazerTom said:


> Trending, trending, trending. That's the only reason these kids are doing or saying anything. Because it's trendy.
> Like, this Gretta girl. Yeah, ok hun, YOU are going to fix climate change. How? Another boat? Or perhaps 2 more planes?
> You can tell she's being told exactly what to say or do. Seen that gif of her rolling her eyes just because trump walks past? OrANGe MaN bAd!!!!
> 
> ...



yea people like her and who shes with always say we must do they without giving an answer to question how


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 24, 2019)

pcwizard7 said:


> the only xci loader that ever be will be from sxos team or someone who agrees people should be able to play their own backups
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Honestly, that's really my only major gripe with these things. 1) Being hypocritical & 2) People making demands and crying "fix it, fix it, FIX IT!" but they are unable to produce any answers as to what exactly should be done.

I could think of a few idea's off the top of my head, and it'd be a shit load more than anything these children can come up with, and with reasons for doing so.


----------



## pcwizard7 (Sep 24, 2019)

StarGazerTom said:


> I could think of a few idea's off the top of my head, and it'd be a shit load more than anything these children can come up with, and with reasons for doing so.



shes just the flavor of the month remember that girl that made the worst chairs imaginable and it solved no problem it just transfer a non issue to the other gender and it looks like someone who never done wood-crafting no thought was put into it and she got one highest award for this which now makes that award pointless


----------



## comput3rus3r (Sep 24, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I have to say that I'm so proud of these teens that are refusing to have kids until we fix the issue of climate change.  God speed to these brave kids that are willing to sacrifice themselves for a brighter future.
> 
> It's great to know that they will not be breeding their ignorance and blind conformity into our next generation and, hopefully, stop the belief in this sham science to leave more room for the much smarter, less gullible humans of the future that we so desperately need now.  I hope they stick to this plan for the sake of humanity.
> 
> ...


You can't fix "changing climate" ...


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 24, 2019)

pcwizard7 said:


> shes just the flavor of the month remember that girl that made the worst chairs imaginable and it solved no problem it just transfer a non issue to the other gender and it looks like someone who never done wood-crafting no thought was put into it and she got one highest award for this which now makes that award pointless


I agreed. And if I'm perfectly honest, if it were a guy who was saying these, there'd be radio silence from mainstream media. 
Notice that petition thing about no one having children in the future. Notice how all the quotes are from females. Is that not interesting, no?


----------



## pcwizard7 (Sep 24, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> You can't fix "changing climate" ...



I d say atm it's not possible as we do not know the solution and the only thing we can do at this moment in time is slow our effect on the earth down

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



StarGazerTom said:


> I agreed. And if I'm perfectly honest, if it were a guy who was saying these, there'd be radio silence from mainstream media.
> Notice that petition thing about no one having children in the future. Notice how all the quotes are from females. Is that not interesting, no?



yea anyone outside this way of thinking can see this, they say men have more I hate using this word but "privillage" when its the total opposite women can say someone did anything and everyone believe them with no evidence or its something that was done 10 years ago, men are being removed from movies and tv shows. and men are crimal for being men.

which is wired because in movies they making women look like men have you seen the wokenater or i call her the beevinater


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

StarGazerTom said:


> Trending, trending, trending. That's the only reason these kids are doing or saying anything. Because it's trendy.
> Like, this Gretta girl. Yeah, ok hun, YOU are going to fix climate change. How? Another boat? Or perhaps 2 more planes?
> You can tell she's being told exactly what to say or do. Seen that gif of her rolling her eyes just because trump walks past? OrANGe MaN bAd!!!!
> 
> ...



Exactly. These children's strings are being pulled by adults and the adults are using the children for emotional fodder. It's not like these kids have many ideas that haven't been put there by adults. These national walkouts and protests have been organized by adults. That's why I think if we can pull kids out of school to protest climate change we should be able to pull them out to protest abortions. So it's not okay to show a banner at a school sporting event that is pro-republican, but it's totally okay to skip school to push a Liberal agenda?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



pcwizard7 said:


> so I have little opinion when it comes of today's students and I leave it with one more fact all trouble started when parents and teacher took completeness away in sports this is where the everything is handed to me concept started



Taking competitiveness out of things and making everything fair for everyone is simply dumbing down society. Sure, it sucks to lose or not be as smart as someone else, but that's just part of life. We didn't build ships, sail across oceans and fly to the moon using Liberal ideals. Some people are just smarter and better than other people. 

I wouldn't want someone who didn't past the pilots test to fly the commercial airliner I'm on or passed the test because he or she was given "more points" because of economic disparity. I wouldn't want a competing team in the Superbowl to start off with 30 points, because some of their players came from the hood or aren't White skinned.

Life isn't fair. Sure, it sucks to not be as smart as some other people or no being the best at a certain thing, but that's not how things get done. We want the smartest and brightest in the field addressing the problems in their field. To think otherwise and you'll end up with failing in that field. Like I said, we didn't get the moon using the brains of people who can't perform complex mathematical equations.

One of the problems with the education system is that they're trying to make everything "fair" for everyone and that's just not possible. So what are we seeing, the "dumb" people in college and then the resulting jobless society. Well, we asked for it. Hard work and smarts pay off. That's how it's always worked and you aren't going to be able to change that. Some people are just smarter then other people. Some people are just better than some things than other people are.


----------



## Carnelian (Sep 24, 2019)

Climate Change is just a hoax to increase taxes and remove people’s right.


----------



## kumikochan (Sep 24, 2019)

billapong said:


> There's a current consensus that generalization is somehow evil or wrong, but it's not and it's basically a starting point for diving into any specific issue. You can't simply list and address every single person and their individual values or traits, so you start with generalization. It's a useful and valid way to go about things. So is stereotyping. The problem people have is when you generalize or stereotype about something that offends them or they disagree with. Liberals have no problem generalizing or stereotyping about people they disagree with. So to use it to try to control an argument is going to work on me. I've got no problem with generalization or stereotyping regardless of who's doing it. Like I mentioned, both have valid uses.
> 
> Looking at the sky any saying "that's a beautiful blue sky" is generalizing about the color blue.
> 
> ...


Well here homeless can't vote. I never said everything happened thanks to Trump, the only thing i said Trump is the reason the US started using more coal plants and made it so big companies can start dumping shit again in the air and water and so forth and that's fact. Also explain to me how generalizing can tribute to something good ? I'm really intrigued how you can say that is a good thing so explain how that is good ? You said it's a good thing but didn't explain how that can be good while not doing at all in comparison ?


----------



## morvoran (Sep 24, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> actually no that is what you are doing, since you're blindly following data by self proclaimed pseudo scientists without any real hard data to back up what they're saying as they've constantly taken back their claims and said sorry for it.


oh, good defense by throwing my words back at me (I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you). Very mature. 
These pseudo "climate" scientists only show the "evidence" that back up their agendas.  What good would it do to their "career" if they disproved their rhetoric?  It's funny how sheeple just can't see how they are being lead with lies to fight against an unstoppable force (real climate change) and a made up foe (human caused climate change).  Whenever somebody tries to add some discourse against their leaders talking points, the blind followers always go, "bah, bah, leader says I cause co2, bah, you is dumb, bah, my leader is good and right, bah, they never lie to us, bah, our future is their only concern, bah" while they are being lead to the slaughterhouse.  Read the book "Animal Farm", this is the Democrat leaders' guidebook.



smf said:


> It's like re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic after it hit the iceberg.


  Better than just waving their fist at the trash while throwing more trash on the ground and expecting others to clean it up.



smf said:


> Again, relatively pointless stuff that won't make a difference in the long term.


  I guess they should just stay home and play video games, huh?  Why bother even trying?



smf said:


> Of course they are. You just feel threatened by them.


 No, just like the hateful liberals on this site, they just make me laugh at their ridiculousness and false beliefs. I actually have pity on them for wasting their time and lives when they could do so much more to actual cause positive change in this world.



WD_GASTER2 said:


> either way im done. It doesnt matter. You will just quote some petroleum industry group or conspiracy theorist. The cool kids that want to be contrarians will defend you. I am sure next you will say the moon landing was fixed too.


No, I'll just say, "Good day to you.  See you in 13 years when humans will still be alive and nothing will be different than today except the climate may be a little cooler."



comput3rus3r said:


> You can't fix "changing climate" ...


  That's what all these man-made climate change believers can't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell them.  You can't control mother nature as she's a fickle bitch.


----------



## notimp (Sep 24, 2019)

morvoran said:


> These pseudo "climate" scientists only show the "evidence" that back up their agendas.


Those are actual climate scientists. Which are in the mast majority. Also - the agenda ultimately is one of the UN. In a very direct and kind of obvious way.

Now - in the US especially, it benefits people with a globalist mindset, while doing nothing is part of a nationalist agenda.

At heart of the argument its pretty simple.

Regardless of who done did it (humans vs nature fake argument) - there are several reasons, of why people maybe should want to start looking at a concept called 'energy transition' (getting onto renewable forms of energy soon).

If one of the major players like the US says - ehh... *fuck it*, more people already are projected to die. Not in the US, not necessarily in Europe - but certainly in more affected parts of the world (also - with higher population densities). Less access to drinkable water as one pressing issue - f.e..

Now - at the driving helm of those movement are always people that might profit from it (because the idealists with money - are such a small fraction. )

And yes - there is an odd angle of - If you are good at engineering social movements, that work, last - and change peoples behavior 'almost volentary' - that even can move market actors, investors, and so on. If.

And yes - I personally prefer, for people to act as somewhat rational actors with their own short/mid term interests at heart - because they can be manipulated less well if they do, at least in theory. Give them a greater goal by all means (it is what has been missing from politics for years), but at least make it political - so it can be voted off as well.

Make it 'almost religious' - and I will always think its highly problematic. Put up children in front of it to make it spread better in old age populations, and I'll always think, that its highly problematic.

Fair?

The proposals cant be 'your scientists are fake' because - large parts of the world are acting already. It has already become an economic issue/driver.

Now - if you are betting on - not my problem, public interest will not last, fair - do what the US is doing currently. But cut out the "evidence missing" part just to make you look good. Or make your populations less bothered by it collectively. Essentially - you cant push 'epistemes' with 'doubt' much longer. Thats just too easy of a way out. 

Also note - that all of that is part of (popular) politics.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2019)

billapong said:


> That's what I just said.


No, you said:


> If your goal is the betterment, advancement of longevity of the human race then not having children is counter productive to that goal.


That's not true for the reasons I stated previously.


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> No, you said:
> 
> That's not true for the reasons I stated previously.



You seem to be over analyzing things. After reading some of your posts you should learn to be more subjective. What I meant by my statement was that I agree with your overall point. Yes, it's not the literal meaning of what I typed, but it seems when you're supporting your views you tend to communicate on a very dry level. Could it really hurt to be more imaginative and less Liberal? (Subjective Hint - That's not a question that I want you to actually reply to).


----------



## kumikochan (Sep 24, 2019)

morvoran said:


> oh, good defense by throwing my words back at me (I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you). Very mature.
> These pseudo "climate" scientists only show the "evidence" that back up their agendas.  What good would it do to their "career" if they disproved their rhetoric?  It's funny how sheeple just can't see how they are being lead with lies to fight against an unstoppable force (real climate change) and a made up foe (human caused climate change).  Whenever somebody tries to add some discourse against their leaders talking points, the blind followers always go, "bah, bah, leader says I cause co2, bah, you is dumb, bah, my leader is good and right, bah, they never lie to us, bah, our future is their only concern, bah" while they are being lead to the slaughterhouse.  Read the book "Animal Farm", this is the Democrat leaders' guidebook.
> 
> Better than just waving their fist at the trash while throwing more trash on the ground and expecting others to clean it up.
> ...


They have constantly taken back the claims they made and even said multiple times that their own data was wrong. A prime example of one of the major climate change deniers is Tony Heller who has taken back what he said and that his own numbers weren't correct. Also those scientists that do say climate change is a hoax is less than 5 percent of the total people who are scientists. There's actually a list and there's only 66 scientists who don't agree with climate change due to human activity and that's actually not a lot if you take in to consideration the total amount of scientists over the entire world that are known in that sector and branch. Denying climate change wich can be more seen in Europe, not in extreme weather patterns but in a lot of different manners like more and more exotic animals and insects starting to migrate to Europe and the climate being differently in Western Europe compared to 25 years ago. A prime example would be an event that The Netherlands was known for and took place every year but didn't happen for ages now because it just doesn't snow or freeze below zero on a constant basis anymore in The Netherlands compared to many years ago. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-dna-a-warming-climate-could-change-that/


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2019)

billapong said:


> You seem to be over analyzing things. After reading some of your posts you should learn to be more subjective. What I meant by my statement was that I agree with your overall point. Yes, it's not the literal meaning of what I typed, but it seems when you're supporting your views you tend to communicate on a very dry level. Could it really hurt to be more imaginative and less Liberal? (Subjective Hint - That's not a question that I want you to actually reply to).


It's absurd to think I can correctly discern when you mean the opposite of what you say. All I have to go on are your words. This isn't an issue of context or sarcasm, but I am not particularly interested in having a linguistically semantic or pragmatic debate.


----------



## notimp (Sep 24, 2019)

The not having children argument is a non mainstream compatible part of any proposal surrounding this.

Here is the deal.

You will have to make it voluntary, you will have to make it socially acceptable. Which - if we are talking open, western societies - you cant. (To any noticeable extent.)

End of story.

Bringing this up as part of the popular discussion - serves one purpose only - to allow people, that for various reasons have gone that route - not to be ostracized by society. Thats it. It will never be more mainstream than that.

--
Now - if you look at it from the big numbers perpecitive - for people to have less children - you either need, wars, or periods of large social unrest - or on the opposite side - functioning social institutions (pension systems) people trust in, higher education (so women will start to develop a taste against having 8 children in their lives), cities (much more else to do in the evening - other form of social structures, .. other aspects I cant remember, .. ). Birth control (them babies!).

If you do nothing. And then do nothing. And then do nothing for a bit. Wars will get larger. Because food security is not so easy to guarantee looking at current trends.

(Here is the less mathematical abstract for exponential growth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem )

But also - thats not the issue anymore - population growth is already projected to peter out. When it does, and population rich agegroups die out - problem solved (somewhat). The problem always is in the transitional periods, and how to get the concept into people, that economic growth - kind of is a problem, if you dont have more people wanting access to a certain good 'almost automatically'.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Sep 24, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> They have constantly taken back the claims they made and even said multiple times that their own data was wrong. A prime example of one of the major climate change deniers is Tony Heller who has taken back what he said and that his own numbers weren't correct.


wtf is a climate change denier? Climate on earth has been changing since the earth began. The earth is how it is today because of climate change. Do you know anything about how planet earth formed? Nothing we can do can stop climate change because change in general is inherent in creation. Next thing people will want to stop are the seasons...


----------



## kumikochan (Sep 24, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> wtf is a climate change denier? Climate on earth has been changing since the earth began. The earth is how it is today because of climate change. Do you know anything about how planet earth formed? Nothing we can do can stop climate change because change in general is inherent in creation. Next thing people will want to stop are the seasons...


I'm talking about how people view the word '' climate change '' these days. Words do change over time due to things happening in that time period and evolve because of that so you know pretty well what i mean with the use of that wording. Ofcourse i know what climate change means don't try to act like i don't. You know pretty well what i meant and if you want me to use a different term for it that makes you a tiny bit happier than i will


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Well here homeless can't vote. I never said everything happened thanks to Trump, the only thing i said Trump is the reason the US started using more coal plants and made it so big companies can start dumping shit again in the air and water and so forth and that's fact. Also explain to me how generalizing can tribute to something good ? I'm really intrigued how you can say that is a good thing so explain how that is good ? You said it's a good thing but didn't explain how that can be good while not doing at all in comparison ?



_Video games are fun.

I enjoy playing video games.

Zelda is a fun game.

I enjoy Action RPGs._

There's a few sweeping generalizations that people make on a daily basis in the video game scene. Generalizing is a simple form of stating something. It's neither positive nor negative. It depends on how you use it and how you view how it's being used. 

Per example, if someone states that Trump supporters do not support the environment. There's some truth to that generalization, but as being an educated person that doesn't take things too literally I can deduct that the poster was making a generalized statement based on the majority of the Trump supporters. Not all Trump voters support his administrations and his personal views on the environment. I'd admit it could help people who aren't experienced when it comes to comprehension that it would have been more proper to state "most Trump supporters", but I don't think that generations of the past should have to change the way they go about making statements because some people can't deduct and reason correctly.

It's also like Liberals or the Left in general don't make generalizations. It's very common and everyone does it, but like I said, when someone generalizes about a sensitive issue, then the disagreeing person will try to rebuke their point by simply state they are generalizing. Well, yes they are and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a starting point. Both sides then can dive deeper into specifics after that.

_Zelda is a fun game.

- Which Zelda game?

Link's Awakening

- The original or the remake?

The remake
_
See how that works? You can't tell me that using it in this context is negative (well, I guess you could, that's if you dislike Zelda or the new port).

As for Trump, his administration is responsible for relaxing laws regarding coal. I know that he's the commander in chief and takes the blame for everything that happens under his watch, but that's like saying you're responsible for someone that broke into your house and shot your dog because you left the the front door unlocked. 

He's technically not the only person who needs to be blamed, but I do agree that promoting coal is a bad idea, but we didn't need regulations to begin with. I'm firmly against laws and regulations. People should be allowed to make their own mistakes and learn from them. No one needs the Government looking over their shoulder and holding their hand their entire life.


----------



## baxzxd (Sep 24, 2019)

Imagine making this a political issue for some reason.


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It's absurd to think I can correctly discern when you mean the opposite of what you say. All I have to go on are your words. This isn't an issue of context or sarcasm, but I am not particularly interested in having a linguistically semantic or pragmatic debate.



Get out more and talk to more people? Practice some more and earn some XP?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



baxzxd said:


> Imagine making this a political issue for some reason.



Politicians are good at doing that, but in this case their motivation is sadly not in actually helping the environment.


----------



## kumikochan (Sep 24, 2019)

billapong said:


> _Video games are fun.
> 
> I enjoy playing video games.
> 
> ...


Well if you generalize about something that isn't alive i do agree that it isn't mostly negative but it tends to be when directed at a group of people. I do stand corrected that it can be used in a positive manner like '' that was a fun group ''  but in theory it can't be that way and is mostly used in a negative manner since the definition does say a generalization is made with not knowing, seeing or hearing about the thing you're generalizing about. So if you do it like in that manner '' well that was a fun group '' than it means you actually have seen or experienced the group wich made you say that so by the definition of generalization it isn't really generalizing anymore. I'm just trying to be difficult here but i do stand corrected that it can be used positively. I agree with the way you explained it mostly but not fully


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Well if you generalize about something that isn't alive i do agree that it isn't mostly negative but it tends to be when directed at a group of people. I do stand corrected that it can be used in a positive manner like '' that was a fun group ''  but in theory it can't be that way and is mostly used in a negative manner since the definition does say a generalization is made with not knowing, seeing or hearing about the thing you're generalizing about. So if you do it like in that manner '' well that was a fun group '' than it means you actually have seen or experienced the group wich made you say that so by the definition of generalization it isn't really generalizing anymore



That depends on where you're getting the definition from. I learned the definition of the word back in the early 80's and just know how it's been used from years of experience, but after a quick check I see that Merriam Webster's definition hasn't been skewed to appease modern political movements. Surprisingly, the current climate has also not sunken their teeth into the Wikipedia definition either (which is weird, because it's trendy to edit a Wikipedia page to push your agenda and then refer to the Wiki entry as it's some Godly fact).

I dunno, when I debate I don't poke at the simple action of making generalizations, stereotyping or spelling/typing mistakes. I find people that nitpick about such insignificant things are simply desperate in their attempt to control the debate (as opposed to continuing the conversation and learning something). Yes, that statement in itself is a generalization. because it's not always the case.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2019)

billapong said:


> Get out more and talk to more people? Practice some more and earn some XP?


Does this post serve any purpose other than to try to make a person feel bad? That's not how an adult appropriately talks to someone. I'm sorry you regret posting what you did, but gaslighting isn't a very good tactic, nor is the projection of one's own insecurities.


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Does this post serve any purpose other than to try to make a person feel bad? That's not how an adult appropriately talks to someone. I'm sorry you regret posting what you did, but gaslighting isn't a very good tactic, nor is the projection of one's own insecurities.



Nope, just a bit constructive humor. If it provoked bad feelings that's all on you.


----------



## smf (Sep 24, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I guess they should just stay home and play video games, huh?  Why bother even trying?



You're the one suggesting they should give up, not me. I think they should double down.



morvoran said:


> That's what all these man-made climate change believers can't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell them.  You can't control mother nature as she's a fickle bitch.



You can't control her, but you can provably upset her though & it hurts us more than it hurts her. That is what all these climate change deniers can't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell them. Sad!



comput3rus3r said:


> wtf is a climate change denier? Climate on earth has been changing since the earth began. The earth is how it is today because of climate change. Do you know anything about how planet earth formed? Nothing we can do can stop climate change because change in general is inherent in creation. Next thing people will want to stop are the seasons...



It doesn't mean that the climate doesn't change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

_*Climate change denial*, or *global warming denial* is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human action
_
It's way more nuanced than your incorrect definition, so it seems you built your strawman too early.


----------



## kumikochan (Sep 24, 2019)

The only remaining cents that i have to share in a topic where everything already has been said by 2 major sides and 1 side mostly being neutral is that i agree with most arguments that politicians, goverments, lobbyists and companies do use '' man made climate change '' ( before people go saying that i use the world climate change ) to further and widen their own pockets. I don't agree with young people hijacking a movement of stronger young individuals to not even go to school that eventually damages the real smarter wiser younger people that actually do have good things to say. I don't agree with Greta entirely but i do respect her as a young person with autism that stood strong for what she believed in ( people tend to say she became the large icon she is because the left used her but in Europe she already was a big thing before the left even used her ) but i do agree that politicians use her and demonstrations and so forth to damage the whole essence of the movement and turned it basically in a fight between different movements of politics, companies and so forth. I agree that we have to take a stance as a people to do what we can and start taking responsibility instead of using a movement to further each others own goals and use it to make money. I don't agree with everything they said but countries, politicians, companies and so forth have to stop using the movement for their own goals wich by now just turned in to one of the biggest non human fought wars of the century on a global scale involving the entire world and the sad thing is that the whole world finally connects to each other on a single topic and it's not for the benefit of our own as a race, as protectors instead of destroyers but just to fight senseless wars based on ideology that can easily put aside, greed, power and money. How can the essence of all that so easily be forgotten like a perfect examply of that being seen here where everybody just attacks and starts agressively calling other people out by names and so forth. Just my couple remaining cents on the entire matter. It is a sad thing that something that needs people to come together as a race sadly does the entire opposite due to greed, exploitation, power and money. Don't have to agree with it but just thoughts about it in general and the whole 1 side vs the other side


----------



## billapong (Sep 25, 2019)

smf said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
> 
> _*Climate change denial*, or *global warming denial* is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human action
> _
> It's way more nuanced than your incorrect definition, so it seems you built your strawman too early.



Heh, "I found it on Wikipedia so it must be factual and truthful". Meh. Although, this particular definition does somewhat address the issue about people simply straight out claiming that their actions don't effect the climate. The problem is that no one is sure exactly to what extent our influence is and no one is agrees on what will change or reverse it (if anything).

Planting a tree is always a good idea. Using less resources in your own personal life will also help out, but I don't think anyone is going to be able to control the weather or the climate in general. We can't even accurately predict local weather patterns and our records don't go back millions of years.

We just don't know, but I'm not going to vote for more laws, more restrictions, more taxes to just put other people in power and make them rich when they have no intentions on doing anything about making less of a negative environmental impact themselves. I also am not going to vote for policies that encourage companies to pollute the environment. Then in my own personal life I have made choices to be less "trashy". That's about all one can do.

I'm not going to try to force other people to bend to my will based on limited knowledge and mass speculation that's has consensualization by the majority of a single group. Science is constantly evolving, which means that shit right now is most likely inaccurate. I don't limit myself to one side of the issue. The scientists who buck the trend and have lost dearly due to it should have their voices taken into consideration. Simply ignoring facts and only making decisions based on the data that you only want to look at is foolish and so it expecting or trying to force everyone else to do the same.

I think there's a song about this by The Who called "Won't Get Fooled Again". It's a good song that reminds me of the lessons I've learned throughout my years about honesty coming from authority figures (or lack thereof). Remind me, when is the world going to end this time?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kumikochan said:


> The only remaining cents that i have to share in a topic where everything already has been said by 2 major sides and 1 side mostly being neutral is that i agree with most arguments that politicians, goverments, lobbyists and companies do use '' man made climate change '' ( before people go saying that i use the world climate change ) to further and widen their own pockets. I don't agree with young people hijacking a movement of stronger young individuals to not even go to school that eventually damages the real smarter wiser younger people that actually do have good things to say.



One thing you're going to probably come to realize is that these politicians and companies with their lackey lobbyists control us. They are our modern lords. You won't find any of them in their multi million dollar homes that take up more energy than 10 houses protected by large walls, driving around the car of the day, flying around in jets, spending what most people make in a single day on a single meal doing anything about the climate themselves. The majority of the hero figures the Liberals hold up on pedestals have zero intention of doing anything about the climate.

Now, this particular youngster seems adamant about the issue and looks to be genuine and maybe she'll get some of the other kids her age to adopt more environmental friendly attitudes, but I don't think we should be pulling our children out of school and parading them around about such issues (as it's not okay to so when it relates to issues that Liberals don't agree with).

It's not like these kids are making up their own minds about issues as the Liberal education system is doing them a disservice by teaching them what to think instead of independent thinking skills. When I was young I never liked when adults would tell me what to think, what to wear, what to say, etc ... I was happier when I was allowed to make my own decisions (that includes making my own mistakes).

Schools have no right to tell our children who to vote for or what stance they should take on political issues. They should simply inform our children about how things work and let them decide on how they wan't to work them on their own.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 25, 2019)

Whenever a teenager tells you how to fix the world, you should probably ignore them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

whenever a teenager tells you how to fix the world, you should probably ignore them.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 25, 2019)

When you're not trained in how scientist speak, the meaning and results of research can be transformed into something completely different after it goes through a few layers of reporting.

For example:
people say "theory", "hypothesis", "law of", or "opinion" all pretty interchangeably in every day speech.

In science, those words have specific definitions which must be used accurately.
Hypothesis is an educated guess, which you prove or disprove through various methods of experimentation/etc.
A Theory is a massive collection of results from experimentation, of observed natural laws (law of gravity, etc), and other things, with the result being able to predict future events and *explain* the mechanism which allows for all these things to happen.

Basically, a hypothesis is the first step, and a theory is the largest milestone (in the hard sciences. Soft sciences use the words differently).  When we talk about climate change, we're talking about a well-established and well-supported theory. There is an insanely massive body of work which crosses an incredibly array of different, non-related fields, which have tested, explained, and created data (as in, results of experimentation) and it all points to the same thing.

If you want to learn about the science behind climate change, you have to first understand how science works. Not just the words and how they ought to be used, but why they're used that way and why it's important.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 25, 2019)

Iamapirate said:


> Whenever a teenager tells you how to fix the world, you should probably ignore them.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> whenever a teenager tells you how to fix the world, you should probably ignore them.



When someone autistic enough to cross the Atlantic ocean on a 60ft boat with solar cells and turbines tells you something is fucked up, i would probably listen.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 25, 2019)

omgcat said:


> When someone autistic enough to cross the Atlantic ocean on a 60ft boat with solar cells and turbines tells you something is fucked up, i would probably listen.


children don't know anything about the world.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 25, 2019)

smf said:


> you can provably upset her though & it hurts us more than it hurts her. That is what all these climate change deniers can't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell them. Sad!


  Oh, so you're saying Mother Nature is a liberal?  Ok, that explains it.  Man-made climate change is Trump's fault because he denied it exists and that pissed off mother nature.  
SMF solved the riddle everybody. Nothing more to see here.




osaka35 said:


> A Theory is a massive collection of results from experimentation, of observed natural laws (law of gravity, etc), and other things, with the result being able to predict future events and *explain* the mechanism which allows for all these things to happen.



Theories are not used to predict future events, but rather, to assume future events.  They are used to "explain" why something happens through a hypothesis assumed to be true, not to explain the actual reason that something happens as there is no concrete proof to back them up. 

Theories can be proven untrue, but not the other way around as they are nothing more than "scientific guesses" (or hypotheses) that can only be assumed true.  A hypothesis proven true through is the scientific method is a "scientific fact", not a theory.

This whole "human caused climate change" idea is a theory.  It is a guess that utilizes only the data that backs up this theory while leaving out the data that would prove it untrue.  This is why there are "climate change deniers" because it has not been proven to be a scientific fact while evidence shows that it is also untrue.


*theory*
noun
the·o·ry | \ ˈthē-ə-rē  

 , ˈthir-ē\
plural theories
*Definition of theory*
1 *: *a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light
2a *: *a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b *: *an ideal or *hypothetical set of facts*, principles, or circumstances  —often used in the phrase _in theory_ in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3a *: a hypothesis assumed* for the sake of argument or investigation
b *: an unproved assumption* *: *conjecture
c *: *a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations
4 *: *the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
5 *: abstract thought* *: *speculation
6 *: *the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, so you're saying Mother Nature is a liberal?  Ok, that explains it.  Man-made climate change is Trump's fault because he denied it exists and that pissed off mother nature.
> SMF solved the riddle everybody. Nothing more to see here.
> 
> 
> ...



Dictionaries follow usage, they do not create it. They're also not the most accurate things in the world. They're the "ehh, close enough" and should be considered a rough starting point for understanding usage and understanding of a term. It's really hard to boil down a complex concept to a singular statement. Which means they tend to be terrible and atrocious starting points when it comes to science, which tends to be pretty complex. understanding a "theory" takes far more than a single sentence. 

As for the rest of the definitions beyond the first one, I stated there is how it's normally used in everyday speech (which are what those definitions highlighted are). The first one is...close to being correct, but could mislead some who don't understand already what theory means. 

Your understanding of theory and hypothesis are incorrect. This is not how these words or concepts are used. If you want to understand what's being said about climate change, you have to understand what's being said about it. 

Predicting future events is a big part of verifying the validity of a theory. Or rather, explaining and detailing a mechanism which created all the observed and tested phenomena in the literature. 

Let's pull on a common knowledge example of this. Einstein's theory of relativity, right? Pulls from loads of data, of research and experiments, and laws they were aware of back in the day. But it requires certain things to be true in order for the mechanism explained to be accurate. As in...it predicts future events, it predicts things to happen/be happening/etc. that are independently testable. For Einstein, that meant gravity would bend light. So scientist around the globe tried to take pictures of the sun during a total solar eclipse. If Einstein's the mechanisms which constitute Einstein's theories were valid, you should be able to see stars behind the sun we shouldn't be able to see otherwise. And they did! the mechanism was used to predict a scenario we didn't think to look for before (seeing stars behind the sun), and thus was validated to a certain degree.

Here's a quality reading from Isaac Asimov, and I think it may help a lot.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm


----------



## morvoran (Sep 25, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Predicting future events is a big part of verifying the validity of a theory. Or rather, explaining and detailing a mechanism which created all the observed and tested phenomena in the literature.


 While it is true that they can "predict" results, scientific predictions are nothing more than educated guesses (or assumptions).  Predictions of the future can only be assumptions as we are unable to know the future until it happens.



osaka35 said:


> Dictionaries follow usage, they do not create it. They're also not the most accurate things in the world. They're the "ehh, close enough" and should be considered a rough starting point for understanding usage and understanding of a term.


You're getting dictionaries mixed up with Wikipedia.



osaka35 said:


> Your understanding of theory and hypothesis are incorrect. This is not how these words or concepts are used. If you want to understand what's being said about climate change, you have to understand what's being said about it.


 No, that may be your hypothesis, but a theory is one step up from a hypothesis as it only has evidence that supports it (correlation over causation).  They are not proven true as that would mean they are no longer theories.



osaka35 said:


> For Einstein, that meant gravity would bend light. So scientist around the globe tried to take pictures of the sun during a total solar eclipse. If Einstein's the mechanisms which constitute Einstein's theories were valid, you should be able to see stars behind the sun we shouldn't be able to see otherwise. And they did!


  One set of evidence that can back up part of his theory does not make it "scientific law".  That is why it is still called the "theory of relativity".


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> While it is true that they can "predict" results, scientific predictions are nothing more than educated guesses (or assumptions).  Predictions of the future can only be assumptions as we are unable to know the future until it happens.
> 
> You're getting dictionaries mixed up with Wikipedia.
> 
> ...


Wikipedia tends to be more accurate than a dictionary. Doesn't mean it's overly accurate, but a whole page with sources compared to one over-simplified sentence? Dictionaries are a good *starting point*, same for wikipedia. But should never, ever be considered an authority on a definition. Because when it comes to science, and most everything in life, the details are everything.

it's pretty straight forward. Just...google it. Google all of this. I can set you up with some basic science videos to get you started, make you a youtube playlist, if you'd prefer that.

Seriously, your definitions are just...inaccurate. Assigning own definitions to words and then assuming everyone else uses your chosen definition will lead to...mistakes. I'm assuming this plays a large part in why you hold such peculiar and incorrect beliefs. If you honestly want to talk about this topic as if you know about it, you have to bother learning the language. Otherwise you're just wasting your own time.

Oh, and a "law" is more of a...collection of observations. Let me break it down a bit
Hypothesis: "I think if I drop this apple and bowling ball at the same time, they're going to hit the ground at the same time, even though one is heavier"
Law: "gravity can be defined as having these properties, based on these observations and experiments"
Theory: "gravity can be explained and understood as a warping of space-time"

There is a progression there, which I'm hoping is obvious. When we observe things which fall outside the theory, then we revise the theory or it can lead to a more fundamental law. Hypothesis guess, law define, theory explain and predict. This is how scientist mean it when they speak it.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, so you're saying Mother Nature is a liberal?  Ok, that explains it.  Man-made climate change is Trump's fault because he denied it exists and that pissed off mother nature.
> SMF solved the riddle everybody. Nothing more to see here.
> 
> 
> ...


No osaka35 is 100% right about the usage of Theory in the Scientific field. You're using the definition from common parlance which is different from scientific usage.

The definitions you listed has both every day common usage and scientific usage. And if you look at the definitions they look like they contradict each other if you don't know this difference.

This is common knowledge on how the Scientific method works, and the process it goes through. Hypothesis becomes a theory after its been well established with data to back it up. It has to be falsifiable but that's besides the point, if its not falsifiable then its bad science to use it.




You are wrong about a hypothesis being assumed to be true because that's not what you are suppose to do as a scientist because that will cause bias. You don't assume anything, you present a hypothesis then you test it, if it survives then its solid, if it doesn't then you drop the hypothesis and move on.

A scientific guess is an educated guess its not a stupid random guess. The fact that you don't know theory and even try to argue about it's definitions when its been well established in the scientific community and common knowledge by now makes me question a lot about the stuff you say.

Just look at Theory of Gravity. This just an opinion right? An assumption? Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity. To see the word theory in front of these things and to argue the way you been arguing about the definition usage and not make any connection that its maybe more then what you've been talking about makes me question your critical thinking.


----------



## notimp (Sep 25, 2019)

omgcat said:


> When someone autistic enough to cross the Atlantic ocean on a 60ft boat with solar cells and turbines tells you something is fucked up, i would probably listen.


Why, because of the PR effort?  (Not a denier, just saying.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> While it is true that they can "predict" results, scientific predictions are nothing more than educated guesses (or assumptions). Predictions of the future can only be assumptions as we are unable to know the future until it happens.


Right. Now next stage. When is it proper to act on educated presumptions?


----------



## morvoran (Sep 25, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Wikipedia tends to be more accurate than a dictionary.





osaka35 said:


> Seriously, your definitions are just...made up. And you can't just make up your own definitions to words and then assume everyone else uses your definition.


Ok, I think I just got enough evidence right here to prove my theory correct.  It was nice talking to you.  You have a nice day. 



SG854 said:


> You are wrong about a hypothesis being assumed to be true because that's not what you are suppose to do as a scientist because that will cause bias. You don't assume anything, you present a hypothesis then you test it, if it survives then its solid, if it doesn't then you drop the hypothesis and move on.
> 
> A scientific guess is an educated guess its not a stupid random guess. The fact that you don't know theory and even try to argue about it's definitions when its been well established in the scientific community and common knowledge by now makes me question a lot about the stuff you say.
> 
> Just look at Theory of Gravity. This just an opinion right? An assumption? Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity. To see the word theory in front of these things and to argue the way you been arguing about the definition usage........


I don't think you read all that I said enough to comprehend my meaning.

How about the "Law of Gravity"?  What goes up, must come down.  This has been proven without the shadow of doubt to be true which is what makes it law.  Einstein's theory of gravity is still just a theory which hasn't been proven to be true.  Sure, it may have probable evidence that can make people believe it to be true, but it has never been definitely proven to be a law meaning it may possibly be proven untrue.

You shouldn't consider theories to be absolutely and factually correct just because a few scientists with an agenda need them to be right and only show evidence that provides evidence that they might be true.


On topic, the hypothesis of these kids thinking that withholding the bringing of kids into this world will change the minds of others, is complete nonsense.


----------



## MohammedQ8 (Sep 25, 2019)

One solution is to poop outside to make more greens Lol.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Ok, I think I just got enough evidence right here to prove my theory correct.  It was nice talking to you.  You have a nice day.


what in your life has lead you to belief the dictionary is so accurate as to be beyond correction or critique? And why do you still believe this to be true?

I'm sorry, I wish I could help. You'd rather accept what you think, rather than someone skilled in a field telling you that's not how it works. I could explain everything precisely and clearly, but I don't think it would help much.


----------



## notimp (Sep 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You shouldn't consider theories to be absolutely and factually correct just because a few scientists with an agenda need them to be right and only show evidence that provides evidence that they might be true.
> 
> 
> On topic, the hypothesis of these kids thinking that withholding the bringing of kids into this world will change the minds of others, is complete nonsense.


Now they arent saying that. Their message is rather 'everyone has to act within their means now' (which brings with it another set of problems), meaning - don't fly, dont take unnecessary car trips, change your diet. And politics - make laws! The dont have babies part, isnt part of their spiel - at all. Thats from fringe opinion people, unrelated to the demands of that very diverse (not uniform, everyone can join!) popular movement. That for some reason get more media attention now - but, if germany is an indicator - only once. Its not like that we are talking about that idea on how to solve it more than once - its a curiosity, that no one - but you takes seriously. (Focuses in on.)

Regardless, that it does make sense in theory - its just not something humans will ever do. Apart from a few fringe thinkers.

The closest you came to that taking place was chinas one child policy. We are not discusing that in any way.


Children as messengers. Yes, thats highly problematic. You have a point there. Currently the mainstream is trying to rectify it with 'its their world in the future' - which is correct, but it doesnt take away from the issue.

Currently the group around Greta produced their first international incidence, by announcing that they would sue five countries that made 'the rights of children, not only sacrosanct, but also legally binding - to an extent - moreso than others, and by doing that they are lumping together f.e. france and brasil by the most random of criteria. Not smart - just out of a shere wish to remain important and grow the movement.

Regardless - even if the messenger, and the means of PR are problematic - doesnt mean that the core message is wrong.

(Thats short for, the way you are dealing with issues on facebook (kill the integrity of the other person - ad hominem argument) is flawed. You cant be right because of that.  )

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

On a more general note.

What you tend to do - all the time - is weigh the connection of arguments wrong. You take the most outrageous, interest baiting, borderline 'odd' ideas - postulating (say it is so) - that they are the drivers of everything.

And then say - because thats obviously not the case - what I just created - must be wrong. In principal.

But you created it with wrong presumptions about importance (of the relevance of certain parts of your theory (not in the scientific sense  )) in the first place.

Got it?

Every single one of your recent threads.

And thats also what clickbait news does.

edit: And its working.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Sep 25, 2019)

billapong said:


> Anyway, about this topic matter. I find it pretty ironic that schools go to great lengths to censor or remove Conservative material from their premises, but then allow kids to skip school to protest relating to their Liberal agenda. Hey, if we're going to push politics on our children before they can even think for themselves then and if I didn't have a problem with such nonsense then it would be fair to allow our children to skip school to protest women killing their own children or whatever your agenda is about.



OK, this is gonna be off the fucking topic, but I want to share my experience with this: I remember bringing a Bible to my middle school once, and doing a project in my career class to shadow one of my older brothers who's a youth pastor just for the sake of getting the assignment done because one parents' job was considered too dangerous to shadow, and I can't remember why I couldn't do the other one. Either way, no one ever gave yours truly slack for any of this that I ever noticed.

Then, at a junior college I went to, in 2014 when the movie God's Not Dead came out, I saw a poster for the movie in the testing center of the college because I had accommodations. The only time they removed the poster was when the movie wasn't in theaters. And what's even more ironic is this is in a city within an hour and a half of Chicago in Illinois. Illinois! The state who's elections totally weren't rigged thanks to Cook County that elected a man who's all about legalizing marijuana, raising taxes, making gun regulations tighter (or one of the members of his cabinet or whatever put some notice or is trying to get state legislation through or something in a statement that the aforementioned older brother sent to my mom in an e-mail once and I end up seeing this kind of shit because you'd be surprised at how much they want me to print shit out when a switch to GMail and an upgrade on the flip phone to a smartphone would do wonders) and who, in a group message that a different older brother of mine sent to all of the family via text, is looking to put in the public school curricula as a requirement LGBTQIA+/GRSM (the latter being a new phrase those on the BreadTube are promoting as a replacement to the former). I don't remember all of the details, but the implication of the notification was, "AVOID PUBLIC SCHOOLS AT ALL COSTS, AND IT'S A GOOD THING THIS WASN'T A REQUIREMENT WHEN SILENT_GUNNER WAS IN SCHOOL!"

Now, I'm not hard left or right on anything in particular that affects me personally, but I do value being able to get some form of self defense against criminals who will get guns through illegitimate means without being branded a criminal, and I think people should take responsibility for their own problems and make their own success and, to be quite honest, more people should be focusing on moving out of their parents' house as opposed to going into debt for even degrees that might be practical, and experience true freedom and independence and get an understanding of the responsibilities of adult life before going to college. As someone with higher functioning Asperger's, I think it'd be hypocritical of yours truly to be against some of the LGBTQIA+ spectra, but I'd be lying if the pronoun thing is where, in a world of "check your privilege!", you can lose your job just because you didn't refer to someone who looks like a woman as a man, or vice versa. The brother of the girl I was dating (and this wasn't why we...toned the relationship down, to sum it up) actually has the sex of a female, but has transitioned to male, and anytime I refer to him in conversation in the heat of the moment, it becomes a struggle to juggle the name (especially if their previous name is cooler IMO than their current, not to mention it being the first name you associate with someone) and pronoun to refer to them. 

But being able to do whatever you want, date whoever you want (I'm straight, but even the girl I was dating raised red flags with my parents, which that situation had nothing to do with the two of us simmering the relationship down), and decide your own schedule is worth more to me personally than having to be stuck with parents who, as I spend more time around them, I'm starting to realize display behaviors that resembles that of SJWs over the past 6 years. As someone who prefers honest debate where both sides are open to changing their minds on things they might have been wrong about as opposed to, well, Jordan Peterson in the G4 interview or the interview with Robert Downey Jr. walking out and Quentin Tarantino shutting the guy's butt down (no homo? Maybe?) and other examples where there's malicious intent in one of the parties involved.


----------



## notimp (Sep 25, 2019)

Silent_Gunner said:


> Now, I'm not hard left or right on anything in particular that affects me personally, but I do value being able to get some form of self defense against criminals who will get guns through illegitimate means without being branded a criminal, and I think people should take responsibility for their own problems and make their own success and, to be quite honest, more people should be focusing on moving out of their parents' house as opposed to going into debt for even degrees that might be practical, and experience true freedom and independence and get an understanding of the responsibilities of adult life before going to college.


I'll take this part. There is a concept in western societies called 'the police' you call them, when you have problems with criminals - they are armed, they have swat team, they have dogs (referencing a popular german satirical music video  ):
)
so you don't have to go through the spiral of everyone go get armed, then people who are 'bad' get armed more and...

Its even got a name. State "monopoly on violence". Of course if you don't trust the state - different problem. You are probably in a minority - which the state tries to protect regardless - different reasoning. By different means (Constitutional law professors, NGOs, ..  )
--

"People should take responsibility for their own problems and make their own success."
Yes, thats part of what we call capitalism. How do you deal with non equally set starting points though f.e.? So my daddys money bought me my first set of real estate projects, or my college diploma?

Because in markets - there are things like monopolies, and natural monopolies, and they tend to make stuff more unequal. And if you got a thing in place that works out as 'one of the best indicators of if people will be making money is - how much money they already had' - you are starting to split societies. So you have to have an 'instance' (state, ideally) - that tries to level out the starting points.

"People should focus on getting out of their parents basements."
Yes - but the economy is flawed - so millenials cant afford housing. (Thats why the housing bubble in the US wasn't dealt with for so long. Everyone got free credit.) - here is how that works (in other parts of the world). Owning apartment structures you rent out, is one of the few forms of gaining stable income, outside the realm of stockmarkets (algorithms), which is very similar to a casino in nature (they take those algorithms from the horse racing trade. Fun fact.) - so owning housing (to rent out), became more and more expensive. So 'solving the economy' (having people invest in the real world economy again - taking risk on 'innovative projects that also produce jobs') - is the actual solution. Not 'try harder.'

"People should try to make it without studying."
Oddly enough - yes. Thats a 'success' formula - thats currently at least as viable as getting a college degree. And its the one where you don't end up in debt - at the point you make your first effort to try something.

But then 'college debt' is mostly an issue the US has created - look anywhere else in the world. Loans in that spectrum is nothing, other societies rely on that heavily. Universities having become 'for profit centers' is an issue. Which brings us back to the limitations of free markets. 

Also - all of that is off topic. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also - one thing to understand about 'charity': Stable societies need that as well. So you also cover peoples basic needs. So they don't revolt. Thats a baseline that you maybe should provide. Apart from that charity is very 'spotty' and 'chance' based. (Not enough charity out there for everyone - past 'basic needs').


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Sep 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Yes - but the economy is flawed - so millenials cant afford housing. (Thats why the housing bubble in the US wasn't dealt with for so long. Everyone got free credit.) - here is how that works (in other parts of the world). Owning apartment structures you rent out, is one of the few forms of gaining stable income, outside the realm of stockmarkets (algorithms), which is very similar to a casino in nature (they take those algorithms from the horse racing trade. Fun fact.). So 'solving the economy' (having people invest in the real world economy again - taking risk on 'innovative projects that also produce jobs' - is the actual solution. Not 'try harder.'



I'm just gonna respond to this and not derail the thread any further. I always read the generalization of "try harder" to translate out to: "do whatever it takes to succeed in what is ultimately a very eat-or-be-eaten world. If it means going to college to become a doctor, or selling your art online, go for it!" Obviously, those of us in developed countries are thankfully in such good supply of the basic necessities of life that we usually don't have to worry about things being like they were in the wild when we, as a species, were hunter-gatherers!

But I can see what you mean about getting a house vs. getting an apartment. At this stage of my life, getting an apartment (that's not in Illinois or some other high tax state) would honestly be enough for yours truly. I don't have any pets or a desire to get any pets at this point in time, and the amount of stuff I own could fit into one room and I'd be satisfied. Because it'd all be paid for already, I wouldn't have much need to sell anything other than things I'm not using or planning to use ever again.

And to add to your response about charity, let's add in requiring people to go to your church which manipulates people into depending upon the church for its well-being, and that's how you get shit like the Independent Fundamental Baptist church that I'm forced to put up with every Sunday even though it's little more than organized fandom around something about as real as Mario and him battling against an army consisting of what are glorified turtles, crushers with spikes, mages, goombas, etc..


----------



## notimp (Sep 25, 2019)

Here is another part. Because we don't 'weed out' whos studying at the pre college level anymore (profit centers, also in the interest of parents who have studied in the past), we moved goalposts. So the amount of populations in society studying, went from about 15-20% to over 50% (in my country) in a few years.

So currently the indicators for 'if you are elite' (when entering job markets) are - have you studied, at least part of your time, abroad? Have you participated in voluntary summer schools (higher education level).

Just so that you know it.  (Without condoning or condemning. Ok - with condemning..  )


----------



## gman666 (Sep 25, 2019)

I honestly can't take this girl seriously... Berating a bunch of ancient bureaucrats to change the world is not going to make much of a difference. The difference comes from everyday people making the decision to go greener in every aspect of life. Companies will always adjust to the needs and wants of consumers. And her whole point on profits and economic growth is totally flawed. Companies will only pursue green technologies like "co2 sucking" machines if they are PROFITABLE. Meanwhile, if you bring up nuclear energy as a zero emission alternative, these same environmental activist will turn their heads in disgust. Modernized nuclear energy could become an essential source of cleaner energy. Her writers definitely need to rethink their point on economic growth because they are not realizing the incentives of greener alternatives.


----------



## notimp (Sep 25, 2019)

The girl is that movement. She is 'the symbol' (ever heard of Jeanne d’Arc ) she is their 'political face' so many of you mistake politics as 'being about'. Talking about political figureheads.

'Talking to a bunch of bureaucrats.' Yes. Thats the way to change things. (Slowly, conventionally, sustainably.)
Haha, lol. No - all kidding aside, thats the way to change things.

Argument goes as follows. The mouth is loud, the will is faltering.  Meaning - regardless of what you are saying, that you'll do - you arent going to do it, when it comes down to reducing 'middle class growth expectations'. (I'll fly less, I'll drive less, I'l ...) So you need laws.

And to get laws in this case - well, actually...

- you need the public to be convinced, that laws for 'a new cost factor' are needed -

you don't need to convince the politicians (at least not the technocrats..  ) in this case. Girl talking to technocrats is only her 'safespace environment' (preaching to the choir). They havent quite realized that, because in the movements logic, they need 'more faster now'. But actually, you need the instruments implemented. 'More faster now' later is just part of dialing it in.

Because here is whats happening. Earth is getting warmer, (easy access to) oil is running out, China is overtacking everyone in society building.

So - lower growth expectation in middle classes - is coming. Its always just a question of how fast and how equally destributed. Now - if the US and the EU could find a middle ground, that would be swell - but if nationalists continue your trajectory - they arent.

Although - you also have trade wars, and those lower growth as well - so in the end, its all a matter of 'where you are invested in', I believe. 

And, whats real - is the discussion about 'how fast'. And if you do it for the ponies. 

If you are doing it with loans, for example, you make the children that ask for it - pay for it. But if then one of the other countries decides, we are not doing it with loans - that country has a competitive advantage. 

Germany f.e. currently is creating loan vehicles at the size of 35 billion euro, that don't raise official state debt. That are purpose fixed for 'energy transition projects' (getting into green energy). Partly because they now can - because of that movement. Partly because they now feel they must, because of that movement. (It got really popular in germany and sweden.  )


----------



## billapong (Sep 25, 2019)

gman666 said:


> I honestly can't take this girl seriously... Berating a bunch of ancient bureaucrats to change the world is not going to make much of a difference. The difference comes from everyday people making the decision to go greener in every aspect of life. Companies will always adjust to the needs and wants of consumers. And her whole point on profits and economic growth is totally flawed. Companies will only pursue green technologies like "co2 sucking" machines if they are PROFITABLE. Meanwhile, if you bring up nuclear energy as a zero emission alternative, these same environmental activist will turn their heads in disgust. Modernized nuclear energy could become an essential source of cleaner energy. Her writers definitely need to rethink their point on economic growth because they are not realizing the incentives of greener alternatives.



Good realistic point. Education is the key to this, but not simply by pushing false narratives on children in schools. That's counter productive and will lead to mistrust further down the road. If you'd remove the political slant it would go over better. I also don't think regulating and removing more rights by creating new laws is the answer. That just gives the people in charge more power and that leads to more potential for abuse of said power.

Take the way how the kids were removed from school or how everyone thinks Trump controls everything bad that happens in their lives. Well, people voted to give them this power. If you keep voting for Liberal policies you're just handing them more power and then when someone that's in power does something you dislike to you and you can't legally fight back it'll be your own damn fault.

A good example is the relaxing on the laws surrounding coal that the current administration made. Getting rid of laws is usually a good thing that in the end will work itself out. The Liberals cried foul, but you know what? Coal production and usage didn't skyrocket. People realize it's a dirty way to produce energy and don't want to support it. They did this all by themselves and without laws forcing them to do it only the way the Government wants them to.

Keep voting for Liberal policies, keep creating more regulations, keep voting away your freedoms, keep making more laws and keep trying to play God by controlling every aspect of peoples lives and you'll find out first hand how giving the Government such power has been and will be used in the past and the present and in your case future. I'm give you a hint, it doesn't usually end up going to well. 

History just repeats itself. The players change, but the game remains the same. Take socialism for example. We know that is an archaic form of Government that's been tried and tested and proven to fail over and over again. It sounds pretty well in theory, but the theory doesn't take into account the "human" factor. You know, greed, envy, lust, lying, cheating, stealing. You throw those into the Utopian mix and we all know the end results. If not I suggest you do some research into our worlds history.

The thing about "going green" is that the politicians know that they can profit financially from this entire mass hysteria they're creating. For them that's the point. Use the manufactured crisis to gain money and power. We don't need them. We don't need to hand them power and we sure and hell don't need to pay them as they have no intention on even changing their own habits to help the environment.

Not polluting the environment should be common sense. Unless your a drunk or drug addict you probably don't throw trash around your own residence or pollute your own body. The Earth is like a giant a living organism and dumping toxins into the environment is going to have a negative effect. I just don't think that there's any justification for forcing the will of politicians on others based on limited data to make more laws and taxes. Take some personal responsibility for your own actions before you start trying to tell other people to do the same, but if you're going to try to tell other people what to do realize that you're probably not going to get what you want in every instance. Just, using the Government to force your will onto others when you can't get your own way can and will backfire on you.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



notimp said:


> Because here is whats happening. Earth is getting warmer, oil is running out, China is overtacking everyone in society building.



Earth, at least in the short term, is warming up, but we're technically exiting an ice age, so what do you expect? So, since we've start to keep records, the Earth seems to be getting a little warmer, but no one can really tell us why. Cosmic radiation? Man made Global warming? Exiting the ice age? Volcanic activity? I'd say we need a few million more years to even start to get accurate information and by the looks of it and how we've outlived countless dire predictions we'll probably end up getting that information, but just like these clowns that's just speculation.

Everyone said we'd be out of oil long a long time ago and that societies would collapse and the world would have either ended or we'd be living in a barren waste land. I'm still waiting for that to actually happen, but they keep changing the date. I'm also waiting for the Biblical Apocalypse. Hey, at least the y2k bug, that was supposed to upend society didn't exist on some imaginary floating time scale.

China is an example of what happens when you're a communist country. If everyone adopted communism do you think we'd have a UN? They are an unchecked super power and communism gave them that position. Socialism usually leads to communism, so I don't think adopting either one, in the end, is going to help the environmental situation.


----------



## notimp (Sep 25, 2019)

billapong said:


> Everyone said we'd be out of oil long a long time ago and that societies would collapse and the world would have either ended or we'd be living in a barren waste land. I'm still waiting for that to actually happen, but they keep changing the date.


Exactly (The same with 'limits to growth'.). The reason for oil is, that the main oil producers dont advertise peak oil. If they would - prices would fall out from that market prematurely.

Also - if you look at what the sheiks (probably politically incorrect  ) are investing in, they are diversifying as heck. Trying to get into different industries, trying to get into structural european businesses, and probably the US, trying to make an artificially created city a financial hub, ...

Also you can do estimations, based on how large the biggest still active oilfields are, and how many new ones get discovered.  And how costly it is to get into tar sands. And look at the US made fracking (pumping water (mixed with other stuff) into oilwells you own to get the rest out) - economically viable. (Dont mind the few people, that got flaming water out of their tabs during the process...  )

And you can ask simple questions, like - why would the US want to get out of the middle east right about now, or at least in the near future, if there is so much oil left? 

There is still ample reason to believe, that people got interested in solar or wind not only from a 'diversification' standpoint, but - that it would make sense, to change the system - right about now.

Or in 70 years, if you are a nationalist in the US (probably invested in the oil trade,..  ) - and dont care so much about the rest of the world.

Now - US is the 'bodyguard' for international oil trade.  Piece the rest together yourself.

Postponing is not a solution. Resources are finite. Getting other societies such as China and India on the same level as the west - if that means two cars and eating meat, potentially every day - already isn't possible.

Now if China does overtake the US and Europe in terms of GDP - they get the cows.  Roughly. 

McD's will then sell chickpeas, or something.. 

Also - climate.

Also psychology of humans undervaluing systemic, long term risks. (Thats actually good. Otherwise - well, lets say 'we'll cope, when we get there' is a healthy attitude.  (With the slight issue that that includes wars, if the US doesnt care for f.e. food security in the rest of the world.))



billapong said:


> China is an example of what happens when you're a communist country. If everyone adopted communism


China is an example of what happens if you adopt capitalism, partly, and become the factory of the world.
How much sense does 'america is what happens if you adopt capitalism' make to you. (Too simplistic?  )

They - btw dont have the Greta problem. They do not need to convince populations.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 26, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Ok, I think I just got enough evidence right here to prove my theory correct.  It was nice talking to you.  You have a nice day.
> 
> I don't think you read all that I said enough to comprehend my meaning.
> 
> ...


You got the definitions of Law and Theory wrong again.

Law is the cause and effect, but it doesn't explain why it happens. Law of Gravity is expressed as a mathematical formula.


Theory explains why it happens. Theory is the reasoning behind the Law. Theory is the explanations of that Law.
So Law is an Observation, Theory is the Explanation of that Observation. Theory is more like Scientific Law then a Hypothesis.

Theory of Evolution, Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory are not just opinions someone made up.




> Here's the definition of a layman's theory:
> 
> 1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system distinguished from experiment or practice. 2. Abstract reasoning: speculation. 3. An assumption or guess based on limited knowledge or information: hypothesis.
> 
> ...


http://www.city-data.com/forum/reli...ce-between-theory-science-theory-laymans.html


That's a big one. A Scientist can't create a theory, he can only create a hypothesis.
A Theory can only exist after its gone though rigorous testing processes, it can only be created with the scientific method.
A Theory does not become a law. And will never become a law.
A Law has to exist before scientific method.
And Theory explains that Law.

And I hope you know what the Scientific Method is.



You are using common parlance definitions again. You're are getting the science research wrong because you don't understand the definitions.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2019)

When I first heard about these protests, I was genuinely horrified. imagine if these resources were sent to one of the many truly awful problems plaguing the world right now, like I dunno, human rights violations in China. Access to clean water in Africa, maybe? 

Maybe there's going to be an environmental crisis in the future, and maybe there's going to be horrible issues that result from this, but at the end of the day it's theories based off of models based off of assumptions.

Things are happening NOW. Right now, real issues that need to be solved, not some far off crisis in the future.


----------



## DrOctapu (Sep 26, 2019)

If you don't "believe" in climate change at this point, where you can fucking look outside and see it in action, I don't know what to tell you dude. I'm in my 20s and even at my age I can tell that the seasons don't change the way they did when I was a kid, the summers are hotter and the winters are colder. Are you really that attached to coal and fossil fuels and factory farming? Because you'd have to be a complete dumbass to think it's not real and not be literally getting paid to say that shit.


----------



## DBlaze (Sep 26, 2019)

I just want to be sent to mars at this point


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2019)

DrOctapu said:


> If you don't "believe" in climate change at this point, where you can fucking look outside and see it in action, I don't know what to tell you dude. I'm in my 20s and even at my age I can tell that the seasons don't change the way they did when I was a kid, the summers are hotter and the winters are colder. Are you really that attached to coal and fossil fuels and factory farming? Because you'd have to be a complete dumbass to think it's not real and not be literally getting paid to say that shit.



I think climate change might be happening, but to the degree where we would all die in the next twenty years, not likely. Besides, coal and fossil fuels are already being phased out. Nuclear is actually cheaper and more effective anyway, and the technology is only getting better.

Beyond that, shutting down big oil and fossil fuels would make a neglible impact costing trillions of dollars in jobs. It would be far, far, *far* more effective to just plant trees. The net cost would be just over three hundred billion, which is chump change compared to the other 'solutions'

(Source: https://www.newser.com/story/277401/cheapest-climate-change-fix-could-start-with-some-seeds.html)


----------



## notimp (Sep 26, 2019)

The current IPCC report underlines again, that nuclear - even in theory couldnt be phased in fast enough, so people would have to go increasingly for wind and solar, now.



> Even though scalability and speed of scaling of nuclear plants have historically been high in many nations, such rates are currently not achieved anymore. In the 1960s and 1970s, France implemented a programme to rapidly get 80% of its power from nuclear in about 25 years (IAEA, 2018), but the current time lag between the decision date and the commissioning of plants is observed to be 10-19 years (Lovins et al., 2018). The current deployment pace of nuclear energy is constrained by social acceptability in many countries due to concerns over risks of accidents and radioactive waste management (Bruckner et al., 2014).


https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/

Its also in the most current special report.



TerribleTy27 said:


> Beyond that, shutting down big oil and fossil fuels would make a neglible impact costing trillions of dollars in jobs. It would be far, far, *far* more effective to just plant trees. The net cost would be just over three hundred billion, which is chump change compared to the other 'solutions'


Current Industry emissions are responsible for 2/3s of the worlds CO2 output. And again - if you are looking for a one step solution, its not there. You need technical innovation, while middleclasses except to lower their economic progress expectation, while you need laws for people to pay more, to invest that into technical innovation - while transitioning from all fossile fuels to alternatives - under a current UN program by 2050 - which countries have to voluntary pledge.

I, think, believe, feel, doesnt matter much here - thats required to get back on target on the paris agreement. Which the US left.

Also planting trees means, less space for f.e. brasil or africa to grow food or eco fuels. So less income. So you have to give them more money through compensation payments. So in general you only use that part of it to stretch the timeframe a little - again, its not part of any solution.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2019)

notimp said:


> Current Industry emissions are responsible for 2/3s of the worlds CO2 output. And again - if you are looking for a one step solution, its not there. You need technical innovation, while middleclasses except to lower their economic progress expectation, while you need laws for people to pay more, to invest that into technical innovation - while transitioning from all fossile fuels to alternatives - under a current UN program by 2050 - which countries have to voluntary pledge.
> 
> I, think, believe, feel, doesnt matter much here - thats required to get back on target on the paris agreement. Which the US left.
> 
> Also planting trees means, less space for f.e. brasil or africa to grow food or eco fuels. So less income. So you have to give them more money through compensation payments. So in general you only use that part of it to stretch the timeframe a little - again, its not part of any solution.



You didn't really explain why the solution proposed in newser wouldn't work, though. I've been to farms where they used oak trees in conjunction with their normal crops for some kind of nutritional value. Granted that's personal experience, but I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to apply to other areas.

Your proposal would never work. Just take a look at the tragedy of the commons. Granted, I didn't understand a lot of your argument, but once you said '2050' and 'voluntary' I knew that it wasn't happening. For one thing, China is responsible for the worst of the pollution. So. Yeah. People are just too selfish.

And beyond that, America stepped out of the agreement after, what, two years?

EDIT: also, can you please stop using emojis? They make me feel... Childish? Demeaned? It makes me uncomfortable.


----------



## notimp (Sep 26, 2019)

For the next reply, sure.

Rainforests in larger, poorer areas where you'd want to scale up planting trees, currently get cut down to make room for plantations, that likely get higher yields than lets say - planting trees and farming below them. You could sell part of those trees as building material, but never for energy production (firewood f.e.), because the CO2 would evaporate into the atmosphere again.

So gains arent anywhere near lets say top crop production (dont know what that is currently - lets say palm oil plants) In addition, if you are paying out the difference in subsidies, as a western country, f.e. (because you have defined a price for emitting CO2, that could go into those projects), you are 'removing' usable land from the third world - that eventually may impact food production. And you take away at least part of their sovereignty telling them what to do with their land (through money incentives).

So its part of a solution to 'buy more time' (f.e. for technological solution development), but its not a be all end all solution. And CO2 emissions would still rise - which is the first thing you don't want.

The point of contention is, that if china and india move their entire populations to 'western middle class standards' - which economically, they probably could do in lets say - 200 years, that doesnt work, because of growth limits, potentially oil limits, impacts to climate (if they could continue on current trajectories).

Currently china is top polluter with pretty old tech (coal, oil, ..), but newer tech in the mix already, but they only emit half the amount of CO2 per person. So if they scale up middle classes...

So if you can establish 'everybody - live less intensive' now, also in the west (which will loose economic significance over the next hundred years) it scales best.

If stuff scales less optimally, and climate risk rises- you'll have more ressource competition in the future, which means - conflicts, wars, which means - trade will be less secure/viable, which means certain economies will be impacted - you basically have cascading effects.

And some time in the future, you have to transition to renewable energy sources anyhow.

But you are correct - by doing it now, even if you get together and do it voluntarily (everyone pledges how much - then you raise that in unison until your reach targets), some will benefit more than others. Not so much on the country level maybe - but f.e. individual investors.

And this gets as complex as you like..

2050 carbon free societies is a UN goal. Europe is expected to be able to provide a plan on how to get there about next year. But Europe only is 10% of world CO2 emissions. To get another maybe 20% of the world on track we'd have to use trade negotiations - and we are loosing economic power over then next two decades (china, demographic curve), so its hard. And on more than 50% of the world - we have no direct influence. (US, India, China, ..). But at least all of those except one are still at the table.

China profits from transitioning in the long term, so they already know - and are economically positioned to develop their societies gradually alongside that path. And they currently are manufacturing the best (most energy efficient) form of green tech (solar). But you also need better electric grids, and other form of renewable energy to keep the grids power levels stable.

You so have to create economies. 

Issue, the worlds largest private investors still dont care. So currently you dont have the majority of investors on track. Some stuff is changing, like - currently in capitalism, you seem to be making money with innovations again, .. 

Two emojis.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2019)

notimp said:


> For the next reply, sure.
> 
> Rainforests in larger, poorer areas where you'd want to scale up planting trees, currently get cut down to make room for plantations, that likely get higher yields than lets say - planting trees and farming below them. You could sell part of those trees as building material, but never for energy production (firewood f.e.), because the CO2 would evaporate into the atmosphere again.
> 
> ...



First of all, you lied to me about the emojis.

Second of all, from what I can tell, you're basically saying the key is economic development and getting people to stop living intensively. While I don't disagree with economic development, I still contend that people are too inherently selfish to hold to any kind of long term plan.

Either way, all I was doing was pointing out that trying to regulate big energy companies will be far more expensive than planting trees. I never said that it was the 'end all be all' solution.


----------



## notimp (Sep 26, 2019)

I agree. On the first part. (After the emoji controversy.) And because people usually arent rational actors, the activism front currently demands politicians, to put that in laws. So they do it. But you only can do that if you have the public opinion on your side.

And yes, planting trees is comparatively easy.

All in all it could be 'more of', or 'less of' any part - the point was made though, that you cant do it with technological innovation alone. (Not fast enough to retain 2°C change over preindustrial levels, current trajectories end up at 3-4°C at the turn of the century.) So something has to give.

Changing peoples behavior is also part of a 'transitional solution' (same as planting more trees would be) - i.e. when most of the world runs on renewable energy you can scale up again. (Continue middle class growth expectations.)

But sadly, this is maybe the generation of our grandchildren. Maybe children. (If you are living in the west.)

In short, if you are now pushing innovation in the western world, overall economic growth will go down (new cost factor CO2). Blame your parents. Or dont - because it doesnt help (insert smilie here).

Also - there are ample 'the world is ending' scenarios out there (including 'tipping points' on CO2 (non reversable trends)), but lets just put those aside, for the sake of understanding the argument.


----------



## notimp (Sep 26, 2019)

Slightly different response for people in the US wanting to pay themselves out of guilt with carbon credits - and having others planting trees for them.

1. You are not paying the actual equivalent in USD that would be needed. Currently we are at - entry level - stages to get people accustom to the idea. Carbon prices will be raised non linearly to achieve goals in the future. Thats already communicated, so enterprises can act accordingly.
2. Its not solution oriented. So if you don't change your living standard - that will endorse not doing that to billions of people getting into middle class in the mid term future (in china and india) - now really effing things up.
3. You wont keep it up. Regardless of what you say - we already know, statistically

So if you are doing this to get rid of white man guilt - dont. You are basically messing things up more.

Also private companies issue (so you are now paying for colonialism projects of other people?), third world charities issue (only a fraction of the payment ends up there), unintended consequences issues, ... All the greenwashing, currently - basically doesnt work.

The thing that would scale and work would be to develop economies now, that are more minimal in resource needs. But, since implementing those would detract from economic growth, and basically mean regression of economic growth for some time - people dont want to.

Thats why you go the political activism - politicians, change laws route.

From memory - please look up, how greenwashing actually fits into all this, but the point is, that for CO2 prices to have a meaningful effect (push), everyone in the lower middle classes has to - feel it (i.e. spending around 300 USD more per month on fuel), without that - its pure unaltered marketing/an acclimatization phase.

Also - you see the issue here. Rich people will pay it and dont care. But the masses have to feel it for it to be effective. And if you pay back that money equally (to impact the poor less), you'll create price inflation at the basic goods level. Meaning in about two years time - that 'benefit' is gone, and poorer people still are affected more (they pay more for heating and transport in percentage of their income). Thats more than the public debate in germany will currently tell you btw.  They still talk about equally distributed payback programs being the solution to this. 

That is part of how this is being implemented on the international level as well btw. Prices for carbon, should and will be raised non linearly.

Oh, and school children protesting on the streets is catnip for the Babyboomer generation.  I also don't agree with using that as a method of PR. In principal.


----------



## billapong (Sep 27, 2019)

DrOctapu said:


> If you don't "believe" in climate change at this point, where you can fucking look outside and see it in action, I don't know what to tell you dude. I'm in my 20s and even at my age I can tell that the seasons don't change the way they did when I was a kid, the summers are hotter and the winters are colder. Are you really that attached to coal and fossil fuels and factory farming? Because you'd have to be a complete dumbass to think it's not real and not be literally getting paid to say that shit.



Weather patterns fluctuate and they do so in such a way that's not understood. The media this year tried to use the entire now called climate change non-crisis to scare us locals, but the summer is almost over and their predictions were inaccurate. So I'm not going to put much faith in someone who just lied to me. In your local area you may be experiencing warmer summers or colder winters, but that's not a global phenomenon. Even if in your local area what you say is accurate than it's only based on a very limited amount of data and if you have no way to accurately account for what's happening today if you take the entire millions of years of history we have no data for. So you have no basis to predict the future. 

I'm not a denier of climate change, but the apocalyptic results of the man made "acid rain" or "global warming" and the various incarnations the Left has made up out of thin air in the past has time and time again been proven to be false and has never happened. So you must excuse me when I put little trust in the same people that have been lying to me my entire life. Currently all the new desperate angle politicians are doing is they've renamed all of this crap to simply "climate change", which, yeah, the climate changes. They think you can't "argue" that the climate is not changing, when the rest of us were never arguing that it wasn't. This basic form of renaming things to manipulate others is a cheap tactic and one that I see straight through.

I mean, it was raining earlier and now it's not, but some guy someplace that did something didn't create the storm or could control it's path. So trusting in some guy somewhere to "fix" something that's likely not even broken by allowing them to become rich and powerful while they have no intention on addressing the problem isn't a path I'm going to take. I'm not voting Liberal.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

notimp said:


> In short, if you are now pushing innovation in the western world, overall economic growth will go down (new cost factor CO2). Blame your parents. Or dont - because it doesnt help (insert smilie here).


This sentence really rubs me wrong, though. Why would innovation kill economic growth? I can't think of any innovation that didn't eventually start making serious cash. On the major scale, look at the birth of electricity? It's revolutionized the world and has for the most part been contributing majorly to the world economy. On the small(ish) scale, look at what happened when cars became a thing. It didn't kill economic progress, it boosted it. It created hundreds of thousands of jobs in a heartbeat.
Heck, even look at the iPhone! When demand shot through the roof, so too did the amount investors were willing to spend on training new employees to create more phones. Economic growth, boosted.
Granted, I wouldn't consider the iPhone an 'innovation', but still.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

billapong said:


> Weather patterns fluctuate and they do so in such a way that's not understood.


Yeah no. nice try. Temperatures globally have been rising.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
We have data on it, there is a trend.


billapong said:


> The media this year tried to use the entire now called climate change non-crisis to scare us locals, but the summer is almost over and their predictions were inaccurate. So I'm not going to put much faith in someone who just lied to me. In your local area you may be experiencing warmer summers or colder winters, but that's not a global phenomenon. Even if in your local area what you say is accurate than it's only based on a very limited amount of data and if you have no way to accurately account for what's happening today if you take the entire millions of years of history we have no data for. So you have no basis to predict the future.


What media and what predictions were inaccurate? Was it from a well known source, and if so which ones? And do keep in mind it's a prediction, but the thing needed to note is how close the prediction is to the real thing. If it's close but not accurate 100% and off by a few numbers, that's pretty accurate. If it's off by lets say... Saying there is going to be a 25 degree difference. Then it's not as accurate.



billapong said:


> I'm not a denier of climate change, but the apocalyptic results of the man made "acid rain" or "global warming" and the various incarnations the Left has made up out of thin air in the past has time and time again been proven to be false and has never happened..


So you're refuting... science. So because the problem isn't at it's full effect right now you refuse to believe? As ice sheets are melting, temperatures extremes are getting more absurd. and your going to tell me that there is no signs at all? Like how we are getting more and  more natural disasters such as wildfire heatwaves? Because that's part of the climate change bill as well.



billapong said:


> I mean, it was raining earlier and now it's not, but some guy someplace that did something didn't create the storm or could control it's path. So trusting in some guy somewhere to "fix" something that's likely not even broken by allowing them to become rich and powerful while they have no intention on addressing the problem isn't a path I'm going to take. I'm not voting Liberal.


Who the hell says you have to vote Liberal? Unless you're one of those idiots who believe you have to agree 100% with what your "party" aligns with. This is a bipartisan issue and should be treated as such.
Moving on yes there is something fucking broken. You know what that is? Giant fossil fuel industries still getting subsidized from the government. Meanwhile there is a growing industry that could provide jobs in green energy, not being subsidized, and thus hindering the chance of that industry growing. If you believe in a free market, don't you think the odds is just a bit skewed to the fossil fuel industries?


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> This sentence really rubs me wrong, though. Why would innovation kill economic growth?


First - If you do it too fast. The children movement in germany asks for moving out of coal by 2030 instead of 2038, and to move subsidies from fossile fuels to renewables entirely. Germany is an industrial economy.

Those subsidies (less or no taxes on fuel, no taxes on kerosene, subsidies for people driving longer distances to work) are there to allow for 'mobility' in a broader population. They want to cut them, and put them into green energy innovation. Simple answer - you cant.

Second - because we arent putting up state sponsored moonshot initiatives (we 'cant' - economy ratings would fall if we do it entirely through loans), and the private sector (big private investors, like blackrock) isnt sponsoring, quite yet.

(They still have better growth perspectives in third world economies, and the stock market (think casinos).)

Third - because you are adding a new cost factor, so industry has to pay for something they didnt int the past. Then you kind of 'give them the money back' so they can innovate, because you tell them - if they dont - they'll have to pay more in the future, so they better do. But by doing that you are adding a new cost factor. And what ever you put into r&d isnt marketable quite yet.

Fourth - because energy efficiency wise - carbon based energy production is actually - still cheap and efficiant. Alternatives are getting there, but still cant quite compete on the same level yet. And the industrial sector and transportation sectors currently are heavily dependent on those (carbon based energy).

Fifth - because you have to tell people - consume less 'at least physical' goods. (Consume more virtual goods, and get into loving micro transactions, also kind of problematic as a compensation. Gamers know that.)
-

In all predictions (I've linked one already (canadian central bank)) this factors out as - less economic growth if you push it through, short term, but better projected outcomes longterm (you have to act now, or impacts from climate change will produce more and bigger economic shocks in the future). Sadly - for my generation (in the west) this means - the next prolonged recession. 

To put it simply. Because short term economic growth would be better with business as usual.

Recessions btw, also drive down consumption, and can be used to generate time (to solve the overall problem through technical innovation 'more better').. (To an extent. Because f.e. people still have to drive to work, and you still want industry innovating. )


----------



## billapong (Sep 27, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Yeah no. nice try. Temperatures globally have been rising.
> https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
> We have data on it, there is a trend.



Yet, the effects are isolated in various regions and we're only talking about taking data from our very limited history of when we've been collecting said data. Plus, we're exiting an ice age, so one would expect the temperatures to increase. In my local area, temperatures were mild compared to the last 8 years. The dire predictions for this year didn't come true, but they sure as hell fooled millions into spending all sorts of money that turned up to be a complete waste. Well, someone got rich and the main stream media helped. I guess if you benefited from feeding the public bullshit and the hysteria it caused then you've come out ahead, but as for the actual environment - it got better (not worse).



> What media and what predictions were inaccurate? Was it from a well known source, and if so which ones? And do keep in mind it's a prediction, but the thing needed to note is how close the prediction is to the real thing. If it's close but not accurate 100% and off by a few numbers, that's pretty accurate. If it's off by lets say... Saying there is going to be a 25 degree difference. Then it's not as accurate.



The world was supposedly to have ended various times. Civilization was supposed to collapse. Heck, the dire predictions that were supposed to effect my area this summer never came to pass, let alone the world ending or becoming a barren wasteland that can't support life, entire continents being under water, nations falling, etc ... It's like these biblical end times you hear about each year (you know, some pastor stating he knows the exact day the world is going to end), when in reality the world hasn't ended and keeps going on. When I was still in grade school I bought into this garbage, but after many years and 100% of the environmental predictions turn out to be false one starts to question things. Sure, we have arctic ice loss during the summer, but what about the growth during the winter (also, take into account we're exiting an ice age).

These "worse storms ever" or "worse heatwaves ever" are sensationalist headlines to push a power and money grabbing agenda. None of these recent events come close to trump others that have happened years ago. It wasn't the worse or hottest summer ever or we didn't have the worse weather ever or the hurricane they couldn't even predict accurately it wasn't the worse hurricane ever. 

Take for example the European heat waves. So it was the hottest day on record, during a very limited time frame (during certain week), in a few select locations in the past 20 years. Well, shit, if you can simply base your bullshit statements based on hand picked criteria then I think I'm the fucking president of the united states and have my own set of reasons why it's valid (in reality, it's all bullshit fantasy though). It's like getting a like minded group of people to edit a Wikipedia entry for your own agenda then go around referring to the entry like it's fact. The media stacked the deck. They cherry picked the criteria and then made up stories based on the criteria, It was rigged. It was fixed. It was a hoax. Compared to the overall way things are going and the limited records we have on hand and the criteria used in the past they basically were dishonest. 

After years and years of lies one gets tired of them. It's more like "news flash, it's summer and it's hot, well, like, duh" or "the worse hurricane according to our made up criteria that doesn't come close to Andrew or many others in the past". Meh, more bullshit lies. Not gonna fool me. I'm have shit tons of experience with hurricanes and the last 10 years have been NOTHING compared to the past, yet every time there is one you see all sorts of made up dramatic bullshit that somehow tries to push whatever people are calling global warming his year. "Worse ever (please read the disclaimer of why it's the worse ever)" Meh. Not buying it. Not me. Isn't going to work!



> So you're refuting... science. So because the problem isn't at it's full effect right now you refuse to believe? As ice sheets are melting, temperatures extremes are getting more absurd. and your going to tell me that there is no signs at all? Like how we are getting more and  more natural disasters such as wildfire heatwaves? Because that's part of the climate change bill as well.



I'm not refuting what little scientific data we have, but I am refuting the way people are using the said data. Data is like a gun. It doesn't know right from wrong and it doesn't act on it's own. It's a tool, that's being interpreted and used to cause mass hysteria to control people and make a select few people rich. Considering sciences, what about cosmic rays, our orbit around the sun, natural phenomena, volcanic activity, natural weather patters and coming out of the ice age. It's stupid and naive to think that man and co2 are the sole cause of climate change and that we can control it, but people like to play god so it's expected for the ones in power to use this sort of manufactured crises to control others. You just won't find me following fools who don't know where they are going around in circles all of my life. I've played the Liberal game and it's all horseshit. Not anymore. I've learned better.



> Who the hell says you have to vote Liberal? Unless you're one of those idiots who believe you have to agree 100% with what your "party" aligns with. This is a bipartisan issue and should be treated as such.
> Moving on yes there is something fucking broken. You know what that is? Giant fossil fuel industries still getting subsidized from the government. Meanwhile there is a growing industry that could provide jobs in green energy, not being subsidized, and thus hindering the chance of that industry growing. If you believe in a free market, don't you think the odds is just a bit skewed to the fossil fuel industries?



The free market has shown that coal is no longer a priority. Even with the relaxed regulations the industry has barely grown and this is because people realize that fossil fuels shouldn't be our main resource for energy, but people who are also based in reality realize that you can't just throw fossil fuels out the window over night. The lack of regulations and the limited growth shows that making new laws, creating more restrictions and taxing people more isn't any sort of solution, which is why I won't vote for Liberals, because that's the only answer they have and their answer doesn't work. 

The coal situation is a perfect example why the Government needs to stay the hell out of private peoples lives. We did just fine without them. The thing is, the more laws you make, the more restrictions you put in place and the more you tax people that just gives the Government more control over you. Sure, you may agree with their made up agenda right now, but they've made it up so you will willingly give them power and hand over your money to them. 

Give a little bit of time and they will forget about you and move onto their next target and when that happens you'll be shit out of luck to fight the people in power who are more than likely going to go about doing things you disagree with. I mean, everyone hates Trump and the power he has, well, that's what they voted for. I'm not talking about voting for Trump, but spending decades making the laws and regulations that give Trump his power. People asked for it. They got what they deserved, which is why we need to start working on getting rid of laws instead of making more.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

notimp said:


> First - If you do it too fast. The children movement in germany asks for moving out of coal by 2030 instead of 2038, and to move subsidies from fossile fuels to renewables entirely. Germany is an industrial economy.
> 
> Those subsidies (less or no taxes on fuel, no taxes on kerosene, subsidies for people driving longer distances to work) are there to allow for 'mobility' in a broader population. They want to cut them, and put them into green energy innovation. Simple answer - you cant.
> 
> ...



Shameeee. Stop with emojisssssss

Anyway, all of this assuming you even add the cost factor, and move around subsidies and etcetera etcetera. What does any of this have to do with _innovation in and of itself?_ Why can't we just encourage innovation by lowering the barrier of entry and improving education? Granted I was somewhat skimming your post, so apologies in advance if I missed anything.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yet, the effects are isolated in various regions and we're only talking about taking data from our very limited history of when we've been collecting said data. Plus, we're exiting an ice age, so one would expect the temperatures to increase. In my local area, temperatures were mild compared to the last 8 years. The dire predictions for this year didn't come true, but they sure as hell fooled millions into spending all sorts of money that turned up to be a complete waste. Well, someone got rich and the main stream media helped. I guess if you benefited from feeding the public bullshit and the hysteria it caused then you've come out ahead, but as for the actual environment - it got better (not worse).


Source. For fuck sake. Give me a source. Because you can say anything, and it means nothing without a source. If it's a small outlet trying to get attention and saying of this, then it absolutely means nothing. 




billapong said:


> The world was supposedly to have ended various times. Civilization was supposed to collapse. Heck, the dire predictions that were supposed to effect my area this summer never came to pass, let alone the world ending or becoming a barren wasteland that can't support life, entire continents being under water, nations falling, etc ... It's like these biblical end times you hear about each year (you know, some pastor stating he knows the exact day the world is going to end), when in reality the world hasn't ended and keeps going on. When I was still in grade school I bought into this garbage, but after many years and 100% of the environmental predictions turn out to be false one starts to question things. Sure, we have arctic ice loss during the summer, but what about the growth during the winter (also, take into account we're exiting an ice age).


who's you're source. I asked this before and I'll ask again. Who is painting that story, and don't just say "the left" I want a media source. I want a clip of what it is, tell me who is saying that, or which site said it. I won't continue this conversation until you tell me where you're getting this information from.



billapong said:


> These "worse storms ever" or "worse heatwaves ever" are sensationalist headlines to push a power and money grabbing agenda. None of these recent events come close to trump others that have happened years ago. It wasn't the worse or hottest summer ever or we didn't have the worse weather ever or the hurricane they couldn't even predict accurately it wasn't the worse hurricane ever.


You're right on it being sensationalist headlines. HOWEVER it does not change the fact that on average it's on a upward trend and these things are happening more often. 








billapong said:


> I'm not refuting what little scientific data we have, but I am refuting the way people are using the said data. Data is like a gun. It doesn't know right from wrong and it doesn't act on it's own. It's a tool, that's being interpreted and used to cause mass hysteria to control people and make a select few people rich. Considering sciences, what about cosmic rays, our orbit around the sun, natural phenomena, volcanic activity, natural weather patters and coming out of the ice age. It's stupid and naive to think that man and co2 are the sole cause of climate change and that we can control it, but people like to play god so it's expected for the ones in power to use this sort of manufactured crises to control others. You just won't find me following fools who don't know where they are going around in circles all of my life. I've played the Liberal game and it's all horseshit. Not anymore. I've learned better.


You're right that climate fluctuates. HOWEVER it has never ever spiked so high like this. It's abnormal averages. And it's not stupid nor naive to think that man and co2 are the cause of ABNORMAL climate change. This current cycle does not compare at all to previous cycles. And again you constantly bashing on the fucking left. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ALL VIEWS ON THE LEFT. Why does everything think that you have to party aliened on every single view point? Why do you think it has to be all or nothing mentality? This idea that there can't be any compromise what so ever to any extent at all makes it so nothing in a Democratic society is done. You're a moron for thinking it's just the left. If you think every single leftist or liberal is out to get you're guns, out to bring comminusim and the socialist revolution. You're absolute goddamn idiot, or extremely misinformed individual if you think that. IT'S BOTH FUCKING SIDES ARE PROBLEMATIC. Companies don't benefit from being "left" or "right" they are opportunists, they will happily cherry pick different sides for different issues if it helps with profit. They aren't tied to one or the other because they are smart enough to pick a side when it works for them. Meanwhile here we are as people of the united states bleeding at the mere idea of accepting a single idea on the other side. It's like saying that don't tell me you're republican idea, I'm left and I'm going to get republicanitce if I accept it. And if you don't accept that view then fine. But quit seeing the opposite side as a enemy, because both sides do this. We have dehumanized "left" and "right" or "liberal" and "conservative" into these amalgamation of hate, as something as pure evil that to never give into and the crusades are going to happen if it happens. And yes I'm using a bit of over exaggeration, but you get my point.



billapong said:


> The free market has shown that coal is no longer a priority. Even with the relaxed regulations the industry has barely grown and this is because people realize that fossil fuels shouldn't be our main resource for energy, but people who are also based in reality realize that you can't just throw fossil fuels out the window over night. The lack of regulations and the limited growth shows that making new laws, creating more restrictions and taxing people more isn't any sort of solution, which is why I won't vote for Liberals, because that's the only answer they have and their answer doesn't work.


Meanwhile you ignored what I said. Why is it that the government subsidizing a industry that is completely massive. Subsidization is used to influence a industry, to make it easier for that industry to occur. Which is why I bring this up, because green house energy is not subsidized, and is relatively small compared to a industry like coal. And here's my answer. LOBBING. Our elections and votes and all that isn't won with people voting. It's won with who has deeper pockets. Who can advertise for who better, who is going to get more PR. Elections aren't held for people of intelligence, it's held for people who are good at lying through there teeth and good at winning elections with no skill to be in office.
And it just so happens that large scale massive operations that use coal and fossil fuels without a doubt would lobby their ass of to make sure they don't become no longer subsidized. Which also means they can have a choke hold on smaller industry. Which is not unheard of. Companies will use under hand tactics if there is a competitor that don't want. We don't need to remove laws. We don't need to add laws. We need to edit them, review them. Perhaps even do all the above.


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Source. For fuck sake. Give me a source. Because you can say anything, and it means nothing without a source. If it's a small outlet trying to get attention and saying of this, then it absolutely means nothing.



I read a lot and don't keep bookmarks of the thousands of articles I've read throughout the last 40 some odd years. That's if they're online to begin with. Besides, if I did list sources you'd just nit pick and dismiss each one based on if it's coming from places you dislike. So it's basically a waste of time. I guess you'll just have to learn by yourself. It's how I did it. I've had this climate bullshit pushed on me one way or the other my entire life. I'm just annoying because I by default don't trust anyone and question everything.

As for the dire predictions, one popular example is the nonsense that flows out of Al Gore's facial orifice, but I already mentioned the entire acid rain issue or the various incarnations the same people have created since the 80's. I also don't keep track of the names of the people who predict this nonsense or videos that I've watched throughout my life that have said we'd all be dead by now.

How the hell am I supposed to pull up articles about something I was shown in the 3rd grade long before the notion of the Internet existed? I guess you could just read any recent publication that said certain places would be under water or how we'd run out of oil (and what would happen after that) but that would take effort and looking at things you don't like or disagree with. I don't put that past most people. Life is full of sources. I say once you're older you'll come to realize some thing about honesty and the government and if not then you'll probably end up a mindless Liberal.

Basically, I don't need sources and if you don't believe me I really don't care. The information is out there. Whether or not you look for it and when you find it are willing to open your mind is up to you, but when I look at what happens to actual scientists who buck the trend, that doesn't give me much hope in anyone or anything.

Edit: I also realize that every Liberal isn't the same, but most Liberals share common traits and beliefs. To assume I think every single voter is the same of thinks the same thing based on their party affiliation is juvenile. I don't need to literally specify exceptions for each case or use a case by case basis or change the way I state things based on the fact that someone should be able to logically deduct that when stating things about various large groups of people that not everyone is going to be the same (especially when it comes to personal values, beliefs or in the Liberals case the lack thereof). It's like saying Conservatives are Christians or Trump votes are White Supremacists. Sure, there's some Conservatives that happen to be Christians and there's some White Supremacists who voted for Trump, but it's not 100% of the case. One would require basic comprehension skills to deduct these sorts of things and not take generalizations (which, aren't inheritly good or bad) so literally.

So like, saying "I think strawberries taste good" doesn't automatically mean that every single strawberry in existence tastes good.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> I read a lot and don't keep bookmarks of the thousands of articles I've read throughout the last 40 some odd years. That's if they're online to begin with. Besides, if I did list sources you'd just nit pick and dismiss each one based on if it's coming from places you dislike. So it's basically a waste of time. I guess you'll just have to learn by yourself. It's how I did it. I've had this climate bullshit pushed on me one way or the other my entire life. I'm just annoying because I by default don't trust anyone and question everything.
> 
> As for the dire predictions, one popular example is the nonsense that flows out of Al Gore's facial orifice, but I already mentioned the entire acid rain issue or the various incarnations the same people have created since the 80's. I also don't keep track of the names of the people who predict this nonsense or videos that I've watched throughout my life that have said we'd all be dead by now.
> 
> ...


So you're pretty much saying that there is nothing right now at all that you can just link to at all that paints this narrative that you claim is being told in the current time at all? None of it? Not a single source? It's one thing to link a source and find out it's bad. It's another if the source is known for being credible.


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So you're pretty much saying that there is nothing right now at all that you can just link to at all that paints this narrative that you claim is being told in the current time at all? None of it? Not a single source? It's one thing to link a source and find out it's bad. It's another if the source is known for being credible.



Yeah, I have no actual list of sources to back up what I've learned over the years. Well, on hand. It's not the sort of stuff I care to bookmark or even track. A few searches that may assist would be;

al gore florida under water
1980's acid rain hoax
global warming hysteria
comic rays heating earth
current ice age
coal usage down
hottest year in recorded history criteria
end times predictions never came true climate
earth inner core volcanic activity global warming
y2k and the apocalypse
when is the world going to end

Look, if you search for these and read about them. Do yourself a favor and don't skip any articles that come from sources you dislike, that you do't agree with or don't align with whatever your political views are and don't just look at the first page of results. These are just some of the terms that I put into various search engines that turned up results relating to what I was referring to. It's a starting point at least. I rather not cherry pick results as they should speak for themselves.


----------



## notimp (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> al gore florida under water
> 1980's acid rain hoax


Those are not a hoax.

And I frankly havent heard of most of the others you are naming.

Acid*ic* rain. Is a thing. https://sciencing.com/acid-rain-affect-buildings-statues-22062.html
It was never 'advertised' as being 'acid' harmful for humans - that just dumb people cant read syndrom. But its harmful for ecosystems (think ponds).

Florida under water is not a hoax either.


> While sea levels rose by around 15 centimeters during the 20th century, "it is currently rising more than twice as fast — 3.6 mm per year — and accelerating."


UN report via: https://www.politico.eu/article/un-report-warns-of-accelerating-sea-level-rise-in-a-warming-world/

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_nourishment and maybe more interestingly https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-coastal-erosion-commission

Here is the deal for the US. For top metropoles - coastal erosion mitigation measures will be set up, are already currently being set up. Only some areas, that are highly impacted will be 'given up'. Also - this is a slow process, that follows roughly the steps of - no new building grants are allowed/given out. Public infrastructure funding is pulled. This takes interest away from people maybe wanting to settle in that area - and then you wait for a few desasters to happen, and slowly pull remaining folks from that area.

Its planned as a generational thing. So its slow moving, and you might think of it not happening, but it is.

In other parts of the world that don't have the money to build artificial 'sea barriers' or shores - different story. Less pleasant.

I mean, if you want to act ignorant - try a different place, maybe?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yeah, I have no actual list of sources to back up what I've learned over the years. Well, on hand. It's not the sort of stuff I care to bookmark or even track. A few searches that may assist would be;
> 
> al gore florida under water
> 1980's acid rain hoax
> ...


first off 4 of your searches are completely unrelated. I'm referring to y2k, end time predictions, when is the world going to end, and hottest year criteria.
y2k is involved a bug with computers not having enough memory or more accurately, being able properly roll over to the millennium, which caused a scare because the effects on programs made in the past were not fully known, all that was known is that we relied on technology, and having a issue that could severely break the way society ran was a big danger, which of course it didn't break anything important other than the date being wrong and a few select issues.  Second of the part of the apocalypse is a religion thing. No part of climate change deals with religion. It deal with basic cause and effect on a massive scale.
Third off when is the world going to end search question is equally as stupid. Climate change doesn't predict the world ending. it's a study, a result of things that are happening at the moment, and then predictions are made based on that data, like even you just said it matters to is how the gun is used. The world isn't going to become a scorching volcano or become barren like mars in the next year. What will happen however is that living is going to get harder as each year goes on, more droughts, more wildfires and more storms due to basic cause effect. Wildfires occur more often due to the conditions being hotter and moisture being less pronounced.. Which leads into droughts as droughts have several factors, one of which is if it didn't snow all that well in the region or if there's a lack of moisture for that region if talking upstream or a large body of water like a river.
To the last point or conflict I have, which is the hottest year in recorder history criteria. It's not just the level of severity as I've already stated again previous, Averages mean more than a single blip of data. You can have outlier in data, but if there's a trend that's following with the data points,that more than one is following the same pattern, but does not follow the pattern of the rest then there means something anomalous or something important has changed.
moving on, I'll look them up. And I'll let you know if any of the above searches are correct or accurate, or wrong. Which  a few of them are heavily politically skewed in my opinion but I'll search away.


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> first off 4 of your searches are completely unrelated. I'm referring to y2k, end time predictions, when is the world going to end, and hottest year criteria.
> y2k is involved a bug with computers not having enough memory or more accurately, being able properly roll over to the millennium, which caused a scare because the effects on programs made in the past were not fully known, all that was known is that we relied on technology, and having a issue that could severely break the way society ran was a big danger, which of course it didn't break anything important other than the date being wrong and a few select issues.  Second of the part of the apocalypse is a religion thing. No part of climate change deals with religion. It deal with basic cause and effect on a massive scale.
> Third off when is the world going to end search question is equally as stupid. Climate change doesn't predict the world ending. it's a study, a result of things that are happening at the moment, and then predictions are made based on that data, like even you just said it matters to is how the gun is used. The world isn't going to become a scorching volcano or become barren like mars in the next year. What will happen however is that living is going to get harder as each year goes on, more droughts, more wildfires and more storms due to basic cause effect. Wildfires occur more often due to the conditions being hotter and moisture being less pronounced.. Which leads into droughts as droughts have several factors, one of which is if it didn't snow all that well in the region or if there's a lack of moisture for that region if talking upstream or a large body of water like a river.
> To the last point or conflict I have, which is the hottest year in recorder history criteria. It's not just the level of severity as I've already stated again previous, Averages mean more than a single blip of data. You can have outlier in data, but if there's a trend that's following with the data points,that more than one is following the same pattern, but does not follow the pattern of the rest then there means something anomalous or something important has changed.
> moving on, I'll look them up. And I'll let you know if any of the above searches are correct or accurate, or wrong. Which  a few of them are heavily politically skewed in my opinion but I'll search away.



What you state are predictions of what might happen and you'll find results with those search terms that will bring up predictions of stuff that was supposed to have already happened. I'm not claiming that acid rain doesn't exist or that it's not harmful to the environment, but it didn't kill off life on earth as some predicted. I fully understood the y2k bug before all the predicted horrible stuff was supposed to happen because of it, yet on NYE 1999 I wasn't the slightest bit worried and didn't need to invest in years worth of supplies before hand (some local agencies were trying to push the "be prepared" agenda, which meant investing money in a very long term supply of goods, costing tens of thousands of dollars).

I know a that a changing climate isn't going to end the world, but there's been many people in various instances that have said our civilization would collapse, cities would be crumbling, we'd be living in a barren wasteland, that Florida would already be under water or that generally we'd be in some post apocalyptic state. The various search terms I brought up will give results showcasing these predictions.

Another example would be this Cortez (AOC) who claimed Miami is going to be under water in "a few years". So you have an elected Government official saying that is going to happen. Maybe, you'll remember that in 5 years when Miami is still there. I personally know some people who live around Miami, Florida that state the ocean in their area has been recently receding.

I don't think any of my search terms include any sort of political bias, but like I said some of them might not be popular in various scientific circles, because it goes against the popular consensus, but history has shown the popular consensus to be wrong about various important truths on a reoccurring basis.

What I personally believe is that all of the factors I've listed plus ones that I don't know about contribute to the Earth's climate (including man's influence). I think it's pretty narrow minded to think that co2 is the sole cause of some of these changes we're seeing or that we can fix or otherwise control the climate.

Can you not see the correlation between the past and the present thus why someone would then be skeptical of the modern day predictions? (Answer that question once you dig up the actual predictions, or just wait 5 years and see if Miami is still habitable).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



notimp said:


> Those are not a hoax.
> 
> And I frankly havent heard of most of the others you are naming.
> 
> ...



I never stated that acid rain was a hoax, but using the search term I provided will bring up all sorts of results of the dire predictions that acid rain was supposed to have caused that never came to pass. The predictions were hoax's as they were used for political purposes (mainly, for people to get into power and profit financially). "Climate Change" is the last decades "Global Warming" is the same as the 1980's "acid rain". Barely any of these dire predictions have come to pass and the people who were elected have not stopped anything, but they sure as hell got into positions of power and became filthy rich (while they do nothing in their own personal lives to offset this supposed crisis).


----------



## notimp (Sep 28, 2019)

On the 'someone claimed that' part first, because its easier. Predictions are hard. People picking up part of it and going with what they've heard - is hard as well. When they then are wrong, it might have just been them. Or the entire prediction. Predictions are hard. 



billapong said:


> What you state are predictions of what might happen and you'll find results with those search terms that will bring up predictions of stuff that was supposed to have already happened.


I can add to that. Club of Rome predicted end of growth way before we hit end of growth in the past. They then went back, rechecked their models and found f.e. that population growth slowed down in cities, way above their expectations. For instance.

Also, you have my sympathies for being a sceptic. Its a character trait very close to my own view/outlook on many things.

Trends are easier though. So you can roughly say - we see whats going to happen, because some stuff is likely to keep on progressing.

And stuff like - if we don't mitigate now, impact will be tougher in the future (humans think in linear progression), sounds very, very likely to me - if I look at societies like India and China, and the amounts of people entering 'world stage' and continuing western patterns. Its just a numbers thing. Its almost obvious.

And we can look at western societies, look at demographic curves and growth trends ('no one is investing, because we become smaller populations (short term)' - reason: If populations grow, you get new customers 'for free')), and say - yes, we will 'degrow' (made up word, but not by me  ), while other civilizations will continue to outgrow us. Also a numbers thing, and also pretty obvious.
(And we almost cant continue rising productivity, to keep outperforming.)

So, the action path to make sure to reduce harm in that setup is to try to get people accustom to 'wanting less' - its just an obvious thing.

If it werent for the human psyche - because if we take that into account, it will never work. (Personal opinion.)

So we meet basically at the same level, its just that I'd like to insist, that no - those predictions arent all bull. Its just, that stuff, tends to work out differently...

Taking away systemic risk (f.e. making transitions easier) - is probably still a good thing.

But again, I couldnt be made to do it either. Not by convicing others. Not by convincing myself.

So those activism movements to me seem 'nobel' (and in parts 'religious'), but nobel only works as part of a stable outlook, and clear power structures. Which is the opposite of how the world looks like today.

This is not a factual argument, its just me saying, that I don't see it working either.

But planning needs to be done now. And technological innovation has to be started now. Currently its maybe not economically viable, but its necessary. And one more thing. We think we know, that technological innovation will not be fast enough alone (to keep the current standard).

And then you'll need to keep research arms of corporations stable, and do what about the rest?


----------



## smf (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> The problem is that no one is sure exactly to what extent our influence is and no one is agrees on what will change or reverse it (if anything).



It's difficult to get people to agree when oil, coal & gas money is buying people to disagree. Some people figure that within their life time the money will make up for the disadvantages caused by the environmental damage.

Instead of having a trade war with China over Tariffs, it would be better if they tried to force China to sort out their environmental policy. Of course Trump can't do that, because he's in the pocket of the US firms that want to relax environmental controls.



billapong said:


> But planning needs to be done now. And technological innovation has to be started now. Currently its maybe not economically viable, but its necessary. And one more thing. We think we know, that technological innovation will not be fast enough alone.



Yeah, the same type of people complained about the money being spent on y2k & then complained afterwards that we spent all that money and there weren't any issues. Which kinda misses the point. There are a couple of sequels coming up https://y2038.com/

The recent GPS week rollover fortunately just seemed to knock out a load of satnavs, some of which received official updates and others received unofficial hacks. There are probably some useless ones, but they don't seem to be mission critical. Hopefully in the next 19 years we won't start relying on something that has an issue at the next one.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Sep 28, 2019)

Hello.

I found this very nice Arcticle (in German).
I will try translate it as good as possile:

 

Greta and climate protection

I am born in 1950 and have to listen to today, we ruined the life of the youth, we are responsible for the climate change.

I have to disappoint you: in my youth there was a sustainable life and there was the word "renunciation" in our vocabulary.

We went to school by foot or by bike, we wore the clothes of our older siblings, holes in various garments were stuffed, all usable items (buttons, zippers and so on) were separated and recycled, we got to eat, what could be offered in the special season, we still talked face to face, we lived and played in nature and valued them and so on.

And what are you doing ? You drive to school, do every fashion trend, buy new clothes all the time, always have the latest equipment, use rare earths and produce waste without end. You want strawberries in December and fresh bread just before closing time.

And you want to tell us something about environmental protection?
On your demos, you will have your rubbish cleared up by adults and on the weekends, the next event will take place.
If you live as sustainably as we have lived, then you are welcome to strike. But it would be more sensible to invest all your strength in knowledge and education, because you have big problems that you have contributed to and you have to find solutions.

Thank you.


----------



## notimp (Sep 28, 2019)

Thats a sidetrack discussion for moral supremacy.  Moral supremacy in the end is worth nothing. 

There are about ten problems with it I'll try to tackle some of them in short.

1. Globalization. So the deal was - we all basically become serves to an economic destiny that cant be influenced by us anymore, because we remain at stagnant wages, while a few elites get rich. But then you get cheap chinese crap.

The deal already doesnt work for my generation. We have basically no old age retirement, cant plan, cant live in houses, are heavily dependent on credit, that even at low interest rates we cant pay back as easily - because we simply never enjoyed economic growth. We couldnt save, we got cheap crap from china.

2. What Boomers experienced in their youth, doesnt matter. You have to validate generations politically from the point they held legal voting majorites. Or don't do that at all, because ageism isn't the best lens to look at things.

3. As soon as boomers got into 'productive age' they reaped all the benefits of growth, interest rates, capitalism, social equality, later the early stages of globalization (think 'Osterweiterung' (althought hat wasnt very successful.). And left every system broken or worse.

4. Around 2000 they got confronted with the global warming messaging for the second/third time, and this time it got through to the mainstream  - and everybody decided, that while still on their growth path, and in their active working life - they wanted to do nothing about it.

5. Then they blessed us with the financial crisis.  And leaveraged that against everyones savings equally, hurting lower middle class most. And in my life it has been miniscule growth, or recessions - troughout my entire worklife. Cant afford room to live in cities (because of speculation). Cant decide my political future until I'm 50, because of the demographic curve. Had nothing but crisises growing up. Don't know how my life growing old will go. Can look forward to social systems functioning worse in my old age, because they are scaled back.

In the US - it was slightly different, because they produced growth for Millenials, but had them spend it for consumption entirely - to keep the economy going. So they 'consumed' themselves and everyone out of recession. And then had nothing left to safe or invest. In Europe we didn't get the consumption phase, we went straight into more impactful recessions.


So whenever you hear a boomer start to use terms like 'real values' or  'children littering'.Think fuck em - really, do. They don't know what they've had - and the following generations will never enjoy anymore.

Also until this day, they are only motivated by 'keeping the capital they have aquired' private, and not distributed, because it gives them the highest benefits in molding the lives of their children until death. And the highest capital gains, if invested in funds that are so diversified, they buy entire verticals of industries outright, and then profit from economic growth in places anywhere in the world.
-

Can millenials still acquire capital? Yes. In the following fields:
Digitalization (cutting jobs of others), Medicaltech (pampering boomers), Biotech (lets say genuinely innovation), Mathematics (algorithms), Statistics (algorithms), Onlinemarketing (selling cheap crap and services to idiots). Not my opinion, I'm quoting that guy: https://www.derstandard.at/story/20...aretten-sollten-15-euro-kosten-bier-ebenfalls
Also - Investment currently is partly parked in green tech as well, but its... 'ethical investing' - not a huge growth market in europe.

To keep this short, this factors out as splitting societies even more, with a very small class of affluent elites (running international brands in 'the uber for something' market segments, selling services), and a larger and larger group of people that are simply useless and you don't need.

They can now ask their alexa for a mac job ( https://patch.com/florida/miami/hey-alexa-i-need-job-big-mac-mcdonalds ), gigworking, get a some fake job in services - and more essentially, never consume a real product in their lives (at least preferably), or own anything of value anymore - because overall the economy simply isn't there in europe for forseable future. For anything that isnt a mirage (virtual something).

Then of course its great, when an 'environmentally consciousness movement' comes along, because it detracts from that we've been fucked.

I buy a new laptop once every 5 years, and a new phone every 3 years. And I got sick and tired of telling old folks how the world works. I talk to vending machines, get my packages from nameless storage racks, and should online bank, while talking to a videofeed, because its more efficient.

But to me it still beats talking to Boomers on how they messed up.

Also - I was in Alpbach. I saw how they selected. I saw how they encouraged the feeble minded to build their next gig economy business. I saw how receptive they were for BS hypes and surface level stuff, as long as they were first, and there still was a sucker, that could buy into it. I saw - that they had no idea about any of the social issues facebook had produced. About any of the growth markets that were still left in the app space. Or about how my generation starts to view Europe, mainly as a safety anker, and not an exciting concept for the future.

Sorry for being so open.

But an old guy that tells you 'they litter' and buy phones, serves no purpose, and no intellectual value. Its simply them projecting a self image onto others that wouldnt know what to do with it anymore.

Should I now savor my chinese zipper more, and use it for three years, because of the water consumption impact the sweater attached to it has in production? It doesnt even benefit my economy.

It is purely and unaltered - Verzicht (roughly translates to abstinence). For no other purpose but to keep societies stable by doing it voluntarily.

That radical enough for you folks?  (Disclaimer: This is a radical opinion. Not wrong. But radical. I dont recommend, that you copy it without thinking about it on your own.  )


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

alexander1970 said:


> Hello.
> 
> I found this very nice Arcticle (in German).
> I will try translate it as good as possile:
> ...



This older person brings up good points, but this happens after every generation ages. The kids these days will be looking back at the 2010's the same way these older people do and will be being mistreated the same way by the then current generation. Yes, things will have gotten worse too, but that's no reason not to take personal responsibility and do what you can in your own life to address polluting the environment. Just don't try to use the Government to try to control me and we're all good. Look at what YOU can do in YOUR OWN LIFE and do it. Leave me the fuck alone.


----------



## Joom (Oct 3, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Things are happening NOW. Right now, real issues that need to be solved, not some far off crisis in the future.


Except climate change is an immediate problem. I'm sure you've heard about all of the flesh eating bacteria infections this year. The reason for the increase is due to warmer waters supporting a more favorable environment for their growth. We're getting hurricanes larger than any in recorded history because of warmer waters. Why does this need to be a world ending problem before we start to care about this?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 3, 2019)

Joom said:


> Except climate change is an immediate problem.


Resources are an immediate problem. Once we run out of oil there will chaos, civil war and wars between countries. When that day comes we better not have any country on earth possess nuclear weapons.

The term climate change denier is misleading because I don't think anyone believes climate (i.e. worldwide average temperature?) is stable. 

The question how much humans have contributed to climate change is a difficult one. However, it's a fact that we are going to run out of oil. Therefore the fact that we still use up oil for sports, excessive military exercises etc should be much more shocking.


----------



## billapong (Oct 3, 2019)

Joom said:


> We're getting hurricanes larger than any in recorded history because of warmer waters.



I've been dealing with hurricanes for over 40 years. This statement is false. Additionally, the impact results from hurricanes in recent years pales in comparison to the past. It's just like how Florida is supposed to be under water, yet the water at various ocean inlets in Florida hasn't risen in almost a half a decade and some areas in Florida the water level has overall decreased. Fuck what the media is reporting I know the truth because I've lived it.

AOC says in 5 years Miami will be under water. Anyone want to put their money where their mouth is and make a rather large bet that this is going to happen? I wouldn't mind getting rich over your stupidity. I would assume not, but you're still going to follow AOC and the other Liberals and try to push your bullshit on me, make more laws and taxes, but you won't do a damned thing yourself to change. Typical hypocritical Liberal toilet scum.


----------



## Joom (Oct 3, 2019)

billapong said:


> I've been dealing with hurricanes for over 40 years. This statement is false. Additionally, the impact results from hurricanes in recent years pales in comparison to the past.


Sauce needed. I also don't give a shit about what politicians say. They're not scientists. Louisiana is a better state to look at, and rising sea levels are the least of the concern. With 40 years on this earth, I'd expect some wisdom, but you have your head in the sand along with the libfags that you so hate. Both sides are candyassed snowflakes. Get the fuck over yourselves and realize that you are a cancer. The two party system is broken beyond repair, and needs to be done away with, like religion. Then maybe we can get on as a species and stop worrying about retarded shit. Or, maybe social Darwinism will take over, and entire social collapse will take place because people like you can't hang up your personal bullshit, so you literally die in your own filth as someone murders you. I'm actually hoping for this. Miniature civil war will be hilarious, because let's be honest, this country doesn't have the balls for total civil war anymore.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 3, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yeah, I have no actual list of sources to back up what I've learned over the years. Well, on hand. It's not the sort of stuff I care to bookmark or even track. A few searches that may assist would be;
> 
> al gore florida under water
> 1980's acid rain hoax
> ...


Not all sites are equally valid, though. You have to look at how they arrive at their information. "wattsupwiththat.com", for example, is a site that just makes the important stuff up, so you can safely ignore search results from that site. There are some site which attempt to explain climate change, but get it wrong, even though they agree it's happening. Those sites should also be ignored.

If you have person A saying "I think this movie has problem because of pacing" and person B saying "I think the pacing is fine given the nature of the story line" and you have person C saying "this movie is terrible because it was made by the illuminati", you're not going to want to weigh them all 3 as being equally valid. 

So while it's good advice to google each topic to look at a variety of opinions and voices, it's important to know how to weight them for merit and validity. To be honest, it's just one more thing we need to improve about education and teaching our kids STEM properly. 

I'd also suggest those are search terms which are geared towards finding a particular answer, but they're a good start. 
- Instead of "1980's acid rain hoax", which is a biased way to phrase it, phrase it as "whatever happened to 1980s acid rain". 
- "current ice age", "end times...climate", "earth inner core...global warming", "coal usage down", these are a talking point of climate change deniers, so it's probably best to phrase them in a more general way. "current climate vs previous climate" for example. Remove the conclusion from the question, or else you're only going to get that answer repeated back at you.
- As a rule of thumb, we want to phrase the question as pro-science and as pro-research as possible. 
- "global warming research" or "cosmic rays research", for example, are better key words to add.

But it does boil down to how to tell which sites are quality sites? Usually by the sources and how they cite how they know what they know, but even then they could just be misunderstanding what they're reading. It's a skill which is developed, and it's important to dig deep to understand the core mechanics of what is being discussed, assessing and building from the base assumptions.


----------



## billapong (Oct 4, 2019)

Joom said:


> Sauce needed. I also don't give a shit about what politicians say. They're not scientists. Louisiana is a better state to look at, and rising sea levels are the least of the concern. With 40 years on this earth, I'd expect some wisdom, but you have your head in the sand along with the libfags that you so hate. Both sides are candyassed snowflakes. Get the fuck over yourselves and realize that you are a cancer. The two party system is broken beyond repair, and needs to be done away with, like religion. Then maybe we can get on as a species and stop worrying about retarded shit. Or, maybe social Darwinism will take over, and entire social collapse will take place because people like you can't hang up your personal bullshit, so you literally die in your own filth as someone murders you. I'm actually hoping for this. Miniature civil war will be hilarious, because let's be honest, this country doesn't have the balls for total civil war anymore.



That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that your statement about hurricanes is made up bullshit. I'll take the word of honest people over the candy ass sensationalist Liberal media any day of the year. You can't trust dishonest people. Period.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osaka35 said:


> Not all sites are equally valid, though. You have to look at how they arrive at their information. "wattsupwiththat.com", for example, is a site that just makes the important stuff up, so you can safely ignore search results from that site. There are some site which attempt to explain climate change, but get it wrong, even though they agree it's happening. Those sites should also be ignored.
> 
> If you have person A saying "I think this movie has problem because of pacing" and person B saying "I think the pacing is fine given the nature of the story line" and you have person C saying "this movie is terrible because it was made by the illuminati", you're not going to want to weigh them all 3 as being equally valid.
> 
> ...



I was never implying that every result of the terms I used that go along with my own views would be valid, but there's thousands of them so maybe just maybe I'm not making any of this up? Of course there's going to be sites that produce junk results, but that's why like you said you read into them. I've spent decades reading material that goes against the current popular opinion and trends.

I agree that the terms I used give results based on the fact that I'm against the entire global warming con and rightfully so. I'm not going to support fake people (Liberals) trying to profit off of and control the general population using this hoax. I mean, science is always changing. It's okay now to eat eggs again, water isn't the #1 best way to hydrate yourself and there was nothing ever wrong with ingesting healthy fats (you see, science was *wrong* about these things for decades). I'm not going to put my trust into something that's constantly changing and thus results in everything in the past being invalid or wrong.

I've made choices in my own life to reduce my personal effects on the climate, but I'm not going to use the Government to push my views on others or force them to comply. If I did all of the Liberal leaders wouldn't be flying around in jets, driving cars or living in houses that use enough energy to power small towns with. Actually, in a real society based on socialism (according to theory) no one would be rich. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't fly with the Liberal leaders. They would simply be our lords and everyone else would be poor. No thanks and I'm not falling for "the world is ending" garbage any longer and I also don't believe that trying to implement a proven to fail old ass backwards system like socialism makes any sense.

It sounds nice on paper, but the system doesn't take into account the fact that we have sinners in the world who lie, cheat, steal, rape, kill, etc ... and right now the group of people trying to use the Government to force this system on us are all sinning, lying, cheating, stealing, child killing scum.

So it's not going to work. Socialism isn't the answer to fixing something like the climate that isn't even broken and that you can't fix no matter what you tried to do. Nor is creating more laws and making new taxes. It comes down to personal responsibility to clean up your own local environment. If everyone did that then the Earth would be clean, but then of course there's no guarantee that the climate wouldn't stop changing, well, because the climate is always changing.

See the Liberals think they've won by trying to mix in their global warming end of the world garbage with climate change. Well, renaming their agenda over and over again hasn't fooled me one bit. The climate has always been changing, yeah, but the Liberal agenda is now to try to conflate the terms to push their ways on others and it's not going to work. I see right through it. So I won't be voting for any Liberal policies, agendas and I'm sure as hell not going to vote for any Liberal candidates. I'll also point out every chance I get that the Liberals are full of shit.

If the world is really going to end in 10 years then what are you doing sitting on your computer using electricity, carrying around something that you replace every year that's made out of rare earth metals or driving around in the #1 cause of pollution? If it's such a big emergency then what are you personally going to do in your life to change? That's the question you should be asking yourself, not "what can I force other people to do".


----------



## xstre pwnsx (Oct 4, 2019)

Sink the birthrate, that'll showem!


----------



## cots (Nov 29, 2019)

xstre pwnsx said:


> Sink the birthrate, that'll showem!



Leftist:  We need to depopulate the planet.

Me:  Why?

Leftist:  To stop climate change.

Me:  What will happen if we don't stop climate change?

Leftist:  Millions will die.

Me:  So we need to depopulate the planet to stop climate change from depopulating the planet?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Nov 29, 2019)

Hahahaha.. you can't fix it. It is irreversible. It can be slow down with solar and no more gas/oil and etc. However, to reversible it ? No, Scientists already say that it is irreversible change.


----------



## cots (Nov 29, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Hahahaha.. you can't fix it. It is irreversible. It can be slow down with solar and no more gas/oil and etc. However, to reversible it ? No, Scientists already say that it is irreversible change.



Well, according to my Liberal 3rd grade teacher that showed us end of the world documentaries we all were have supposed to have died in the late 80's. Then in the late 80's they changed the date. Then again in the 90's. Again in the early 2000's. I guess the latest is less than 12 years from now? For some reason they can't seem to get the date right. I need specifics people. I want to be able to plan out my exact final day to the second. I need to make sure I have time to play Octopath Traveler for at least 1 hour before I die on the day I lie. Tis' my goal in life.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Nov 29, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, according to my Liberal 3rd grade teacher that showed us end of the world documentaries we all were have supposed to have died in the late 80's. Then in the late 80's they changed the date. Then again in the 90's. Again in the early 2000's. I guess the latest is less than 12 years from now? For some reason they can't seem to get the date right. I need specifics people. I want to be able to plan out my exact final day to the second. I need to make sure I have time to play Octopath Traveler for at least 1 hour before I die on the day I lie. Tis' my goal in life.



What are you talking about ? You believe human being about the date ? That's silly. The fact is that earth is getting worse and it is not getting better that's all. PERIOD. Date and when are not predictable at all. You believe them because of date ? No wonder your teacher was stupid than I thought. LOL!


----------



## cots (Nov 29, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> What are you talking about ? You believe human being about the date ? That's silly. The fact is that earth is getting worse and it is not getting better that's all. PERIOD. Date and when are not predictable at all. You believe them because of date ? No wonder your teacher was stupid than I thought. LOL!



Chill. It was a joke, well, not the part about the date. I was making fun of the fact that no one really knows what they're talking about. Hey, plants thrive on C2O and personally I'd sort of like a warmer climate. So we slow down the next ice age and we'll have more plant life. Doesn't sound too bad to me. Maybe it'll be like when the Dinosaurs roamed the earth (climate wise). So, some places they said would be underwater 30 years ago might finally be underwater and some people will have to move. The people that built cities under sea level should just have never built them under sea level (as flooding was always a danger). Maybe some species die out and some adjust. We'll have to adjust the crops we grow. Come up with new tech. That's how it's always been. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. Everyone is always so "gloom and doom" about the issue. I tend to be more optimistic regarding it. Is the world going to be inhabitable in less than 12 years? No. Will it be slightly warmer? Probably. Are we all going to die? Eventually, but not in less than 11 years  due to man made climate change. I'm not an man made climate change denier - I just don't follow sheep. I mean - what else is causing it (volcano's anyone)? Can we really fix it? Does it need fixing to begin with? I'm not denying it's not happening, but I'm not going to suddenly start voting for rich ass old Liberals who fly around in jets, have lots of cars and houses that produce 10x the carbon as my parents house does - as they don't have any intention on fixing anything. They just want to pass off socialism so they can take control, which will leave 99% of us citizen poor (after we spend all of the rich peoples money) and then leave the 1% of the high ranking Government officials rich and in power (with no way to fight them since we'd have given up our guns). Yeah, Venezuela is a prime example of the late term results of socialism and California Cities are a prime examples of it in the process of failing.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Nov 29, 2019)

cots said:


> That's how it's always been. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. Everyone is always so "gloom and doom" about the issue. I tend to be more optimistic regarding it. Is the world going to be inhabitable in less than 12 years? No. Will it be slightly warmer? Probably. Are we all going to die? Eventually, but not in less than 11 years  due to man made climate change. I'm not an man made climate change denier - I just don't follow sheep.



You don't think we're all doomed ? You think it's not that big of a deal ? Be careful what you are wish for.

Nobody know and we don't know how Earth will handle it in the future. It is better not to say that, really. A slightly warmer ? Probably ? There is no probably. Yes, it is already more than slightly warmer. I don't know if you are older or younger. 

I remembered about the winter in 1980's in my state. A long colder snowing weather and snow was already there for long 3-4 months. Right now in our state.. Snow disappear in weeks after bad snow. Sometimes no snow in a year at all. Yes, it is obviously more than slightly warmer. Maybe not in your state or something. It is a beginning of amok in the future.

And you don't notice.. Many people are not getting together all the time. They are minding their business with smartphones and computers and cable tv at home more everyday. In my past time, we getting together every weekends.. Went out to pinic and many more. Now, our families are not like that anymore thanks to stupid technology keep them distraction and loveless. Only getting together is "FAKE" holidays such as Thanksgiving, XMAS and something like that. Yeah. Earth is gone wrong.. Human being changed as well as technology advance as well as climax weather getting advance also. Makes sense.


----------



## cots (Nov 29, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> You don't think we're all doomed ? You think it's not that big of a deal ? Be careful what you are wish for.
> 
> Nobody know and we don't know how Earth will handle it in the future. It is better not to say that, really. A slightly warmer ? Probably ? There is no probably. Yes, it is already more than slightly warmer. I don't know if you are older or younger.
> 
> I remembered about the winter in 1980's in my state. A long colder snowing weather and snow was already there for long 3-4 months. Right now in our state.. Snow disappear in weeks after bad snow. Sometimes no snow in a year at all. Yes, it is obviously more than slightly warmer. Maybe not in your state or something. It is a beginning of amok in the future.



The lack of snow doesn't mean you're going to die nor does it mean it's being caused by climate change. There's weather patterns that are always changing. I mean, unless you have temperature readings that you can look at and say "it's 2 degrees warmer in the winters then it was in the 80's" there could be other causes. And say if it is warmer. Oh well. You have less snow. It still rains. You'll get warmer, new plant life will grow, there're be new weather cycles. The world isn't ending - it's just changing (like it always has).



> And you don't notice.. Many people are not getting together all the time. They are minding their business with smartphones and computers and cable tv at home more everyday. In my past time, we getting together every weekends.. Went out to pinic and many more. Now, our families are not like that anymore thanks to stupid technology keep them distraction and loveless. Only getting together is "FAKE" holidays such as Thanksgiving, XMAS and something like that. Yeah. Earth is gone wrong.. Human being changed as well as technology advance as well as climax weather getting advance also. Makes sense.



Are these the same people that say that I need to vote for Liberals to fix climate change while sitting on their ass for hours on end using devices with large carbon footprints to do so with? What exactly powers those devices? Eh? Yeah, cellphones are junk. So you support "green" stuff. Why are you buying a new phone every year? These assholes have no fucking right to tell me I who I need to vote for or what I need to change when they're the ones contributing more carbon than I am! Anyway, if you're addicted to cell phones (which is a real mental disorder) then you're part of the problem. Tech is dirty shit. Just as dirty as coal. Don't get me started on people that own cars ....


----------



## spotanjo3 (Nov 29, 2019)

cots said:


> The lack of snow doesn't mean you're going to die nor does it mean it's being caused by climate change. There's weather patterns that are always changing. I mean, unless you have temperature readings that you can look at and say "it's 2 degrees warmer in the winters then it was in the 80's" there could be other causes. And say if it is warmer. Oh well. You have less snow. It still rains. You'll get warmer, new plant life will grow, there're be new weather cycles. The world isn't ending - it's just changing (like it always has).



No, I didn't say about die. Nobody is going to die because of it. The sign is showing and it is not good. A new plant life will grow ? Look at many animals are blink of the extinct. Ok, I think you are not getting about climax change. 

This Earth is not going to be gone.. but human being is.. Look at newer diseases, overpopulation, corruption, hate is increase, killing is increase, and many more. Yeah, I don't think you get the picture.


----------



## notimp (Nov 29, 2019)

cots said:


> The lack of snow doesn't mean you're going to die nor does it mean it's being caused by climate change. There's weather patterns that are always changing. I mean, unless you have temperature readings that you can look at and say "it's 2 degrees warmer in the winters then it was in the 80's" there could be other causes. And say if it is warmer. Oh well. You have less snow. It still rains. You'll get warmer, new plant life will grow, there're be new weather cycles. The world isn't ending - it's just changing (like it always has).


Yeah, but its climate change though. Science says so by a 95:5 margin. (Dumb simplification, but essentially.)
Even oil industry is acting as though science is real (investments), but giving PR speeches as if it isnt (price stability).
Only people that promote 'not real' by a larger factor compaired to their representational importance, are some political fractions.


We went over this a few times already.

You are dealing with complex systems - so you make projections, and claim certain trends. There is no way to 'guard' that against some antagonistic moron coming along and claiming - yes, but in this case - it still might be just weather and...

This is macro level vs. micro level arguing. So no macro level prediction can ever be right, because micro level can be different in one case - you are saying.


We went over this a  few times already. Its not a simple conspiracy, if all nations worldwide start implementing plans - despite the US under Trump. No - Trumpians are not the only whizballs that see right through this international conspiracy to hurt americans.


Issue here - on average - also arent weather extremes, but mean cost of temperature rising too quickly to mitigate with technological advancement alone. Also shocks in food production and water ecosystems spreading of diseases, sealevel rise.

Some of this can be ignored by letting a few island states go under.

Much of it cant be ignored, when it comes to insurance companies saying - we cant insure against consequences of climate change caused fallout, if trajectories continue like this.

This is also why big insurance companies are on the forefront of awareness campaigns around that stuff.
--

Its also not so much a discussion about IF. (As if the president would be keeper of the truth.) But when. And when alone determines winners and losers in certain fields structurally - because lets say - the US are a fairly isolated continent, that overproportionally profits from sticking to carbon energy sources for longer (Because for example, oil has to be payed for in USD).

So thats what the fight really is about - and yes its already costing lives currently.
-

The next issue is, that this is a global problem. That you best tackle outside of your country (because its cheeper if you do).
And programs to 'make forest greener in africa' arent that popular amongst populations.

Also - if one major player simply rejects to participate - every other state has less incentive to stay on trajectory as well - because that major state - currently doing jack about it - will profit exponentially compaired to its direct rival - because its a real cost factor.
-

So yes. Currently america is destroying the world again. But mostly the world in 200 years (as far a the west is concerned). And when they stop doing so - will impact, who is winning future economic sectors and by how much.

Also - currently renewable energy solutions have lower profit margins than carbon based solutions. By afair more than half. Even in the best scenarios. So... Yeah. Companies in the energy sector (who have investment capital, and most likely will become the biggest future players in the renewable field as well) dont necessarily want to end that more quickly.

Also, if you transition later. Impact will be higher (think disarray). Risks will be higher. And losses will be higher. Just not equally distributed. And US is in a good position to say - f*ck it, lets transition later.


----------



## notimp (Jan 16, 2020)

McKinsey calculated 'business as usual scenario' for world economy till 2050.

In ten years - 250 bis 360 Millionen people will be living in regions where deadly heatwaves could take place (think desaster), in 2050 it would be 700 million to 1,2 billion. Affected regions would be f.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesch and Nigeria.

Industries most affected are building, agriculture and mining ("people working outside").

Food production in the mediterranean (think Italy, Spain) could falter (Marseille could become like Algier), food production in Canada and Russia would profit.

Hurricanes and floods would reduce Floridas property value in costal regions by 30%

Global fishing yields might be reduced by 8% (affecting the basis for living for up to 800 million people).

Up to a forth of the worlds airports might become unusable due to them having been built only a few meters above sea level.

And thats just the beginning (2050), so we have to do something at one point in time.. 

src:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-the-economy-climate-risks-are-no-longer-theoretical-11579174209
https://www.ft.com/content/32a7df5a-37e6-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

edit: World Economic Forum also has put out a writeup on likely impacts for business:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/climate-resilience-is-set-to-make-or-break-businesses/


----------



## notimp (Jan 16, 2020)

If you want to hear how this sounds in economic language form, watch this video. 

https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2020

edit: "Party of Davos" still lying to people on how they will like the impacts of the measures necessary, or straight out refusing to answer questions.  Nothing too new here. Still an interesting watch to gage state of mind of the globally orientated business community.

Current plan as far as I can tell is to invent a crapton of bullshit jobs (companies taking more social responsibility) "with something positive climate" in the title (to drive up social acceptance) and then cancel them after 10 years or so (or when feasibility runs out, which for the property retrofitting business is in about 10 years (prior to that they will boom)).

Which looks like the new model (in western countries). Keep poorer people engaged in chasing  structural growth jobs, with growth in most individual fields only lasting about 10 years, in downwards trending economies. Chuck a few gig jobs in there as well, voila.

Workhour and pay reductions inclusive/included. 

For the rest, refer to the video. (Accurately depicted there.)


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 19, 2020)

Almost every day the media brings up climate change, but it's not actually because of it. Politicians, actors, activists.. sigh.

A lot believe that what happened in Australia was due to climate change. How stupid do they think people are.. a lot, if they believe it religiously.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also, the parents allowing Greta Thunberg as the face of a movement.. they have no idea that her image on the internet will forever be ruined. I can't stand her and her b.s. speeches are exactly why.

She should have been kept in school than go on a crusade where she did nothing useful. At least Hollywood didn't get to her.


----------



## notimp (Jan 20, 2020)

Boesy said:


> A lot believe that what happened in Australia was due to climate change. How stupid do they think people are.. a lot, if they believe it religiously.


On this you can listen to the one higher IQ dude on the Davos risk management panel. He outlines it correctly. Climate change is responsible for a higher chance and frequency of extreme weather events, but you can not attribute the "caused by climate change" kind of probability to single events.

So while climate change does contribute to size, frequency and severeness of such events, you can never say that that or the other one was caused by climate change statistically.

People do it (f.e. Australia), because, shortcuts in thinking and arguing.  Theres no harm to it.



> Also, the parents allowing Greta Thunberg as the face of a movement.. they have no idea that her image on the internet will forever be ruined. I can't stand her and her b.s. speeches are exactly why.


Actually no - the opposite, I made a list of "speeches in front of decision makers/power brokers" per month, to which she spoke after being 'discovered', once - and it is astounding. I think out of 18 months, there were only 4 or so - where she didnt (publicly) talk to the highest head honchos in politics and business.

Davos had climate change as a front and center issue since 2016. If anything - that girl is set up for life. 

She went faster to Davos, than to Germany or France. Next week she will be there for the second time...  She has prevented the Fridays for Future movement to become political at SMILE in Lausanne (Switzerland) last year - that girl is highly connected, and does all the things the (globalized) establishment likes. 

The last speech she did (NY climate summit), did seem 'forced' (she forced herself to get into a certain emotional space), I think you can objectively say that. Also - I'd wager, that she has gone through media training by now (watch the full length BBC (radio, but on video) Attenborough interview she did rencently..  Its on youtube.). Again, not much harm in that either.

As far as her facts go, they are mostly 'state of the art' climate science wise - but they are also political messaging. So you have to listen closely to statements like 'if nothing changes', or qualifiers like that. As shes an activist, shes allowed to do that.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 20, 2020)

Well, you seem to be the only one who replies to these threads so you're just talking to yourself. I'd disagree with you on many points, but I don't have the time to.


----------



## notimp (Jan 20, 2020)

And also no arguments, by the looks of it.

edit: Here is a little more but not for you, since you arent interested, and have no time. 

If you look at the person who discovered Greta (Ingmar Rentzhog), hes now building a network against climate change, featuring f.e. Åsa Wallenberg (SPP, Storebrand) (see: https://campaigns.wedonthavetime.or...sil-free-c12c2c34-751d-41c4-bb99-ce120a63f48e ).

Storebrand is managing assets north of 80 billion USD ( https://www.investmenteurope.net/ne...ubsidiary-spp-moves-eliminate-fossil-exposure )

- and just expanding to continental europe ( https://www.fbnw.se/articles/2019/march/asa-wallenberg-we-are-bringing-our-funds-to-europe/ ), sending out tweets like the following:

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/storebrand_no/status/1055789338003415041

If you want to read up on the Wallenberg familiy, just for the kicks of it :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family
--

Gretas Speech circuit log in the past 12 months reads as follows:

November 2018 - Stockholm (TedX, introduction into polite society  )
December 2019 - COP 24
January 2019 - Davos (World Economic Forum)
February 2019 - Brussels
March 2019 - Berlin (Brandenburg Gate speech)
April 2019 - Strasbourg (European Parliament)
April 2019 - Vatican (Meeting the Pope)
May 2019 - Austria (R20 Conference where António Guterres announced UN 2050 goals, the climate summit in NY and she entertained the public together with Arnie)
July 2019 - Paris (National Assembly)
August 2019 - Lausanne (SMILE)
September 2019 - Washington, NY (US Congress, NY Climate Summit, Press meet and greets with Arnie and that guy)
December 2019 - COP 25
December 2019 - London (BBC (Radio4) homestory with the father, and interview with Attenborough)
January 2020 - Davos (World Economic Forum - This years theme: "Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World")

Lets just say, this is not the schedule of someone who will have difficulties 'finding a job' in the future, or of someone whos struggling actor dad is managing their career..  Works both ways. 

Davos prominently featured Climate Change as a topic, as early as 2016 (https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-europe-medicine-inequality-cybercrime ) - If you dont know what Davos is, and can speak german, or french: https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/085426-000-A/das-forum-rettet-davos-die-welt/
(You should know how to differentiate PR from content, before watching that video, ideally.)

Or just look at the intro anyhow.. It should get the point across..


----------



## notimp (Jan 22, 2020)

Grotesque PR trash in Davos


"So, for me its like - when I hear, we have to do something about 2050, I'm like - really?! People are dying and..."

If 'in your region' a larger amount of people are dying because of extreme weather phenomenons, I've got bad news for you. There is future warming already baked in. So getting up on a freaking panel in Davos and doing the 'creative heart throb story pattern' is probably the most deranged thing you can do (not talking about Greta, btw - who was had for lunch with a short, meaningless statement, that lead into the adults talking), that even harms your own constituency at that point.

On whats happening currently, not even most of the world sovereign wealth funds could have been convinced, that investing in green growth/energy transition projects is in their long term interest. (This comes from a growth/sustaining wealth perspective, not from a climate denial POV. Just fyi.)

Issue still mainly is to get everyone onto the table. Because you cant cannibalize your own economy for the greater 200 year, global, goal, if your direct economic competitor next to you does nothing and reaps all cost based benefits you are opening up for them in the process.

Doing stuff 'more faster now' in that configuration is simply impossible. (If the people slowing down the process are major economic players globally. (So you can't just f.e. pressure them through trade regulations.))


----------



## notimp (Jan 22, 2020)

This is elite building, drawing on a religious motivatible, apolitical (in terms of most current issues) youth:


You basically create pools, where you source future leaders that then get coopted by any ideology, that someone deems them worth platforming. But the idea is, that they should be so plain and exchangeable in terms of motivation, that almost everything fits.

This is elites reproducing themselves.

Climate change is a wonderful ecosystem for this to happen in, because its an issue that has to be tackled at the global stage. Everyone (in terms of stake holders) can agree upon, its only solved by holding peoples aspirations (in the middle classes) down, so elites like it....

So if you ever wondered, why global elites also are involved in platforming this issue as youth culture especially, its mainly about exact reproduction of value sets. With one additional value, that can only be tackled at the global stage - and is  far harder than the naive version of it that is propagated, through activism rhetoric. So any single interest group that tries to tackle it without consensus - fails. Its 'play acting on an entire generations motivation to rebel' as motivation.

This is stuff I hate.

And this is still how the real world works:


edit: In regards to climate change central banks will ease credit (lending) conditions for sustainable investment projects, through easing stress test conditions for banks (in that sector) - and thats about it. (Summery of the second video (but watch for details.  ))


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 22, 2020)

*Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea*

Cute teens but they are lacking of understanding what climate change and human population growth really means but they are not going to fix climate change.. Never. As scientist said it might slow down but it is irreversible damage at all.


----------



## notimp (Jan 22, 2020)

But how you change rate of climate change is important. Also it might be reversable in the future (technological developments can't be foretold), but this is (in terms of physics - energy expenditure, also risks of some potentially less costly measures...) much, much more costly, than slowing trends now.

That said - future warming is already baked in - so if you are living in one of the regions thats mostly impacted by climate change currently, to the point, where many of your people are dying - the answer is migration - to get up at a Davos panel doing the "we need more financial stimulus and action now, and our people will learn to cope by looking at birds flying patterns", structurally wont be a solution.

If you see such a person represented at a Davos panel - they are sitting there for appeasement only (emotional motivation/manipulation).

Thats the rough cut. 


Mass migration also leads to additional problems on parts of more wealthy economies of course. Unless you are the US, which can fancy itself 'an island' in regards to the 'earlier' mass migrations that will happen. This is an example for why different interest groups play different "timing windows".

"We have to ignore it, because nothing can be done." Is a lie as well. 

US currently has high employment, but is very stressed in terms of borrowing capacity, as I've learned today (last video), so they don't want to invest into long term structural change now. So apparently that also is an economic factor. According to the IMF.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 22, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I'm glad people are willing to keep up with his nonsense. He is clearly nitpicking information and being willfully ignorant, if not just straight up trolling, to fit a narrative with all these threads he has been making. Idk how you do it.


Nitpicking information and being willfully ignorant tend to go hand and hand with people who don't believe in claimant change.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> But how you change rate of climate change is important. Also it might be reversable in the future (technological developments can't be foretold)



Sorry but it is irreversible.


----------



## notimp (Jan 22, 2020)

azoreseuropa said:


> Sorry but it is irreversible.


Basically yes (theoretically no (think ultra long term.. )).

But your argument doesnt work, because it doesnt end at 3°C automatically, and - "we'll we then have to live with that". At a 6°C change in temperature, most of human civilization will have died out.  So rate of temperature growth matters.

Those (last paragraph) are usually the scenarios I lampoon as 'silly', because humans will take more drastic action to prevent those, but in your case I guess I even have to stress that.

I dont like to do that, because I hate motivating people politically with apocalyptic visions they will not encounter in the next 80 years - but its still a possibility just a bit further down the road. Growth isnt linear here either. So you dont have another 300+ years to get going either. (Thats what people in the risk assessment panel mean by 'the action windows for 1.5°C and 3°C max are small - we have to act now).)

And the later you act (starting to reduce impact, starting to reduce dependency on fossile fuels which will be running out eventually (factor of population growth and ressources being limited) the fewer options you'll have. Also the later you act, the more radical changes will become almost by default (more wars, less global trade, less wealth produced, maybe even insurance schemes simply faltering, because of risk that isnt projectable anymore, less prosperity, less time, ...).

The only thing you have to understand really is, that this is likely not a 'change' that you can innovate yourself out of with "technological advancement only". This is why 'driving people into reduced consumption' is a thing.

(Or you address it from the other direction and say - well, per capita GDP of western societies is projected to fall by 50% in the next 100 years, while the developing and second world is still growing. But that also can be argued for by "growing societies - cant be left to see their aspirations in living models, that your parents had", because limits of growth..  The only thing that can be argued really is, when you beginn the transitioning process. And how fast you are implementing it. (Or talk about population controlling schemes in a way that no one rather wants to.

The problem with those (at least those that dont involve armed conflict) is, that high population growth is connected to poverty. ("My children will care for me when I'm older, the state doesnt"), so reducing poverty is effectively reducing population growth as well (stabilizing population growth is something all 'advanced' societies have achieved. Otherwise, this always ends in conflict.).)

So if your goal is what the youth nowadays calls "global climate justice" - but which really means, reducing poverty, to reduce population, while also reducing average living standards in the west - thats actually the way to produce 'least harm' Sadly thats not how humans work though. (I can't extend my empathy that far, sadly).

(Societies in egypt existed for 3000 years without structurally changing systems really that much (sustainable). Ancient greeks changed that, introduced rapid (for the time) innovation, the notion that each generation should have it better than the last one - and its that model that arguably some people nowadays dont like anymore.

So curbed and managed human drives in terms of ambition and economic growth expectancy. Which means the same status quo for the next few hundred years.

Now there currently is the discussion if this can be rejiggered to some form of sustainable growth (virtual goods, societies of poets and thinkers, ...) (coined: decoupling growth from CO2 emissions), but the current consensus on that rather also is - no it cant. Certainly not at current levels.

(This is where designing peoples 'happyness' comes in (no joke ). So in the future - probably - you will be faced with more 'short term economic trends' that one can make a good living of, for maybe 10 years, and that then will go away again (no long term growth). Which is more like playing the lottery..  But it will distribute resources amongst - let say middle classes, not more 'justly' but more frequently.

Also there will be more (low paying) BS jobs, like the Microsoft Uplink platform featured in the video above (second one) impressively proves. (Just so that people won't rebel, you give them a 'higher societal goal' thats useless in regards of how we think about the economy today (wont ever get you the quiet house with garden at the edge of town (limited quantity of those arround... )) Hence Microsoft Uplink platform.))

And then you look at how "social mobility" looks like currently (in a world with negative growth - as we see it today) - and you start to laugh...  )

Now thats a basic, but more in depth look into this... 

Also - part of the structural changes that seem necessary, maybe the generation that identifies so much with 'global climate justice' will be willing to 'take'. (This is a highly loaded (= explosive  ) statement.)


----------



## notimp (Jan 22, 2020)

Another example for bullshit initiatives that can be found is in the ARTE video on 'what is Davos'.

Klaus Schwab, very PR efficiently, visits a 'social entrepreneurial' startup there that, at very low cost can distribute medicine over large distances in poorer parts of the world.

So while this can effectively produce good will, and lower child mortality (which is also a driver of over population (less family planing possible, so better have many children)), it really doesnt scale as effectively. So in essence, It will produce no economic upturn, or interesting job perspectives in those regions.

And the game, if you are a poorer nation (being negatively affected by climate change) is 'get higher GDP quickly' (to then be able to afford counter meassures) or scram.

So if and when this problem becomes structural (think mass migration) 10 whiz kids and their ultra low weight glider wont change migration pressure. It wont even help to structurally alleviate shortcomings under those conditions. Its again - purely fluff.

You call stuff like that 'lighthouse projects' as their impact is mostly to be seen aspirationally..  (You usually also see them as innovation drivers, but if you look at what quality of employees work on f.e. the Microsoft Uplink program (second video), ...ehm... yeah.)

So whats actually happening at the moment is european business communities and governments having to rethink 'foreign aid' as a concept (also, because China is gaining influence in Africa (resources)).  So the aim becomes to actually build local economies quicker in f.e. Africa (all growth thats currently 'needed' happens in the developing nations and the second world), so those communities could withstand migration pressures longer (economic difference between certain parts of the developing world and the developed world becomes smaller, thereby reducing migration pressure).

At the same time (if you are europe) you are hardening your military structural defenses, in case that doesnt work out.

But this idea, that you are needed as a european whizkid, to better living conditions in third world countries, is spearheaded by the globalized economic elite, because again - in the developed west you are scheduled for degrowth over the next 80 years. So what to do with peoples aspirations there? The aspirations have to be tunneled into global action (where they can still participate in economic growth), or niche sectors, or you will have ultra nationalist backlashes. (Tea party and worse.) Which also dont help to solve the problem. 

So now you are left with extremely atrocious examples of old men PR pushing aspiring lighthouse projects, that do nothing - to inspire young folks to do something. 

All of that is compatible with globalized business interests (so you know who is not loosing out here..  ), who have pledged about last year to steer more towards 'stakeholder capitalism' - meaning, if you are Microsoft and mostly are growing in India - produce some low paying bullshit jobs in Germany as well to help with degrowth there not turning into revolts (give people a religious motivation, rather than an economic one (which you could argue also is a religion of sorts - not to get sidetracked here)).

National politics sees those trends, and everywhere around the world (where per capita growth trends are negative) has 'not on my watch' reactions ('can we sit this one out.. '), basically.

This is where the child activists initiative enters.. Which the UN spearheaded.


----------



## notimp (Jan 22, 2020)

If you dont believe - that climate change is a real issue, maybe this can convince you:



(Intro)

edit: To give a little bit of a relativization the European Green New Deal currently has only about a third of its intended financing secured. Social compensation funds for disruption are only about a tenth of total investment. Germany has already stated, that it will only reluctantly finance new funds within that sector on the european level. The new government might try to change that - but as it stands currently, europes 'green new deal' is lame - and more an equivalent of risk management meets need for structural longterm reorientation (R&D budgets over the last 30 years were slashed). Financing should mostly turn up through private investment - which has better growth potential, when it invests outside europe. Nevertheless, the commitment was made.


----------



## notimp (Jan 24, 2020)

Greta has become older, male, secretary general of the UN - and less interesting. Skip.


----------



## notimp (Jan 24, 2020)

Next lesson.

People want to be lied to.

This is a basic principal of public relations. And it goes as follows. People delegate their own incongruencies and imperfect decisions in an imperfect world to politicians, which nowadays - they basically pay for to do nothing but to be targets for their own anger for this imperfect decision structure to be necessary.

Structural politics (and CSR on the business side) in return manufactures fake trends and emotionality people can internalize as 'higher principals' to rectify their existence (UN still important  ) or societal models.

But people love that emotionality so much, that none of them is willing to say a thing if you tell them - its manufactured. You've been had. All of what you thought was grass roots, wasnt.

But then even the people who usually are so enthused in cursing about 'hidden agendas' and 'corruption' and 'hidden power elites' dont say a word, if it isnt conducive to their emotionality.

So - if an agenda, and outright manipulation of the populus is happening in the open, and is promising free cake and hugs for everyone - everyone loves it.

End of lesson.


----------



## notimp (Jan 24, 2020)

Short extension. This is how you really steer societies. You design emotional truths, that become a societal default - even if just for a while.

Examples:

'Climate change is not real.'
'There is nothing we can do about climate change.'
'The little girl found her way to convince important pillars of society with her anger and her dedication.'

All lies.

But all very simple emotional truths, That work on the individual level. That make you feel better if you believe in them. And that you wouldnt let go - for anything in the world. 

Can they be designed? Yes. Are they designed? Also, yes.

This is how you manipulate societies.

Not by owning and controlling "tha media" (which isnt a homogeneous blob) and "telling them what to write". No. You invent a higher principal, have people believe in it, and the rest just follows.

And it has to be simple.


----------



## notimp (Jan 25, 2020)

Fear is used as a motivator as well, because negative sensationalized story telling spreads fast, but it leaves people in an emotional struggle (short term apathy), so usually its played with a simple solution narrative that people can subscribe to these days.

Also in the age of AI driven personalized emotional manipulation of masses, apathy or mobilization might be induced by tailored messaging. Again, this is what propaganda does today.

A few concepts can be taken from Chomsky:


Who saw an out in small independent media outlets. But in todays media ecosystem, noise increased manyfold - and people started optimizing by popularity, or perceived importance within a sub movement.

So in the end you now have -

- Presidents of the EC for the climate
- UN secretary generals for the climate
- Microsoft Uplink for the climate
- Davos protesters for the climate
- Social collectivists for the climate
- Greta ('I'm not interested in politics') for the climate
- Grandparents for the climate
- Scientist for the climate
- Podcasters for the climate
and mass media for the climate

With none of them ever stressing what it means to tackle it in the way they promote, and even activists themselves going to the outmost difficulties to ensure, that their organization is freeform and can mean anything to anybody.

Delegation of what should be done is deferred to the top.

Everyone is seeing attaining popularity as the end goal. And the people who decisions are deferred to, everybody loves to hate in principal.

Businesses and politics uses those movements to source material (you have aspirational goals that drive self organizing, which costs nothing, and develops public political actors (speakers, organizers, ..)), and the cause is just perfect, because no single movement alone can even propose a solution on its own, because you need private and public sector stakeholders on a global scale - which pretty much everyone acknowledges.

Also agenda setting is used to produce a reduction in expectation of growth in the general public.

While industry sector specific growth, leveraged by state investment (buys up risk, socializes it), to replace the same sectors, just with less growth, labor and production expectancies. While reducing social security - to finance said state investment.

'First mover advantage' benefits are then asserted for any of this to make any sense.

And the future structural elite is formed by a function of preselecting people based on their ability to tell others to 'live a little less', so they themselves can live a little more.

But instead of doing it for 'the afterlife' you now pronounce the 200 year goal, because you have to. 

Only out? Believing in that your future leaders will conjour up better societies with less of everything, by sheer power of will (while they themselves are optimizing by popularity and getting your life decoupled from structural growth). 

Some call it a moonshot project. 

(Perspective of a cynical european..  )


----------



## notimp (Jan 25, 2020)

Merkel talking around the european issue:


Germany doesnt see it as 'primarily a chance' at all, it isn't investing into structural fonds heavily upfront. It sees its role to set in place a trade agreement with China first (Leibzig next year), that would have climate based tariffs included, at which point it would partly attain the role of leading by example, through industry development. Currently, its managed risk all the way. State financing is held back to be able to react to the backlashes of the transformation.

Germany is all in on transforming Africa, where real growth can still happen, using old models, and partly new tech. 

edit: Shes also talking about the R&D slash in the past 30 years as a 'small oppsie'. 

Industry in germany is all in wanting renewable energy (price growth of CO2 certificates on the EU level), while the energy sector still doesnt want to pay for it, so now the public should be PR bombed into paying for it.  The big issue still would be the transport industry though. So being ''CO2 neutral' in 2050 will depend on a whole lot of creative accounting and planting trees in Africa.  As well as liquified hydrogen from the global south.  And more lithium mining in europe, yay!


----------



## notimp (Jan 29, 2020)

Oh and if you havent clued in on how much of a lie the children initiative is -

in its effort to mean everything to everyone - it convinced people that it was out to really structurally change stuff. First by making shame narratives and nitpicking ever so popular again - then, as soon as the backlash hit, by conjuring up a vague promise to jumpstart/move on faster initiatives on the industrial level.

(Then also by refusing to become a political movement in Lausanne last year.)

All those are dysfunctional lies. (The most they can do is change demand, which still will be price driven - if you take into account that you need behavioral change in the middle classes, in masses, to drive down emissions structurally. ("Many people have to live a little less, for this to work."))

The nagging and nudging provenly does not work (numbers (selfregulation without readily available alternatives seldomly does)) and for me turns into pure destain, when I see societies engaging in it regardless, simply because it was made popular again. (This can be argued, so its an 'opinion'.  )

But the more interesting part is, that the entire movement could do absolutely nothing on the industry level. Even in concept. CO2 price levels for most industries (transport famously still excluded) are set at an EU (and not the national political) level, and are basically fixed until 2030 ('planing security').

So the entire margin of possibility those climate initiatives in europe were acting within was

1. Imprint economic abstinence narratives in mass populations (so that future consumption taxes can be established). ("Agenda setting")) Yay!
2. Trying to pry away structural subsidies from fossile fuel energy forms, especially in the transport sector (where they identified 'too little had been done' but the actual problem was 'sans alternatives') - faster - inducing more economic shocks (people basically will be forced to migrate closer to cities for work, or live increasingly substandard lives in rural regions - and yes, thats all still coming..), to give industries incentives, that arent there currently (market). Coined as 'cutting' false incentives in the fossile energy sectors.

The issue here is, that they entirely demanded doing that - without any alternatives being present. Meaning - cutting into productivity. The idiots literally organized mass stand ins in front of german car shows, while that industry in that country had the worst year in two decades, and production speed and cost were set by Samsung and chinese vendors trickling in li-ion batteries at 'you arent even the fifth most important electric car manufacturer in the world' levels. (European battery production summits had been held before Greta, so the solutions (more mining done in europe, increase european production capacity) here already were in development but just not developed yet. Same as with the green energy ecosystem that in the future apparently now is fueling transport as well.)

So everything they did apart from 'creating awareness' was actually detrimental, everything they demanded was positively impossible, they addressed all the wrong actors, they refused to attain a political position, they didn't tell politics anything new at all, they propagated shame and self harm for a 200 year global goal, with highly religious accents/tropes - and they were celebrated for it by an (only ever became popular in countries with an) aging society - that slowly comes to grasp with that they had all the growth, and their current children expected to pay for their retirement have none. (While having frozen R&D spending for the last 30 years, but that just the icing on the cake.) So now they have to fling religion to still be able to dominate their children 'morally', while they always will do so politically, demographically.

So regardless of what you thought possible, because of the activism, the reality is, that the popular initiative demanding 'more faster now' from national political actor in the developed world - that still were at least somewhat committed to the process, was a display of mass masochism - that in many of the fields were faster change was promoted would have slashed economic opportunity in exchange for sectoral growth, and on the subnational level hadn't any power to ever change anything at all.

Fun.

(To be fair structural policy changes after 2030 - while still hard hitting, are possible. But the claim to fame for the children initiatives always was 'we've got to act now', to which the correct response always was "eff you, you dont know sh*t" - respectively and objectively so. Just with a little sugar coating on top, so you can swallow it easier.

And also to be fair, that it moves faster (than agreed in unison with other major international players) regardles of international developments, in the future, also isnt likely, because the EU isnt f*cking germany and sweden alone. And germany isnt paying. (Responses to the UvdL initiative on the EU level.)

If you then look into what happened structurally for this mass delusion to become possible, its either UN messaging being misunderstood (please nag national politics in countries that havent committed) on a large scale, or freebie effects of "reducing growth expectation in the middle classes" being set in place - where reducing growth expectation only targets developed countries in the west (its actually negative if you look at per capita GDP developement in the next 80 years, slashing GDP percentage of world GDP, in those societies, in half) of course.

All of that encapsulated in a highly emotional, religious narrative, of the next generation crying out to safe the world.

I'd hit a child. If they werent a child.

(So basically whoever designed this was a sadist and an asshole. (Global elite nudging their children to mingle with the poor for all the wrong reasons ('live a little less', but still think it was your own free will - to reduce structural risk during transition, where they develop growth opportunity anywhere that isnt a western developed country (its also better for the climate)), and one religious, ultra long term correct one.))

Oh and first mover advantage in the energy sector is a complete lie, if you look at china publicly having projected to be able to slash cost of energy from solar by another 90% within the next 10 years. If you cant do that with your great competitor with value add in europe (wind), fucking - tough luck. (Wind still will be needed as part of the energy mix in the zero emission economy, I'm only insisting that first mover advantage is mostly a lie - when you are faced with those projections.)


----------



## notimp (Jan 29, 2020)

Oh and if you are an absolute moron, and havent clued in on why the industry (in europe) likes it. CO2 prices are fixed at the EU level. Rate of growth for those is pledged to increase non linearly.

Industry has to 'innovate' to offset that artificially (but needed from a long term perspective) cost, or pay fines - if they cant (that would then be used to develop incentives to jumpstart industry that can).

So within that framework, that already is in place - they like 'more faster now' perfectly well, if that entails the citizen (national level, in richer countries) footing the bill for faster transition into renewable energy (capacity increase).

At the same time, when they (fossile energy sector f.e.) are driven out of business, by the very demand the delusional public movement currently cries out for, they get compensation payments - which they are entitled to legally (under international investor protection frameworks).

Fun.

And if any activist - ever - gives you flack for not liking it, just remind them -

- that they are groomed as new political leaders for selling people 'sectoral growth' that never can be bigger than growth lost, that they destroyed in the process -

they might do it because they fear even harsher transitions further down the road (ultra long term interest.) but first and foremost, they are 'elected' to fuck over their peers even more, so they can become high status and live a little better in the process - PERSONALLY. And cut social spending while they are at it.

Whats currently needed, and looked for - in political actors - is that ability (moral ambiguity) in spades.

Thats the promise of the green party in my parts of the world. And sorry - but I don't think and act on incentives with payoffs more than two generations down the road, and mostly on a global level. I find that to be incompatible with the democratic ethos.

Also f*ck the propaganda that is trying to change that - with emotional imprinting alone.

("Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" or something along those lines mumbled between the lines.)

And in closing - if you don't understand whats happening here, or have no opinion on it personally, I suggest that you get informed, because you are set up to get f*cked over (or f*ck over a majority, structurally, in the process) - regardless. Cheers.


----------



## notimp (Jan 29, 2020)

Why you shouldnt pay an upsell for "climate neutral" anything these days, if you arent 'affluent'.

The world average price per mil (ton) for CO2 certificates today is 2 USD. For Paris goals to be achieved, it would have to rise by 37 fold to 75 USD per ton (as per IMF calculations).

And if you are living in western societies and are cheering because it only is 75 USD per ton, in actuality its actually closer to 300 USD, if you take "global climate justice" (poorer countries still needing to develop more) into consideration.

So if your "online vendor for emotional and ethical relief" today spends 2 USD for certificates to offset emissions on average - all that creates is a scewed market, and expectations that wont make sense even a few years down the road, because that price will be raised dramatically over the next few decades. (Or it 'does nothing'.)

So get your emotional relief now - while you can still afford it - but understand, that this is nothing more than charity - and in the form you are getting accustom to it currently, it will not be there in the near future. There are business models set up in this field currently, that wont be valid a few years down the road (there is a limit people are willing to pay for a moral value ad).

Also if you ever see a person gloating, that they carbon offset their business and pleasure trips around the world - hit them in the face for me, please. Thanks.

If they then tell you that they payed more than 2 USD per ton, tell them that they are a mark and have been scammed, because guess who pockets the profit in that case.


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2020)

I hate the world.

Effing Greenpeace and climate kids are standing their feet in on the roof of Siemens, the next german company that posted record low earnings in 2019. For a twitter audience.

They were brainwashed to believe it is, because company didn't invest in renewable energy faster. (In todays market no one would have bought them, that part of the issue no one wants to eve have said out loud anymore.)

And thats the narrative they are still selling.

The entire liberal left in my country is coerced into believing that thats the case, and the big hope for the future. While germany still correctly treats it as a managed/limited risk issue.

While in reality - even industries that are selling higher structural cost of risk management, predict lower economic growth as a result (but still higher than if their risk management systems are falling by the wayside (systemic risk)).

While in reality - profitability of renewables (thats wihtout hiking up CO2 cost) is still less than a third of oil.

While in reality - efficiency of solar is set to rise by 90+% in the next ten years (china controls the raw material chain, so all value ad - and no western country can compete on that energy form).

While in reality - that of wind is not - and, being a first mover is something that at least the US will gladly gift EU industries.

While in reality this - takes out economic growth faster, than anyone knows how to replace.

While in reality - whats coined as a moonshot project at press events doesnt even have a third of its intended financing.

While in reality - companies like Microsoft - just fuck over the public with 'anything apart from actual investments, but we do PR fuckfests in Davos' and are telling people they are so CSR concerned. To not loose the next generation of 'socially concerned' but just in the superficial facebook profile way, educated workforce.

While in reality - everything in this sector is a fucking advertising fest for sectoral interest (f.e people who own entire streets of private housing (renovation/retrofitting/energy eficiancy), people who own wind farms, ..).

While in reality - the UN pays (/brings forward investors) for NGO activities in the sector.

While in reality - in all projections, economic decline in the middle classes is written in as the only way forward.

While in reality - the church is only interested in growth potential in the second and third world.

While in reality - conservative politics tells the public, technological advancements will save us - when for both the 1.5 and 2°C goals, none of that is true - in any of the projections I've read.

I don't want to live in a word thats so dependent on perception management, and fucking over people into thinking, that driving others into sustained - worse off living conditions - for the benefit of globalized interests is something like a 'green' or even 'social' goal.

What to do.

Help.



Everything thats voiced politically in this field is a lie.

Yet it is deemed the most important political issue of the generation. Partly because it was made popular by specialized interests. (Is this democracy?)

Economically - because a certain cost factor will be raised exponentially because of political agreements.

For every person that gets ahead in this field it seems to me, that 10 will suffer more (At last if I dont think as a globalist.). And yet - because Blackrock and Davos have pushed it as their pet projects - all fame seeker parents drive there kids into it, because they see it paying off politically for their lives. Which I don't.

In this field we are at max propaganda, and no one cares - because everyone believes its in their childrens, childrens interest, or that they would benefit, because they were early, and rich globalists like it.

Because within that paradigm, they can still make more money in second and third world countries, and feel like champs.

All that elite recruitment is poised to do currently - is to replicate believe systems, that this is good, and the higher moral - at least for the next 50 years. Anyone that doesnt agree - at least on the liberal left is intended to not matter anymore.

Even comedians are shunned at this point, if they dont fall into the common narrative.

If I'd had a job interview these days and I would voice, thatI hold those convictions, I would not get the job anymore - pretty much regardless of qualifications. Only one belief system allowed societally.

How do I deal with this best, personally.


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2020)

Everything else doesnt make sense for western economies anymore, because they are loosing so many consumers and market size in the next years - that all non structurally bound economic interests can find more self serving economic narratives, and more structural growth - anywhere else in the world.

Thats the argument I come across time and time again, when asking why this is without an alternative.

That coupled with 'its cheaper if we safe the climate earlier and elsewhere'.

So are now even children competing on grounds of 'we are willing to live substandard lives, without social securities anywhere near the ones their parents got' just so investment doesnt leave western countries?

Is this tomorrows youth culture?

Please - this forum is bound to have some intelligent people that are not willing to let me make this the narrative in here. 

I helped out in here or close to two years. I just have one wish - help me understand, why this is positive.


----------



## notimp (Feb 15, 2020)

Great. Turns out the entire Fridays for Future movement is a manufactured fraud.



Point of contention is not 'climate change isn't real' (in this forum I always have to add that), point of contention is viable time frame.

If you have Jeffrey D. Sachs insisting that getting carbon neutral by 2050 is the earliest possible point to get to carbon neutral without major economic upheaval - and this would meet 1.5°C max warming targets, if its done worldwide, and the trajectory is holding.

I'm faced with the simple notion that judging by feel more than 50% of the public where I am from, believes that the EU framework to do exactly that - doesnt go far enough and is too slow. Because they believed in a PR child.

So thats a tough one to swallow.

I'm also faced, with the notion, that some useless german public scientists, drove media effing mad with a notion of still available remaining CO2 budget, based on 'climate justice' - that was just an utter BS made up variable that wasnt in anyones real calculations.

And I'm faced with the notion, that the Fridays for Future movement, which basically got constituted and financed by UN interests lied in everything they said in terms of their entire messaging towards the german public, which now believes that the political class in germany is still acting too slow, while actually having committed to the 2050 carbon neutral goal already. In fact all EU states minus a few smaller baltic ones, that can be compensated output wise have done so.

So what was Fridays for Future (the public movement) needed for then, if not to scam public investment money, and change peoples behavior with fear messaging and religious tropes. Its the prototypical example, for seeding an idea into the public, from the technocratic top, to make sure - political development goes favorably longterm.

Isn't that wonderful.

And if I look at how this was done - on the conceptual level, and why it was done (free effects by manipulating mass behavior, yay!), I get into a fit of rage, that it worked, and was commonly accepted to be some sort of 'revolution/meets grassroots movement'.

Everything about this is a lie.

Now - if the US could gladly join the paris accord again, that would be swell, because we are only doing this on a coordinated basis, or we arent doing it at all.

Also - yes, I'd say I hate Jeffrey D. Sachs for his utter display of naivety concerning human behavior modeling, and drivers of motivation. If I have to hear him one more time saying, we try to do politics, and its so hard, with that agonizing look on his face - I'd feel an urge to punch him. Not for being the messenger, but for what that rhetoric is doing to people that depend in the slightest bit on sustained economic growth to get anywhere. I hate the growth myths on renewables that arent solar just as much. Compared to how much economic capacity will be lost in the same timeframe. (-50% of per capita GDP in the western world until the end of the century.)

One more thing to look into, which I havent done yet, is large scale model cities for 'circular economies' which apparently exist in china.

Political decisions if the EU and China will create a common carbon based trade tax system will be available sometime past september of this year. (Summits are scheduled for september.)

I hate, that its sold with the inevitability of 'otherwise even more economic shocks' in my lifetime.
And I hate, that there is the same argumentative fall back as with the 2008 financial crisis, of tipping points being sold to add a higher degree of chaotic uncertainty, if we dont follow plan.

But most of all I hate the inevitability.


----------



## Virtual-Wii-noob (Feb 15, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Uh, no, I believe in actual science.  Not the fake science of some disgraced ex-vice president that couldn't even beat GWB in a presidential election.  Next, you'll tell me he was being totally serial and that man-bear-pig is real but nobody believes him.
> 
> When 99% of climate scientists say that something is bogus, I tend to believe them over the 1% with an agenda.
> 
> I should illustrate my point further.  The fact of climate having the tendency to change is real, but man-made climate change that consists of "global warming" and will destroy the planet in 8-12 years is fake as hell.  We may have another ice age in a couple hundred million years, but nothing catastrophic until then.



uhh have you ever been in a greenhouse before. imagine the glass walls are carbon dioxide and stuff. its not rocket science dude
the light from the sun gets in the atmosphere and carbon dioxide prevents it from leaving. and also have you noticed that when you wear a white shirt on a sunny day you're cooler? imagine the poles as a white shirt and earth as you. again not rocket science


----------



## CORE (Feb 15, 2020)

Most cant fix a f**king door to the frame how the hell they going to fix the climate.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 15, 2020)

CORE said:


> Most cant fix a f**king door to the frame how the hell they going to fix the climate.



 Simple: They just can't. What they said are because they are.... just stupid! After all, they are only human.

*¯\_(ツ)_/¯*


----------



## morvoran (Feb 15, 2020)

Virtual-Wii-noob said:


> again not rocket science


 no, just pseudo science, dude.



Virtual-Wii-noob said:


> uhh have you ever been in a greenhouse before.


 yes, I have a greenhouse.  It's nice to be in when the temps outside are 10°F, dude.


----------



## Virtual-Wii-noob (Feb 16, 2020)

morvoran said:


> no, just pseudo science, dude.
> 
> yes, I have a greenhouse.  It's nice to be in when the temps outside are 10°F, dude.


you're missing the point its called the greenhouse effect because its saying the earth is like a big greenhouse and i said BEFORE not now dumbass


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2020)

morvoran said:


> no, just pseudo science, dude.


Dont listen to him. In fact never listen to him.

He always has feels, he never has arguments.

He is fact resistant. We could show him the de facto consensus among climate scientists, the publication history in the most important journals, could post videos that tell them how few peer reviewed "human made" climate denialism studies are out there in general (last video I posted in here f.e.).

And he will do nothing but stick to his feel. He is unable to do research. He is unable to be convinced by arguments. But he believes someone, that tells him pretty much alt right message points. Which he then replicates, always. If you confront that, he tells you people are out to get Trump, its a witchhunt - and thats it.

Sometimes his religious friend tags along that tells people hell has opened, about the good lord Jesus Christ, and conservative morals..

edit: Could tell him the rather simple calculations needed to model global mean temperature (you know the energy input (sun)) you want to know how much heat energy dissipates back into space, you know the reflection properties of the atmosphere. You measure how the atmosphere changes (composition). You fill in the formula. You check if it correlates with world wide mean temperature measured. You find out it roughly does. Since the first time someone did so.

But since you are interested in more than global mean temperature (f.e. you are interested in projections), you increase resolution, you model subsystems, you model for regions... This is where stuff gets significantly more complicated.



Also I find this so very interesting.  I basically make the case, why the entire political activism in this field is (top down) manufactured and has little resemblance, or in fact interest to change real decision structures, and little capability to add to actual solutions, besides establishing whats called 'lower expectations of growth' in the middle classes. And that its entirely unfair, especially as it does so mainly using religious motives and mass psychology.

But the geniuses from the alt right still stick to more primitive talking point 'climate change is not real'.

Its club think.  They have their club. They dont need other arguments that would even strengthen their political position.  They just need simple. They want to convince simplly-ly. And with Jesus.

They could watch the last video I posted and find the head of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network telling them, that the Trump administration hasnt even realized, that something like the SDGs exist on a planning level, and its better that way, because that way they cant interfere, or that the Oxford elite would be needed to 'take back and remodel the UN' after it was basically abandoned by the US - who wanted to use it to control global relations at a point in time, before they became disinterested in doing so ('merica first).

Boy - that would explode their world view. But no. Better not do any research. Better not think. Better stick to the simple slogans, ey morvoran?


----------



## morvoran (Feb 16, 2020)

Virtual-Wii-noob said:


> you're missing the point its called the greenhouse effect because its saying the earth is like a big greenhouse and i said BEFORE not now dumbass


 you believe in pseudo science and think that naturally occurring climate change is man made and have the gall to call me a dumbass? Well, I hope you're also refraining from having kids, too, you lying dog faced pony soldier.

If the Earth is like a greenhouse, then why are some areas warm while others are freezing cold, like where I live?  Huh, the Earth sucks as a greenhouse, jerkhole.  My plants would die if my greenhouse was like the Earth.


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2020)

Figure from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (Hegerl et al 2007).

src: https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work

Yes, I say, that you stick to odd talking points, someone from the alt right feeds you, and that you never critically reflect.  As in never. Not once. 

Also - for some reason, nature decided to double green house gasses, naturally, in accordance with nature - in the past 300 years, starting with the industrial revolution in 1760.




src: (https://citizenactionmonitor.wordpr...-its-accelerating-methane-levels-also-spiked/) not the best source, just the fist google image search result. Source for the data is stated to be the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S.).

Let me guess. Jesus did it?

edit: Also Jesus made sure the curve increased trajectory in the 1950s-1960s when the majority of the world switched to oil as their main energy source.


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2020)

morvoran said:


> If the Earth is like a greenhouse, then why are some areas warm while others are freezing cold, like where I live? Huh, the Earth sucks as a greenhouse, jerkhole. My plants would die if my greenhouse was like the Earth.


If you think of earth as a globe. Rotating around the sun. There are areas, lets call them poles, that are almost never facing direct sunlight. (The sun is always low on the horizon, even in mid summer.)

So lets say you have a shady part of your glasshouse - thats then also colder.  (Glass house isnt a globe rotating the sun, so we have to add something that introduces shade - direct analogy breaks. )

With the glass house analogy we are talking 'mean temperature' so all the measured temperatures, divided through the number of all the measured temperatures. Thats what also can be explained by the pretty simple model. ('Windows of the glasshouse are getting 'thicker', temperature rises.)

In terms of where in the world climate change does what (projected) - its more complicated.

Also - no one is telling you that arctic regions or even canada, or russia wouldnt benefit from rising temperatures. They would. (Better suited for food production all of a sudden.  Also general economic productivity. )

The issue is, that vast regions will get issues in terms of food and water security, and this will impact production of goods and services - to the point where top insurance companies say - they may not be able to insure against climate events anymore (think draughts) at which point the world economy (mainly international trade) goes byebye. (Mass migration, wars. World wide recessions.) Thats then a problem. F.e. if you think about energy transitioning, manufacturing, development, ...

So the US was in the middle east for five decades, to ensure oil production. Similarly - if you want lets say battery storage for renewable energy, you need rare earth materials, that you probably don't have in your country. But the rest of the world is a flaming mess, of wars - so you cant get production opened there. Hence, lower your own life quality as a result. (Long term impacts will be greater, if currently you do nothing. Even for the US. Especially for Europe.)

Also - its not easy to reverse the trends. So its not as if you can wait out the wars, then conquer, and then go back to normal with less people..  Living and working in those areas will then always be kind of a problem. (CO2 stays in the atmosphere for quite some time. (Google - how long does CO2 stay in the atmosphere.  ))

Overall - areas where you can easily live will become fewer, even with technological advancements projected in.

So its best curb mean temperature rise now. (Most economical for everyone.)

The problem is, that doing so - costs real money.  And will not necessarily produce many jobs in the west.


----------



## notimp (Feb 18, 2020)

Bezos promises to fix climate change with great money contribution.
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...n-jeff-bezos-pledge-10bn-fight-climate-crisis

Sure.

Money should go to activists, NGOs, and scientists. Great. More (mostly) PR spending.
(Will be leveraged, to press more climate investing out of not clued in baby boomers.

Could also read as - Amazon pays 10bn to attain higher contribution from Joe Shmoe into the renewable energy markets it wants to use to cut climate spending, in 10 years, in europe.)


----------



## notimp (Feb 18, 2020)

Still no one caring about gamers to be part of the status quo, which is praising climate activism, or why have I still not drawn any words of contention?

My next seminal work will be to explain amongst gamers, why no one needs them politically, because they are seen as escapist anyhow. Half jokingly. When I get more frustrated.


----------



## notimp (Feb 18, 2020)

Greta has become old, white and the secretary general of the UN - part 2:
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg...able-development-and-climate-change-delivered

(still checking if its also available in video form)

edit: Oh yeah it is. Wow @intro


edit: If you are only interested in climate stuff, start at around 11 min in (but also watch the intro.  ).

edit2: OH F*CK. I've got to order me some of those UN -  non plastic bags to go to the supermarket with (16min in).


----------



## notimp (Feb 24, 2020)

Peter Zeihan is at it.


----------



## notimp (Mar 4, 2020)

BTS new music video (premiered a week ago) is about saving humanity and nature in americas back yard.


Are you woke yet? 

(You know BTS from Fallon, btw. 
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZh-w2nysuI (Oh, and the carpool guy h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4x7sDevVTY ) )


----------



## notimp (Mar 6, 2020)

On the great idea front (technological solutions angle):


(Dont invest because of me.  )


----------



## notimp (Mar 13, 2020)

There is new doctrine. 

I dont quite understand / havent fully internalized it yet - but it goes as follows. 

Financial crisis of 2008 was a fluke. Problem was, that a few intelligent math guys created financial derivates as a religion, which regulation didn't understand, and so they couldnt regulate it until it was too late. (Thats roughly correct./One way to look at it.)

When prepping up the system again, we just flooded it with freshly printed money, and didn't change the structures, so the same fundamental problems persist - they are now just handled by algoritmic trading so we get less of that irrationally problem, and we made banks take lower risk, but at the same time get the same financial economy decoupled from the real economy (bubble>bust), and same winners as from before the financial crisis problem who never were punished (thats actual subtext).

The institutions that flooded the financial system with money where the central banks, which were petitioned by states, which were bribed by the financial system (financial system had the primate in that action) (Thats roughly correct.).

This created the new problems of the 0% interest economy.

Solution to this is gettin either in PR in banking, or in PR in politics, and first - convince politicians to petition central banking, to print money for climate change (/new investmement into the real world economy).

And second, create great incentives in PR in banking for (actually mostly boomer middle class) wealth to be redistributed, with rulesets already nudged (at least in europe), so that this at least partly (large part) also goes into climate change investment.

As motivation we get some financial actors/investment companies that already are way into climate investing, and might be fronting a trend all on their own, yay!

Reason to get into PR in banking would be redistribution of private wealth into new investments, for which we'd "absolutely need" the banking sector.

This is currently sold to us as "getting our banks back, from the financial elite" by the intellectual and cultural elites. (Creating real world economies again.)

Plot of 'some Arte documentary' have to recheck what its called. 

Anyone dare to comment?  Again, this time, I dont know what this is.  Someones vision of the future... 

edit: Here is the source:

Crash - After the Crisis is before the Crisis (2019)
Direction: Eve Minault
Available in German and French
src: https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/088123-000-A/crash-nach-der-krise-ist-vor-der-krise/

Have to go over the actual Pundits in the Documentary as well.(political affiliation) Will do that tomorrow.


----------



## notimp (Mar 14, 2020)

Checking the pundits here was pretty useless. An established institute for economic research in germany, a german professor for financial market economy in Bonn, a french economic professor, a professor for economy at a catholic university in Leuven, and an economic journalist from the NYT. (edit: Oh and a professor for comparative law studies from Columbia University, NY and a historian from the same university.).

edit: Oh and two members of a financial "research laboratory" called 'Désorceler la finance' in Brussels. (NGO activism)


State and faith based fonds already were driving forces in climate investments.

What has me urked here is the narrative progression of that specific documentary, because it takes the normal viewer at base level, without any prior economic knowledge, and then opens up a narrative, where this is the likely version of a positive future.

So it actually sells a projection. But it sells it as THE positivist projection for the future, for the common public ("taking our banks back") and then connects it with the climate movement. Which is very strange for an Arte documentary.

I have to file that as an 'unusual blip' in my media consumption ecosystem, where I try to prevent consuming information sources that do that kind of stuff. Just strange...

edit: There is new EU regulation already layered in that if you are getting financial investment advice from your bank in the future, there has to be a non voluntary block on climate investing layered in there. (You have to be presented with the option.) So thats the 'nudging'  Ive mentioned in the previous posting.

Also, the 'book burnings of the liberal left" events filmed in this documentary are strangely funny. Although the artsy crowd filmed was now burning (shredding) bank statements instead.


----------



## notimp (Mar 26, 2020)

Mental note sketched down. Jeffrey D. Sachs also works out of Columbia U.


----------



## LumInvader (Apr 3, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Holy fuck, you're seriously a climate change denier?  Are you a flat Earther and anti-vaxxer too?
> 
> The education system in this country certainly did you no favors.


Those with strong religious beliefs are already conditioned to believe in the extraordinary, which also serves as the basis behind their distrust of the scientific community.  The two key ingredients for getting suckered by conspiracy theories are both present.

This is why mankind is not only the most intelligent species on the planet, but in many ways also the most stupid.


----------



## notimp (Apr 5, 2020)

Yeah, but life without believing in the extraordinary, would be so boring... 

Also - believe in the extraordinary (escapism+) is a sort of coping mechanism for mentally challenging situations as well. You dont just easily separate the two. Its how we work as humans.

And finally - If you read Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper - the first trick of science is to convince you that its more than popular shared opinion - so somehow we need to integrate that as well.

If you just replace god with scientific process and worship that for no reason, without critical distance - sure, its progress, but in the end you did nothing more, than to submit to popular opinion within your own peer group. You then add 'conspiracy theory' to everything other than your peer groups believes, and you also are namecalling, just using fancier words.. 

Scientific process is important. Exact language. Publishing your work and sources, having it peer reviewed. Falsification based.

Models of something as big as world climate are inductive logic, prone to all sorts of inductive biases and ultimately never to be tested (you dont have a 'control group' earth). So in those cases you are only trusting in scientific paradigm, which is another word for shared opinion.

And ultimately, when you try to make politicians act, or explain stuff to the public - all you mostly do is to rely on inductive logic ("you need to do this, inferring from our testing" = extrapolation), and the image of your social class within society. Nothing else. So in my book - its a strange mix.

Of course there is need for understanding and acting on something as multifaceted as global climate, which can only be expressed either after the fact, or in models, and of course you are operating with probabilities within corridors, and you are hedging your risks, by saying its the overwhelming opinion of everyone within the field.

So thats fine.

But then you should have seen the introduction speeches of some climate scientists, advising governments, advocating the benefits of Greta Thunberg at the Summer Meeting in Lausanne Europe (SMILE), and thats not fine. Thats - if child gives our cause more publicity and staying power, then child is the best thing that happend to climate action in years, and that isnt that swell. And its at that point, that I have massive problems with the advocacy for political action.

Doesnt mean that the world isnt facing climate crisis, but if you are succumbing to your personal Johanna von Orleans and are advocating that as the best thing that happened in your field for years, something went wrong categorically. (PR.)

'To the best of our knowledge' spoken amongst people that trust and rely on each other still is the basis of everything societal.

But sadly - you cant force it. And you cant force political action by scientific means, or through relying on publicity stunts as mentioned. So in the translation process - and if politics, or the finance sector, isnt listening to you, to the extent that you like - you rely on PR to fill in the gaps. Thats not at all science, and there are problems arising from that.

Now maybe smaller problems all around, granted - but at the same time, what you are doing has left the confines of science and has become advocacy. (Spoken to the scientists that engage the public in that capacity.)


(Also conspiracy theories in this day and age have an awful image..  They arent all negative. In the end they also only are a result of people talking. (Lack of information - heck, in prior times, those were called legends, sages, myths... Where are those gone, all of a sudden.  In todays world everything has to either be scientific fact, or a conspiracy theory.

But by doing that, you loose track of the possibility that f.e. social science had a legitimacy crisis recently stemming from lack of reproducibility. And now thats science - meeting conspiracy theory in the worst possible way. And now your own argument (either science, or conspiracy theory) - doesnt work anymore.

Climate science doesnt have the baseline issues of social sciences. But the same inductive logic problem.

And the same inherent risk, of it all ending up as religious babble at the point, where you or your pals think it should more than inform human behavior. If it cant, it cant. Now stop founding new popular religions.

Find different means to translate what you know (science) into action, that arent so close in look and feel to religious doctrine. (My personal, controversial, opinion))))


----------



## notimp (Apr 6, 2020)

Rewrote large parts of the previous posting to express what I meant better.


----------



## notimp (Apr 11, 2020)

Three days ago an open initiative letter was published where representatives from 10 EU countries demand from the european commission to tie funds for Covid 19 recovery (economy) to 'Green New Deal' projects ('earmark' funds).

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2...eal-must-central-resilient-recovery-covid-19/

So If you were in a low income group and lost your job during the Corona crisis - you'll now be forced to worship the earth while telling everyone to plant trees, never getting anywhere in your life, by design. Essentially. (I'm overexaggerating for effect.  )

I'm actively monitoring the conspiracy theory angle of - 'use covid crisis for climate action' if you want to know.


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2020)

Teens have grown old fast... 



(Michael Moore produced documentary.  )

Maybe dont follow the emotional and plot trajectory of the documentary entirely. But research is research.


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2020)

Bill McKibben a few hours ago:


'Google Earth Day Live to join the live stream."

edit: This are his current points:
https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/earth-day-live-mckibben/


----------



## Captain_N (Apr 22, 2020)

Arent we glad the humans alive when the last ice age began decided to have children? That was one hell of a climate change.


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2020)

Problem is, the current one would be faster. Probably. (Transition is a problem (how fast), habitable areas are a problem (where can you still live), ...).

Its not a yes or no thing. Again - the main issue - shorttime arises from insurance companies not being able to cover risk anymore. That leads to famins, political instability, economic problems that ripple through entire networked ecosystems...

Its not as simple as John Jones your great, great, great granddad could adapt.

We went over that I think three times already..


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 25, 2020)

morvoran said:


> My plants would die if my greenhouse was like the Earth.



Yep it's a commonly known fact that all plants ouside of your greenhouse are dead.


----------



## smf (Apr 25, 2020)

morvoran said:


> If the Earth is like a greenhouse, then why are some areas warm while others are freezing cold, like where I live?



A combination of weather patterns due to terrain and the levels of individual gasses above you.

Global warming might actually make your local weather colder.


----------



## morvoran (Apr 25, 2020)

smf said:


> Global warming might actually make your local weather colder.


 And to think this whole time, I thought it was due to the Earth's tilt that causes more/less sun to shine on different sections of the planet.


----------



## smf (Apr 25, 2020)

morvoran said:


> And to think this whole time, I thought it was due to the Earth's tilt that causes more/less sun to shine on different sections of the planet.



Not exclusively. For example the jet stream transfers hot air from one part of the world to another.

It seems you have a poor understanding of how all of this stuff works, what gives you the impression you are qualified to have an opinion?


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 25, 2020)

morvoran said:


> And to think this whole time, I thought it was due to the Earth's tilt that causes more/less sun to shine on different sections of the planet.



How is it literally possible that you know this fact and you don't get that some parts of the world are hotter because the earth is a sphere and that renders them closer to the sun than others. Literally how.


----------



## morvoran (Apr 25, 2020)

smf said:


> Not exclusively. For example the jet stream transfers hot air from one part of the world to another.
> 
> It seems you have a poor understanding of how all of this stuff works, what gives you the impression you are qualified to have an opinion?



Umm, if you say so.  How do you come to the conclusion that I have a misunderstanding of how things work when your comments show you have a bigger misunderstanding of how things actually work? 
Global warming makes things colder?  Ok.  I guess then we could blame our global warming issues of today on all that Global cooling we had forty years ago.  What do jetstreams have to do with global warming?  I thought the greenhouse effect was warming the whole planet.  Now, you're saying that the heat is spreading from somewhere else?  Wouldn't that mean the Earth's tilt has a lot to do with your hypothesis of the jet streams causing our imminent demise?

I know how weather and climate works (from the tilt of the earth, jet streams, the polar front, blah blah blah).  I choose to believe actual science instead of liberal fake news sites for my information. 

Maybe you should look into your own inadequacies before you start judging someone else on their knowledge.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 25, 2020)

morvoran said:


> How do you come to the conclusion that I have a misunderstanding of how things work when your comments show you have a bigger misunderstanding of how things actually work?



The same way anyone with a triple digit IQ did. By having a triple digit IQ. 



morvoran said:


> I thought the greenhouse effect was warming the whole planet.  Now, you're saying that the heat is spreading from somewhere else?



Yes it is, and no, he isn't. 

A general warming is an increasing extreme. Therefore things that were in balance before are not anymore, they are being knocked and worsened by climate change. Generally warmer air fucks with the streams we have, and creates different and more extreme scenarios. It's not resulting in just ice melt and a higher temperature overall, it's resulting in worse flooding, worse snow storms, could very potentially create worse hurricanes etc. 



morvoran said:


> I know how weather and climate works



You really don't.


----------



## notimp (Apr 25, 2020)

morvoran said:


> And to think this whole time, I thought it was due to the Earth's tilt that causes more/less sun to shine on different sections of the planet.


Still not wrong.  (Poles f.e.)

Now we are getting into 'resolution' of models. This is where the real complexity starts. You dont have to just model sunshine, or atmosphere (CO2/green house gasses) f.e. - but atmospheric pressure, or water circulation (golf stream), and a bunch of more stuff if you want to make predictions on what will happen - locally/regionally.

For most of the northern hemisphere though, it will get warmer.  (Mostly extremes will become more common.)

If you are interested in the food shortage problem that this will produce:


edit: And you can watch this one on climate modeling / modeling resolution:


----------



## smf (Apr 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Umm, if you say so.



Really thats all you got? You make a schoolboy error of thinking temperature is only due to the tilt of the earth, I remind you about the jetstream and you claim that is some sort of conspiracy theory too?

You are either out of your depth, or some sort of climate genius that shouldn't be wasting your time on a gaming forum.

I can only guess which is more likely.

I don't go round starting threads pretending I know things that I don't. So we're not at the point where I need to look at myself first. But good try deflecting away from facts.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 26, 2020)

smf said:


> Really thats all you got?



I think we both know the answer to that.

Individuals like him seek out knowledge to back up their bias and poke holes in arguments they don't find tolerable, not to actually open their minds.


----------



## XDel (Apr 26, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Apr 26, 2020)

@XDel: Thats how propaganda works (in part), or PR as its called today (using slightly different methodology). Doesnt mean that the underlying position is wrong necessarily. PR is how its sold to masses.

And if that comes down to both the progressive and the liberal left telling people, that being poor is the new chique, while reducing social mobility, while promoting a new religion, we have a problem. (While potentially moving people out of cities (producing trends), and thereby reducing direct political participation, while...)

Still doesnt mean that the underlying position is wrong.

Moreso, applied action to the current crisis is employed in the form of nudging, so PR isnt even the end (its not just about votes, its also about inducing behavioral change).

Doesnt mean the underlying position is wrong.

Just means, that the world has gone crazy, when trying to change direction away from certain economic models.

When working class people see that, they vote for populist right wing candidates.

But that still doesnt mean that climate change isnt a real problem.


Also propaganda in an age where there is no real mass media anymore (as in reaching everyone), works slightly differently to Bernays days (It certainly doesnt just seize to exist.).


edit: In defense of PR - what it did in capitalism was to produce that 'upward momentum' (social mobility). If all you and me were ever buying, were necessary Items of life, there would be much less economic (/and political  ) opportunity available for people to get anywhere in life. 

But if you now use PR to do the opposite, and gull people into economic opportunities of 'still something, but less' - you have a problem.  Societally.

Oh, and I also count the new 'appreciation for essential workers' ('You the new heroes!') as manipulation in that vein. So its everywhere. Some would say for the better of society, some would not.


----------



## 30yoDoomer (Apr 26, 2020)

@notimp 
The urbanite exodus is terrifying - like a plague of locusts as far as I'm concerned. I've seen what the DC sprawl has done to VA. It has put PA, FL, and TX in play as well.


----------



## notimp (Apr 26, 2020)

30yoDoomer said:


> @notimp
> The urbanite exodus is terrifying - like a plague of locusts as far as I'm concerned. I've seen what the DC sprawl has done to VA. It has put PA, FL, and TX in play as well.


Inconclusive.. 

see f.e.


Depends on f.e. city planning.

'Suburbia' is an idea that only worked in a society where you didn't have to think about energy consumption. That much is certain. 

Its just that I've got my personal example of liberal elites grooming society after 'what sells' and self delusionment for the religiously motivatable masses - and had them asking me how to best get support from the masses to become interested in harming their own (arguably short term) interests ("be more interested in climate change" as if that was universally agreed on being just the very best for society moving forward - obviously) that still has me reacting in pure rage - to this day - when I think back to it.

I got a hefty dose of 'the new corporate social responsibility is there - so we squander any changes in decision structures' - come help us take plastic bags from the poor, because its better for them -- and will never forget that in my life. Sell out, by selling their perspectives out. Telling them thats what they were made for - and that they should find motivation in the afterlife. (The world in 100 years. For your children.)

So the only thing I'm thinking about, when I hear, that people should move to the countyside to be forgotten is - thats a nifty way to get masses out of decision centers. No trust left.

I'm of course overreacting. But from experience...  (Dont trust me on this is what I'm saying..  Look up better sources. This is one of my pet peeves, not something to discuss with me in a rational fashion. )


----------



## notimp (Apr 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Teens have grown old fast...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some person did some fact checking on the Michael Moore produced documentary. Holds up pretty well. 
https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/skepticism-is-healthy-but-planet-of-the-humans-is-toxic/

Solar potential might have been underrepresented by a factor of two. Electrical storage capacity maybe as well. In one comparison primary energy consumption need in germany was used and not electrical consuption. (But its more important to look at primary energy consumtion anyhow, to get a sense of the issue.  ) And thats it?

(Using hydro electric for electrical storage as suggested in the rebuttle is not a solution (cant scale), using salt storage for those mirror arrays in the dessert to not have to kick start them with carbon based fuels, doesnt solve their maintenence (or the transport) problem, .. (The rebuttle is basically more problematic than the documentary in parts. So the truth lies in between the two..  ))

Was enough for some documentary sites to temporarily take down the documentary because of 'gross missrepresentation' which shows you - its really mostly about PR.  (Those errors are minor, and even are debatable, they dont change the scope of whats said, in relative terms, at all.)

If you want to hear Moore say something along the lines of 'when we sold out the green movement to billionaire types - it wasnt good for the movement, because it started to be used for publicity mainly':
That line can be found in here:


And of course that all can change - and hopefully will change, as implementation hopefully becomes more viable. Its always the same question of 'how fast do we have to transition'. Or how fast can we transition respectively.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 29, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Holy fuck, you're seriously a climate change denier?  Are you a flat Earther and anti-vaxxer too?
> 
> The education system in this country certainly did you no favors.


oh you're joking right?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

it ain't much but it's honest work


----------



## notimp (Apr 30, 2020)

Here is another rebuttle, of the Michael Moore documentary that wont even go into numbers. 
https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238597/michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-climate-change

Their points, and my opinion on them, quickly outlined:

- Electric cars have gotten cleaner, because the US energy grid has gotten cleaner. > But if they become more ubiquitous, green energy will not be nearly sufficient to power them at which point the trend reverses. Thats why looking at primary energy consumption graphs is important as well.  Also it would mean, that individual mobility, like close to every american enjoys today, is a thing of the past.

- The films wind and solar facts are old. > For wind I don't remember any inaccuracies (the 45% of electricity generation in some european countries is on 'some days' ( https://e360.yale.edu/digest/renewa...-65-percent-of-germanys-electricity-last-week )), for solar this means they are off by about 2x - which doest counter their initial argument. Also Wind only is available regionally, and for it to play a major role in any industrialized country it means planting windmills into peoples gardens ('everywhere', high quantities), and mountain top removal. And then you still dont have your primary energy consumption needs met. (Industry.)

- Biomass is not as important in the US' energy mix anymore - that was actually explained in the movie - but what the documentary illustrated nevertheless, was that the two major organisations behind seeding popularity in the mainstream for climate issues - didn't care jack, as long as biomass wasnt looked at too closely. And were happy to include it leveraged heavily in their mix - to keep the economy of their operations viable.

- If you burn trees - you dont pull carbon out of the ground, if done right. But you pull it out of trees - which could be planted to become semi permanent carbon sinks. And as the energy efficiency on burning trees for energy isnt great overall - you are back to Planet of the Humans main point - "they did it to make money (short term), and not to save the planet". And "it isnt sustainable at current consumption levels". (Very much isnt.)

That said, there is a concept of - you have to proof viability to be able to transition to renewable energy sources - so making money is not a bad thing here. It was just bad to try to make it in biomass. If it then doesnt go into R&D. With actual results.

- The next point is adjacent, which is - that part of this documentary looks at tradeoffs in your own country - vs. freightshipping in oil from saudi arabia, and in that case the native citizen always looses out, because now energy has to be produced in their own countries again, which comes at an environmental cost, sometimes higher than fracking. (If you look at climate - its still the better choice though).

- One of the billionaire investment groups has been shutting down coal power plants and was instrumental in preventing new ones from being built. The first part is probably an utter lie, because power plants are built for a set duration, and investments are recouped for that duration. Meaning - the ones that are shut down, are shut down because they reached end of life - or near end of life. And if they are shut down prematurely their financiers usually can sue states for compensation. When you pay that compensation, thats money that cant go into renewable investments (f.e. in the form of subsidies) -- where it would have much more leaverage earlier on. So this part, you only do for PR. To say, that you have achieved a mostly scheduled shutdown because of your activism.

Preventing new coal powerplants from being opened is a mixed calculation - but probably the main positive input those green movements currently are actually responsible for. Because - they cant do sh*t if energy prices for renewables dont come down (and that includes storage and availability costs (how easy is it to move that energy)), they cant impact which power plants are being planned or commissioned, meaning, their direct impact is zero here as well, but what they can do is to increase reputation costs. Meaning, you create a popular movement, you say people are demanding this, and suddenly paying a bit more for the renewable energy mix variant doesnt sound so bad to you anymore as a state. At which point their billionaire investors profit (and exponentially more long term), because they went in early. Tadaa, mystery solved. And again, thats not a bad thing.

In fact, you could argue - that this is exactly whats needed, because -- and there the rebuttle is right, when it comes to vested interest, the fossile fuel industry can pay more bribes to then get its products subsidized, f.e.. The problem is, that taking those subsidies away, might hurt energy reliability, or f.e. mobility in the general public - so its not just 'bribes' that hold those subsidies in place. But this is the area that needs to be worked on currently.
The underlying issue here is, that fossile fuel energy forms are still more profitable by more than 30% (margin). Which is why fossile fuel companies arent investing in getting rid of their old businesses.
So again - the goal is to rise reputation cost via PR.

But it also means, that they are lying to people on a constant basis, telling them how much more viable their solutions are, when they arent necessarily. And it also means, that over time, they have a bunch of sales people, that dont believe in the viability of their products anymore, because the hype factor is such an obvious part, which is something that the documentary portraits as well.

- Why don't they attack the oil industry in the same way? Because the documentary is contrarian and - most important reason, because there is a part of the left, that actually cares about workers more, than about the environment. Meaning, if calculations currently and in the future, always come out at 'there isnt nearly enough growth potential in any sector left, to offset any of this' - that societal change is inbound. One way or another.

And if you fake out former workers to live in the country for the rest of their lives, planting trees, getting no where (economic growth), but sustainable - that brings some people on the left onto the barricades as well.

That said the Sierra Club and 350.org are probably doing the right thing, from a long term perspective. What they do is fully understandable and needs to be done.

Its just that part thats so obviously off and vomit inducing:


> The most egregious attack is made against Bill McKibben, a dedicated and kind environmental leader. As he has said, he has never taken any money for his environmental activism with 350.org. Watching this film, you might mistake him for a robber baron.


The effing adoration for an elite project, producing mostly PR at this point, because you believe they will make the world better in 200 years, for your children. Skipping an entire generation, while working on a much poorer and much more unequal (economic opportunity) society at the same time. But because its more sustainable, its fine.


Also in most of europe the narrative is still, that Greta did think of all those things. Well... No.  Its an elitist project. Not a bad one, though... Not if you already are rich. Or can be religiously motivated..  And of course not if you dont mind if your children get ideologically indoctrinated - because it will be better for them anyhow...  (see: https://gbatemp.net/threads/indoctrination-of-children.533752/ ) 



> Yet, the film Moore backed concludes that population control, not clean energy, is the answer. This is a highly questionable solution, which has more in common with anti-immigration hate groups than the progressive movement.


Yes, pretty much correct. It didn't spell it out directly though. Also they argued that reduced consumption would play a much bigger part in any of this - which needs to be surfaced as a point at this time.



> The fact is that wealthy people in the developed world have the largest environmental footprints — and they also have the lowest birthrates. When this message is promoted, it’s implying that poor, people of color should have fewer children.


As population numbers have remained pretty much constant(/are falling) for developed countries, and so has energy consumption since I was born (meaning no rise in footprint at all, that wasnt produced oversees (economic gains, there - no here).), yes not wanting to become poorer is still pretty high on peoples lists of wishes for the future.



> Not to mention the fact that pushing population control is completely disrespectful of women’s reproductive autonomy.


Thats not true. What served as the most effective population control in the west, was to give woman equal rights, equal education, an economic future and retirement pay.

Creating large cities, also helped. I don't remember the west being disrespectful to women in doing that.

That said, you are likely raising the risk of ressource wars, if you don't promote climate action in the west - and in the US especially. Because they are dragging their feet, making it hard to argue for a more ambitious consolidated effort.

And without a consolidated effort, temperatures rise. More.


----------



## Waygeek (May 2, 2020)

What's more annoying... @notimp 's imbecilic walls of texts or his new found fixation with the wink smiley. 

He means it to be condescending, but can someone be condescended by someone not right in the head?


----------



## notimp (May 2, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> What's more annoying... @notimp 's imbecilic walls of texts or his new found fixation with the wink smiley.
> 
> He means it to be condescending, but can someone be condescended by someone not right in the head?


I dont mean to be condescending, I'm explaining stuff.

Like you pulling up threads from several months ago from other people, or from a few days ago in my case, only and I mean exclusively to call them either deranged, or mentally Ill, if they dont follow your special kind of world view, that always is centered around that only what you deem to be popular, can be true or correct (SJW).

And then you try to further establish this, by always, and I mean always, sinking to the deepest lows, while banking purely on character assassination.

I didnt hold a grudge against you, I even tried to make you receptive, that you shouldnt just try to kill off the other side of an argument, by destroying their character, and then declaring you the winner, not having touched any factual argument ever, at all, and I did it while you were trying to pull that off with other people -- but the fact remains, that this whole animosity started, when you tried to be some hotshot winning a debate by simply stating you were an expert because you worked in a field (with homeless people), ignoring all factual proof against your position afterwards, and I mean ignoring - not commenting on it at all - while still virtue signaling (I work with the poor, I'm the expert!), while using feminist attack language (as a male), which then shifted into calling me mentally deranged an crazy twice (started with narcistic personality disorder, doubled down on -- just utterly crazy pretty quickly), and now three times, trying to win the argument that way -- absolutely berating that I made a philosophical argument for once in my life - using an allegory you dindt like.

I never felt so degraded in my life, as the first time you called me mentally ill. The second time, it still hurt immensely - because I didn't know how everyone here would react, when you did that, then tried to get the thread closed, the third time - within a week, it still stings.

But I will never let an argument stand that literally tells people

- what the other person tells you, has no worth, because they are mentally ill
- when it sounds somewhat highbrow, dont listen to that because that would be just meant to be condescending
- and dont let them defend themselves, because a personal attack only takes three lines of text, but to lay out whats behind it takes a wall of text


You still are, and always will be in my mind - and I sincerely hope in the mind of many people here, the person that had to be right about an extremist view on EU health and social care systems ("all broken and corrupt"), that needed no facts to back themselves up ("just look around you"); that intuitively understood that by working with homeless people (expert intuition often is wrong, you still need something factual), that then tried to win the argument, by absolutely berating me for being mentally ill (when I argued, that charity can sustain suffering, and that therefore other social security nets are preferable) - the first time you saw me arguing philosophically (I posted an image from a comic to underline that not just a display of, in your case fake, empathy, makes a morally good person), and I mean absolutely berating me - not for the argument I made, but for being a mentally ill, crazy person.

At which point I called you a SJW of the kind, that claims to be working with the poor, but tries to win fights he picks, in his free time, only ever using character assassination and now trippling down on hurting people, by calling them mentally ill. Then tries to get a thread closed, and deplatform people for the positions they hold. Because you just know, that they are wrong. And that must mean, that the other side cant be allowed to speak.

There always is another side of an argument, and even something as 'virtue' charged as climate activism relies on concepts of propaganda and even mass manipulation to become a 'popular movement'. That people that follow it lose track of other ideas than the importance of the world in 200 years. That they want to eradicate any opinion, even on the left, that doesnt follow the thought that what they are doing is unequivocally virtuous and good (Michael Moore), and that they try to sell this to people -- entirely unreflected, as a grass roots movement, even though they have billionaires and long term interests (insurance companies, faith based investors) backing them left and right (and had so for a long time), and even 'discovering' their mainly religious figureheads, that also turn out to have to be children, mostly, because that is what works (implied - politically with boomers). Thats an argument not only made by rightwingers, but now also by parts of the left. And its overdue.

And all you are doing is taking away the right of the other side to even speak out to defend themself. Because you know that you were right all along and entirely so. And by being unequivically right, the other side has to be deranged, mentally ill even (false dichotomy in rhetorics). And thats why you try to entirely destroy everyone you've ever come across, around here.

Its not just me - its everyone, that doesnt pat you on your back for the positions you are holding dear.


----------



## Waygeek (May 2, 2020)

This dude is the funniest. One sentence will get a wall-of-text meltdown out of him. Does he think anyone actually reads any of it? Sound and fury signifying nothing, with condescending wink emoji's.


----------



## notimp (May 5, 2020)

When Moore and Crew talk with one of the (UK based) leaders of Extinction rebellion, they dont tear themselves to pieces... Interesting... 


Overall its still too much of a discussion about mental states and growing movements through addressing the right feelings and getting into group grieving sessions for my liking - but their messages seem to be compatible. Thats fascinating.. 

edit: The point where they connect is more direct democracy kumbaya decision panels, and political decision power to the people. And meeting other people in person (again). Could be wrong, but there is this undertone, that thats mostly what would be needed, or at least would be a great start... 

Corporate culture has recognized large disruption potential from movements on both the political left, and the political right, as benefits of growth didnt reach people for about the last two decades, and now have embraced the movement in a 'social responsibility PR' kind of way. So they are producing that PR currently. Which made the movement 'more mainstream compatible' at times. At least in europe.

I remember distinctly scratching my head, when certain banks in my country gave their employees the day off so they could go to an event to hear a child saint talk about the end of the world.

Oh and Greta being shipped to Davos right after she was 'discovered'.

Oh and a spokesperson of the IMF that told bloomberg, they wouldnt increase credit lines, but would be very wiling to help countries to restructure for climate action.. 

While investment structures havent changed much since then. (One of the billionaire founders of the american movement managed to talk one of the larger banks out of coal as an investment sector, lately. Accelerating the move towards renewable energy. But usually the heavy lifting there is done by large insurance companies (risk increases being modeled into cost calculations), central banks (giving out investment guidelines) and climate accords .))

They also all can agree on, we all have to live on lower living standards.

Which is what makes the entire corporate/billionaire based fraction of that movement so great. Produce mainly PR. Lie to people about the viability of renewable solutions. To make them enthusiastic, to want it, to thereby make a better transition possible (more investment money flooding into the sector), while at the same time reducing the living standard of people in western democracies. With religion and mass psychology (collective group jumping events for the youth, or group grieving sessions at extinction rebellion). Yay!

And what is produced so far is lower margin than excisting energy production, but should replace it - earlier (popular movements warcry), but has high growth potential, if the new religion aspect get s more popular (leads to behavior change en mass)... 

Of course - for the greater good.  (No actually, .. no kidding, for the greater good.)


----------



## notimp (May 9, 2020)

Oh look, elites have rediscovered the nation as a concept!
https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...alization-sovereignty-by-mark-leonard-2020-04

Refreshing!

(Who is Mark Leonard? (Look it up.))

The tools prposed are the same as always though. 'Europe of regions', religious motivation of the populous using the 200 year goal of climate ('we are better'), and 'diplomacy, not war'.

Same as it ever was. Now with more nationalism.


----------



## notimp (May 10, 2020)

notimp said:


> I'm actively monitoring the conspiracy theory angle of - 'use covid crisis for climate action' if you want to know.


Ah, there it is!



> Binoche, Blanchett, De Niro & Many More Say “No To A Return To Normal” In Coronavirus Wake, Urge Action To “Avoid Ecological Disaster”


https://deadline.com/2020/05/binoch...earth-life-extinction-coronavirus-1202927176/

see also:
https://www.ladepeche.fr/2020/04/19/idee-de-lecture-pour-le-confinement,8853186.php

And there it was 2018:
https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/articl...ites-pour-sauver-la-planete_5349380_3232.html

Lets just say I'm not worried about climate activism gaining the upper hand here anymore.


----------



## notimp (May 10, 2020)

Short look at the catholic churches standpoint
(Faith based investors.  )

Religion meets religion
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world...europe-day-united-solidary-schuman-union.html
(Nothing new..  Internationalism, humility, solidarity.)

20 Jesuit provinces urge for more radical social change and climate action after the crisis:
https://www.vaticannews.va/de/kirch...irus-krise-wandel-solidaritaet-appell-eu.html (german)

But thats 'only' the Jesuits.


----------



## notimp (May 10, 2020)

Circular economy and SDGs interests debate:


Synopsis:

India: We've don jack sh*t, Industrial producers pay for waste management, thats it.

Operational level: We have no funding. We need more simple. We might have funding actually (because of OECD guidelines, that have been picked up by the private sector), but we cant enforce.

Christian NGO: We make reports. Corporate producers should pay. Because morals. First priority: Reduction. Apart from that, we also make clipart:


Spoiler











- to make it more personable. We talk with PR departments of polluters. They then make commitments. We fund surveys resorting to leading questions.

Then Q&A time.

I'd say the world is saved then, yes? If anyone has the need to hear more of this, there is an entire conference series online on that topic on the same channel:


----------



## weatMod (May 10, 2020)

morvoran said:


> And to think this whole time, I thought it was due to the Earth's tilt that causes more/less sun to shine on different sections of the planet.


it's due to the solar cycle
we are in a grand solar minimum , a new maunder minimum probably
 it's snowing here in and it's  almost mid  may


----------



## notimp (May 10, 2020)

weatMod said:


> it's due to the solar cycle
> we are in a grand solar minimum , a new maunder minimum probably
> it's snowing here in and it's  almost mid  may


Here is that theory debunked:
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/...cle-north-atlantic-winter-weather-connection/

Stop listening to radio shock jocks, or your drinking pals on that. 

edit: Here it is debunked with graphs from NASA, if thats more convincing to you:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

see also:


> According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.
> 
> For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.


https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/


----------



## Waygeek (May 15, 2020)

lmfao he is clearly just googling "[thing he doesn't want to be true] false"

NASA disagrees with 'The Earth Institute' (flat earth no doubt), who would have thought.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/solar-cycles/en/ And it's presented in lots of colourful pictures so you might be able to understand it notimp!


----------



## notimp (May 15, 2020)

I will mount a public campaign to get you banned for personal attacking people at one point. Just so you see it coming.


- First, I dont doubt climate change.
- Second, I dont deny that it is man made
- Third, you are right back at trying to ridicule people
- Fourth, and I dont even know if its me this time - because none of your post is congruent.
- Fifth, posting - a link to something largely unrelated, without saying what you intend with it (what is your point?), doenst help that either.
- Sixth, reading what you linked to - the main point of that article seems to be, that solar circles can destroy satellites, which is great and all, but what does it do in this thread? Why did you post it?
- Seventh, because I read the sources I posted, I know, that both of them make the point, that solar cycles are an order of magnitude too small to explain anything related to global warming.

And finally, just for good measure - ridiculing someone that doesnt know that so far, doesnt help. Them, you, or the argument.


----------



## Waygeek (May 15, 2020)

notimp said:


> I will mount a public campaign to get you banned for personal attacking people at one point. Just so you see it coming.



lol should be your best meltdown and walls of text yet. It won't work of course, I will always be here to prove your lies wrong  You are lying, and people proving you wrong is not 'personal attacks' no matter how much you want to play the victim.


----------



## notimp (May 16, 2020)

Billionaires buying social change:


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 16, 2020)

Well...

1. I know that it is definintely climate change.
2. I always knew that it is man made. 100 percent. 
3. It is not going to resolve anything even when they are going to have electric cars and reduce pollution on anything else. It is not going to change at all. it will slow down but it will keep getting worse. Just slower. 
4. The corruption, hatred, famine, money, power, and many more are here to stay thanks to some coward human being until one day.


----------



## notimp (May 16, 2020)

azoreseuropa said:


> It is not going to resolve anything even when they are going to have electric cars and reduce pollution on anything else. It is not going to change at all. it will slow down but it will keep getting worse. Just slower.


Slower is more manageable, faster might not be without massive disruptive events (wars, hail marry attempts at engineering 'local' climate (some nations might not be so good at that, causing bigger problems...)...).

Thats pretty much the finer point.  How many protesters you get through religious motivation, how many through playing people emotionally, how many through rational argument, how many through proclaiming new societal defaults, all that is still 'argued out' in public. In our daily lives.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 16, 2020)

notimp said:


> Slower is more manageable, faster might not be without massive disruptive events (wars, hail marry attempts at engineering 'local' climate (some nations might not be so good at that, causing bigger problems...)...).
> 
> Thats pretty much the finer point.  How many protesters you get through religious motivation, how many through playing people emotionally, how many through rational argument, how many through proclaiming new societal defaults, all that is still 'argued out' in public. In our daily lives.



Yeah, indeed.


----------



## notimp (May 20, 2020)

Wheee!


> Is it true that mainstream enviros have oversold renewables? Yes. They have portrayed the transition away from fossil fuels as mostly a political problem; the implication in many of their communications is that, if we somehow come up with the money and the political will, we can replace oil with solar and continue living much as we do today, though with a clear climate conscience. That’s an illusion that deserves shattering.


(Just another informed opinion on the Michael Moore produced movie from those guys (Richard Heinberg and David Fridley): https://www.postcarbon.org/presenta...es-in-the-transition-to-100-renewable-energy/ (Watch the vimeo video on the site.) )

src: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-04-27/review-planet-of-the-humans/


----------



## wonkeytonk (May 20, 2020)

I think people should refuse to have kids for many reasons!


----------



## notimp (May 20, 2020)

wonkeytonk said:


> I think people should refuse to have kids for many reasons!


While factually true, this is not something you could sell to societies at large. Its one of the basic definitions of 'antisocial' (stop to reproduce, even by some percentage, means society and culture die  ) If it comes to those sort of deliberations, people will rebel before you can make them.

Also - one child policy, in china was implemented to curb population growth, which is one of the prefaces so you can become 'richer' as a society. (Basically allows for more complex value generation chains. As societies become more stable.) And it came at a price.

Europes population already is declining.

US population also, although at a slower rate.

So in the end - with this argument you are basically telling the developing world, to freeze their societies exactly at the current level - because they can not make the gap jumping from cheap labor (large populations) towards more advanced societies. If they dont have cheap labor to attract investment, what else do they have?
(Many of them are pre China jumping off point to a developed nation (= when china got interested in stable population levels).)

Also they might need many children in support systems, when people grow old (f.e. because their political system is not so stable or corrupt - so they have no working pension system), or they might need that in their culture, because child mortality in the first 3 years of a childs life is much higher, so they can not 'bank' on only getting one child..
--

So talking about this as part of a solution is useless. Both in the west, and in the developing world. 

Because you absolutely need 'voluntary participation' on part of people. Basically for them to see this thing not as a 'ruse' by some rich guys against their future perspectives.

Which is why I'm so puzzled, that currently everything is religion, child saints, and marketing lies. Mostly.. 

Wars should be more likely than campaigns that would tell people to get less children..


----------



## Seliph (May 20, 2020)

Climate Change is real and anyone who denies it is ignorant or they financially benefit from it (ExxonMobil).

-thread


----------



## notimp (May 20, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Climate Change is real and anyone who denies it is ignorant or they financially benefit from it (ExxonMobil).
> 
> -thread


But with the main problem being, that we all profit from it much more, than the "mainstream enviros" would like people to think currently.

Its not just subsidies and 'corrupt politicians' that the climate movement would have to fight. Its peoples life perspectives. Dreams. Behaviors. (Consumption based economic models.)

Because people dont like to click through - I'll actually post the video mentioned above once more in here:


If you just break it down to the one sentence you posted, you skipped the most important part. Yes, big oil knew it much earlier, yes they suppressed the studies, yes they funded marketing campaigns to convince people that they should not think too much about it. But thats all beside the point - at this stage.

Main point imho is: Religions being used to behaviorally modify people to find 'less of what they have' 'just dandy'. And thats not even the main problem here - the main problem with this is reduced social fluidity. Ups.

So the chain to become successful in life - even currently goes through, get brainwashed by interests that tell you, if you are good at convincing other people to reduce consumption, they might give you money - so you can become something in life..  (This skill, is currently in demand.  )

Alternatively - sectoral growth that should only last for about 10 years, in all kinds of different sectors, nothing longterm, nothing sustained - because we cant afford that (in anything other than climate 'tech'). 

Alternatively - managing decline. For the less talented.. 

You'll get it. Eventually.


----------



## XDel (May 20, 2020)

Maybe if we all wish a better world into being, it will just happen?!? Happy thoughts, happy thoughts!


----------



## Seliph (May 20, 2020)

notimp said:


> But with the main problem being, that we all profit from it much more, than the "mainstream enviros" would like people to think currently.
> 
> Its not just subsidies and 'corrupt politicians' that the climate movement would have to fight. Its peoples live perspectives. Dreams. Behaviors.
> 
> ...



Right, that's why I said anyone that denies it is ignorant. You've just elaborated on my point. I just didn't care enough to elaborate myself because I think it's pointless to actually argue with climate change deniers.


----------



## Deleted User (May 22, 2020)

What on earth have I returned to. Most of @Waygeek said is unrelevent, primarily due to the fact he's mostly just spewing stuff out creating what seems to me like strawmans and or often making misleading arguments. Basically in a nutshell for the last two responses I've seen. (not worth my time responding to all of them due to how stupid this is)
waygeek mentioned solar cycles, notimp proved no it's wrong, in regards to effecting climate change. Which waygeek refused, and attacked him claiming notimp is a flat earther, and then reinstating his argument of solar cycles, despite the fact it never addressed notimps point that has no effect on climate change in general, or to the degree we see. Which resulted in notimp attacking back/defending.
Honestly, waygeek you sound like a moron. Kinda like another idiot on this thread. (morovan)


----------



## Waygeek (May 25, 2020)

lmfao the fact that you don't even speak English despite being a yank (it's irrelevant, you absolute genius) renders anything you have to say absolutely worthless to even read.

"Honestly, waygeek you sound like a moron. Kinda like another idiot on this thread."

Deeply, deeply ironic. 'unrelevent' LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Your tag suits you perfect.


----------



## notimp (May 28, 2020)

EU proposes climate taxes to finance the 'rebuild' after the Covid-19 crises.



> Today, the European Commission announced new budget plans including loans, grants, and some revenue offsets. The proposals follow other support mechanisms for workers and businesses that were designed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and economic shutdown.





> One piece of what was released today is a reminder of some tax proposals that remain on the EU agenda.
> 
> The four proposals include:
> 
> ...



https://taxfoundation.org/eu-budget-proposal-next-generation/

I'm actually somewhat fine with that.


----------



## notimp (May 31, 2020)

Planet of the Humans (Michael Moore backed documentary that focused on energy efficiency/yield issues on renewables, environmental destruction through some renewables (biomass, mountain top removal), and billionaire involvement in prepping up the scene (other side stated, that they never took any money out of the ventures)) was taken down by youtube, after gaining more than 8 mio views. Backstory as far as I can tell is, that one of the participants on the 'this cant exist' side, claimed copyright infringement on a 30 seconds clip - which would have fallen under fair use in any documentary ever -- if we werent talking about youtube (cloud provider, that cant check this for every user, because they dont have enough people to screen, and dont want to take the legal risk).

Youtube didnt issue a warning, like normally, so filmmakers could have removed that part, but took down the entire thing immediately.

I call foul play.


----------



## notimp (Jun 3, 2020)

From goodwill to societal change:


All grassroots..


----------



## notimp (Jun 7, 2020)

Thank you Dennis, thank you! *applause, please*


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 9, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> lmfao the fact that you don't even speak English despite being a yank (it's irrelevant, you absolute genius) renders anything you have to say absolutely worthless to even read.
> 
> "Honestly, waygeek you sound like a moron. Kinda like another idiot on this thread."
> 
> ...


Yes yes it does suite me well. spelling mistakes can happen you know. (sometimes people just throw the wrong prefix) Glad we can agree that a spelling mistake is all you have to clench at while you have no response to the contents of what I've said. (Probably because what I said was pretty much accurate. And you have no counter points. So it still stands, your arguments are still rendered null.)


----------



## notimp (Jun 13, 2020)

Oh great. Clouds may not be neutral in climate projection:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...se-scenarios-clouds-scientists-global-heating


----------



## notimp (Jun 24, 2020)

First, Planet of the Humans is back online, with the 4 seconds clip of an acid lake in china removed, that was used by the cancel culture folks to remove it from youtube.

Second the films director GIbbs is now just salty enough, that he stopped pulling punches - when pointing at what hasnt picked up as the messaging of the film, but what has. Which turns out to be actually somewhat interesting. (See: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ-rZAtWXyA - small warning, this is the Chris Hedges program on RT, so expect the moderation to add a slight spin at least..  (Hedges in this interview is mostly useless and plays devils advocate..  ) )

US 'renewable energy' is still 44.5% Biomass (with wind the fastest growing (currently at 22% of all renewables)) - general projected growth of renewable energy within the US is still positive, but less so than in the past 20 years. By 2050, renewable energy is expected to account for less than 16% of total US energy consumption, and less than 25% of their electrical energy consumption.

(Germany has pledged 100% renewable electric energy consumption by 2050.)

And imho even more shockingly, China only has 3x the wind energy capacity of germany, and the US doesnt even have 2x. On solar china has about 4x the capacity of germany, and while that sounds nicer, actual yield of solar power in Germany is lower, than for wind.
src: http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-renewable-energy-factsheet
src: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145159/solar-powered-china
--

What Gibbs doesnt get is, that to get renewable energy developed, you need to look at this as a business, so if in the US biomass is currently more viable, you push biomass - with the idea hopefully being to expand other sectors (wind is the fastest growing), as they become more viable, because biomass probably has less growth potential.. 

Looking at current US renewable numbers and trends vs what would be needed for climate goals (and eventually what would be needed to replace fossile based energy - although this is an entirely different story, with the viewpoint much further in the future), I entirely understand the pessimistic outlook Gibbs is selling.

Of course, PR has to stay positive - which is an aspect they also talk about as having gotten as a response, in the RT video.

edit: More facts and numbers:
https://www.engineering.com/Designe...mans-Is-The-Film-Scientifically-Accurate.aspx (Although pumped hydro is not a scalable storage solution.  )


edit: Also, someone has to explain to me, why according to the first source Biomass accounts for 44% of US renewable energy production, while by this source ( https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 ) it only accounts for 8% a year later.. (What?) edit: Ah, probably got it.. Biomass would be mostly used for heat and fuel generation, not electricity generation, so if you look at it through the prism of just electrical energy production you get the smaller value. Probably. 

edit:

Primary energy consumption (thats everything) US vs Germany (for germany the numbers are from 2017), to be able to compare percentage values:

US:





src: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

Germany:




src: http://www.fnr.de/fileadmin/allgeme...e_basisdaten_bioenergie_2018_engl_web_neu.pdf

I draw two conclusions, one - we are still in the same ballpark of renewable energy production all things considered, two - that said, germany still has a more export oriented economy, with more industrial production in country. US should have outsourced them to mexico by now..  (edit: Yup, quick google for 'industrial production, percentage of gdp' shows, that germany has 2x  the amount of industry still in country compared to the US.  )


----------



## notimp (Jul 1, 2020)

Blackrock is on messaging since january. If you want to hear Larry Fink BS for half an hour to cnbc:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/bla...-its-strategy-to-focus-on-climate-change.html

(BS in the sense of - what else would he be saying in front of a public TV camera -)

Video needs a US VPN to play.


----------



## notimp (Jul 8, 2020)

More insight into a liberal leftist perspective of the future:


First talk is entirely BS, second talk is fully naive, but with an interesting insight on 'we need to brainwash people into thinking less is more', third talk should be better. 

edit: Oh, there is no third talk. Pitty. (But Mazzucato should speak on this topic next month. I'll update the thread with her position then.)

edit2: The discussion goes a little bit into why everyone wants to kill GDP as a comparative measurement.

Comments are deactivated.

see also


----------



## notimp (Jul 14, 2020)

Best near term carbon capture option:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lds-could-remove-vast-amounts-of-co2-from-air


----------



## notimp (Aug 11, 2020)

Next issue for europe (not sure how big). "Value added" on the electric car revolution is largely in energy storage (batteries, charging tech).

Germany is pushing for investments in that sector to prep up its car industry (to play a role in car manufacturing in the future). Currently to build batteries you need lithium.

Here is how known lithium reserves are distributed around the world (in Mio tons):




https://www.dw.com/de/natrium-statt-lithium-die-akkus-der-zukunft/a-54512116 (german)

What germany and africa can produce will not be enough for european demand. Long story short - value add on batteries in germany has to come through innovation in that sector, or there isnt any. In addition currently we have no R&D advantage.

And now we reflect the position of the green and social movements in country again. "Show the rest of the world how its done, and that it can be done". While as a first mover you get all the advantages of 'being unsure if the US will ever become a market you can sell to (next election basically might decide that)' and having to innovate like heck to be competitive at all.

In essence - same as it ever was (recently) (we never had that many natural resources) - but now, batteries and cars, essentially are tech that you can manufacture anywhere in the world, so competition increased.

Other forms of energy storage (like the kinetic tower thingy built in italy) dont solve energy distribution (power delivery (when needed, over longer distances is still an issue)).

edit: Also notice how the middle east is not showing up on that map.


----------



## Gon Freecss (Aug 11, 2020)




----------



## Lacius (Aug 11, 2020)

Gon Freecss said:


>


I don't think I've ever heard anybody claim that she was a climate expert.


----------



## notimp (Aug 11, 2020)

Gon Freecss said:


>


Too reductionist.

Thunberg is just the 'Joan of Arc' for the masses. (If I had a dime for every time I heard a current time philospher say 'finally - something that worked').

Doesnt mean, that the issue is bogus.
Doesnt mean, that what Thunberg said was bogus (one of her main 'science advisers' also is on a board that advices Merkel f.e. (but Merkel didn't listen to more recently..  ).

How it works is basically as follows: Everything goes. In love, in war, and PR.

Thunberg is a child, therefore climate change cant be real - doesnt work as an argument.  Thats just... something you say, because it makes you feel good. 

Why do you need a 'Joan of Arc' figure for the masses? Because you have to induce political change to 'curb' corporate and economic interests in general, at first. So you need political action. So you need the masses to agree that this is a relevant cause.

And because - arguably, you have to change peoples 'models' of what a desirable living in the future would consist of (growth?). So people have to vote for a state that reduces their own economic outlook eventually (around 2030, 2035), for a more long term goal.

Issue: This impacts the poorest people most. (F.e. moving away from fossile fuel subsidies. (No cars for poor people?))

Issue: Growth will only kick back in (probably at a lower level) at a later stage. (Probably too late for Millennials.)

Issue: Feels like a religion (goal future orientated, tendencies contra economic growth, why is someone (pretty much actually) indoctrinating the children?!). And features boomer warcries like 'For our grandchildren!'. (While boomers still dont invest in climate action, in large numbers, as long as they are living, because they need that money to make their children do as they please. (Carrot on a stick.) Roughly spoken. So boomers now demand that the state should whip everyone, just enough.  (At least in Europe.) So that they dont have to do something personally.  )


edit: Wanted to post a source for 'Greta science advisor' (one of them - mainly called that way by the press, because he himself mentioned it..  ), but it turns out, that some more extreme corners of the web were busy doing a hitjob on him, and grabbing the google search terms for "Stefan Rahmstorf advisor greta". So to sum up - according to probably the same people, Greta makes that stuff up, so you cant believe her, and gets fed by an ultra radical climate alarmist, that made a businessmodel out of predicting... (Hes a scientist. That gets public grants.)
edit: Here is at least the social media post: https://www.facebook.com/gretathunb...-for-climate-impact-research/800773206957168/

edit2: Oh, and my personal issue with it, of course: It gives Boomers an excuse to dictate their childrens behavior pretty much to their grave (as a generation they also are larger in numbers, so politically...). It gives intellectual elites a reason to advocate for international cooperation, the need for an ethicality that pretty mich cant do much for the little person, because they always would decide against what was áctually needed. An excuse for not having to deal with the outcomes of globalization in the west. An excuse to intermingle with at least one sort of activist again. (Which then give an impression of societal progress.) A reason to push people faster into whatever gets designated as needed change. A reason not to talk about further cuts in social spending (if you also need to spend for climate action, and are reducing GDP you are lacking funds).

A reason to feel good for investing in developing countries mainly (the argument there is actually solid - but doing that while you are facing a political backlash because of the impacts of globalization is - something).

While indoctrinating children in mass events. ('Politicizing them' to say exactly the same thing, out loud, all choir boy/girl in appearance.)
Making them think, that they are active to make a difference - which wile true, doest eliminate the fact, that all of this has been on the UN agenda from even before the Greta hype started, was manufactured to get public support behind ongoing UN level action. Was top down in organization structure. (At least from a certain point forward (when you hear Guterres tauting more financing opportunities prior to the NY summit, ... when in my country the popular movement was founded by...)

All of this basically could warrant social revolt - which is exactly what you cant have, because then climate change would even be more catastrophic. Great. So shut up and take it?


----------



## notimp (Aug 19, 2020)

Seems I'm arguing for the majority of this thread along the concepts of 

Abuse of Vegetational Concepts

https://archive.org/details/AllWatc...eEpisode2TheUseAndAbuseOfVegetationalConcepts


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2020)

Want more PR? got'cha covered.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Sep 30, 2020)

To be honest,this is an outstanding and awesome Thread. 
(..and honestly I do not read every single Answer...)

I have read the Topic and I think to myself:
"Great,Teens (our Children) will fix it......"


*looking at "certain Places" in my Village.....*

.... maybe they should start with clean up their own dirt and rubbish.....




> It gives Boomers an excuse to dictate their childrens behavior pretty much to their grave (as a generation they also are larger in numbers, so politically...).



Why ? Our "Children" know exactly what they have to do and what their Task/Role is in this "Earth Game".
Really.


----------



## MaxToTheMax (Sep 30, 2020)

It is funny that these kids think anyone cares that they aren't going to have kids. No commenting on any of the politics here, I just think that part is funny.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Sep 30, 2020)

MaxToTheMax said:


> It is funny that these kids think anyone cares that they aren't going to have kids. No commenting on any of the politics here, I just think that part is funny.


Ah, to be young and idealist again!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



notimp said:


> Thunberg is a child, therefore climate change cant be real


I have never heard this argument. Rather, how proficient can she be at understanding the complexity of climate/weather systems at such a young age? The mathematics that describe these systems require a few years of college level math/modeling alone.


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> I have never heard this argument. Rather, how proficient can she be at understanding the complexity of climate/weather systems at such a young age? The mathematics that describe these systems require a few years of college level math/modeling alone.


Stop, stop stop.  That quote is taken out of context.  I made fun of the threat title (broken logic), not state my believes there.

Thunberg is a 'symbol' a 'Joan d'Arc type' that gets discovered, and immediately shipped to Davos, and then has a public speech schedule for the next edit: six months, thats more impressive than that of Manfred Weber (in full campaign mode). 

If you tentatively read through this thread, you'll notice, that I dont deny climate change, and I've helped to explain the concept to a few people that were deniers.


I just cant get over the PR thats in play here on part of a project of the global international intellectual elite.  This one is personal.  I basically was asked at an event one year before Fridays for Future - or Thunberg became a thing, how I would 'make that topic more interesting for the mainstream' and have never quite forgotten that.  (Same group ('Fans of Stigliz and Jeffrey D. Sachs Inc, with gettogethers every year  ) then founded FFF in my country)


edit: Found my post on her speech schedule over the first months, impressive, isnt it? 
https://gbatemp.net/threads/teens-p...e-with-great-idea.548483/page-13#post-8925392


edit: Video to watch if you are interested in the positional shift that took place in Davos in 2020, I think I posted it once already, but here you go..  :


----------



## notimp (Oct 13, 2020)

Third and last in the series. (More PR.)


In before 10 views. 

edit: Sorry, this seems to be a reupload of a video already posted.


----------



## scroeffie1984 (Oct 13, 2020)

ego


----------



## notimp (Oct 13, 2020)

scroeffie1984 said:


> ego


If directed at me, no - sadly no.

Just physically sickened, finding the same people that promoted low innovation in the west, globalized expansion, and low wages all over the world to 'eradicate poverty', now effing lying (and I read microexpressions like a mofo, they know what they are doing in crafting and spewing a propaganda message, giving each other kudos for storytelling - to essentially reach the following outcomes:

- promote a little higher innovation load, but with risk shifted to the public, because large energy companies arent stupid enough to invest early
- promote effing suffering and consumption and living standards reduction on part of the developed world, which is ABSOLUTELY in line with the 'lower all wages' of the past, you know - to eradicate poverty by letting more people participate - just without the benefits globalization brought in the past. But dont you worry, there are new ones, like religious fulfillment of the self.
- globalized PR efforts, where people are payed to brainwash a youth to reach one goal, and one goal only - have politicians act against peoples short term interest, and in the interest of 'the next generation' (fuck millenials), payed for by the UN and sponsors, but thats really not much to talk about, if you are a crazy religious bigot who can be convinced to preach 'sustainability' you now get your costs covered, thats not that much of a monetary investment.


On top of that - continuing the age old game of "have the rich folks in society spend a mittens on feigning humanity - via financing 'art and lighthouse projects', retaining most of their investment - if internationally spread, reduce most of their risk - and getting public appraisal for, essentially founding cults and longterm investment. No risk, no opportunities anywhere to be founded - structurally.

Continuing the age old game of promoting some craze (in this case, good or needed for humanitys future), as an effing job generator, and 'a new opportunity for the masses', knowing perfectly well, that you want to prep up most of those efforts by shifting subsidies, into an industry - where as a total result productivity costs are hiked up. So more people loose jobs. Loose cars. Loose their effing weekly steak. But then - the sustainability benefit - and beans are yummy.

Continuing the effort of giving an opportunity to people that can brainwash best, and have no morals, trying to spin those efforts. Benefinting freaking boomers most, because not only can they consume all they want, create fewer children than they needed for care at an older age (productivity wise), create effing financial crisis, and as a result economic environments, where investment risk in the west is so high, everyone is more interested in share buybacks -- THEN effing tell their children to live a little less, for the benefit of the world, and their own.

Continuing the age old effort of finding fake, virtual metrics, that have nothing to do with the betterment of an individuals life, and promoting virtual friends, VR vacations, service economy, virtual business models (where no physical goods are shifted, just something is copied for distribution), as alternatives. Building metrics around that - and trying to make them seem as 'worth following' - when assessing quality of life.

Better have the tech ready to stupify people in masses early enough, when you sell them a worse ("but more fulfilling potentiallyTM) life.

And again - ALL of that to keep the globalized investor classes lifestyle stable. Oh, and the earth more conducive to human living needs.

There is everything wrong with this, on every level, on every approach, in implementation. You lie to people, you try to have them follow religious causes, you try to get their money for high risk low return investments, you fuck a generation, you absolutely manipulate trajectories and outlooks - but as an already well off person, you loose nothing, absolutely nothing - while doing so. (Because you can pay a little more to maintain your lifestyle, others cant.)

So me for my part - I'll fight until I'm in my grave, to have this message, right alongside with the 'climate - its good for the children' message, every step of the way.

Oh, and I was raised by someone very much into the green and sustainable ethos, I worked at small scale family farm during my summers. And I've experienced every inch on this way, how the society you built absolutely hated and despised people with that lets call it 'inner conviction' talked behind their back, laughed about them, rolled their eyes.

But now - just like magick, the next fringe group as about due for center stage, to have another excuse to lower peoples states of living.

The two most important factors currently? Getting efficiency up, and waste down - because thats the easy stuff, if you cant do that - real increases in cost to have companies retract from fossile energy are so much harder, they are unthinkable.

About as unthinkable as circular economies, right about today (who are we kidding, this is about allocations of goods shifting to different economies, because they are now able to pay as well).

And you do all of that, knowing its a lie, featuring the people who will effing suffer least in highfalutin panels, displaying their effing need to 'feel better than the rest' (because they are the ones that _really_ care (about society in 200 years)), lying into camera - producing the most disgusting PR possible (black is white, and consumer will is not only the base of politics, but also the demand, you first create to later say - isnt it great, its finally there, not at scale - but early adopters paying more, will also do for a while, influencing national politics financed from the international level)) -- but all of that, is absolutely fine and needed, because its without an alternative.


So young people - please just do the obvious here, and sell out to those interests. Because thats the way to become something in life. Alternative, app based food delivery honcho in the service economy.

F****ck.

Ego?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 13, 2020)

"Climate change"
"Teens"

No one sees a problem? lol

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DarkFlare69 said:


> I don't deny climate change at all but I also agree with OP that this is pretty stupid. Protesting and/or refusing to have kids because of climate change is pointless and absurd


Protesting...

...

...

...

That somehow then lead to riots and loots.

The new "normal" has normalized shit that in a normal society wouldn't be accepted

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Mythical said:


> What you're describing is nothing of leftist or rightist. It's a personaly quality you see in them. Nothing to do with politics. Grouping either side in such ways detracts from real discussion about politics,
> one person's decisions don't reflect the world's and
> in this case wouldn't it be your ex-leader as well?
> -edited for grammar


Left / Right

Politicians have divided people into two groups (left, right) and they're doing their job for free.

Jesse Ventura was correct. The good ones never win.


----------



## notimp (Oct 13, 2020)

Boesy said:


> That somehow then lead to riots and loots.


Not with climate change protests in europe, just brainwashed teens with a notion of 'collectivized effort' feeling good embedded in their selves, ankered to - of all things climate change.

The most BUREAUCRATIC and boring reason of all. You wont even see the outcome in your own lifetime. Tailormade to be tackled by institutions, and institutions only. (Long term planing horizons.)

If, humanity acted sooner. But it didnt. So oops, better brainwash me some children with mass events now... Promise them a great future in politics or something.

Those are amongst the connections you could make..  Looting and climate youth - dont go together so much.

Looting and enraged masses of people in the gilet jaunes, because you tried to eff middle classes over one too many times - more likely.


No, you should sell out to the climate interests, because they are the good ones, the clean ones, with the immaculate image! They'd never do something wrong! 

(Thats why they are so corporate sponsor compatible! Well that and, you really need a few new 'from dishwasher to millionaire' stories for the current age. 'Everyone can become a youtuber ran out of steam five years ago.' So create some 'sustainability superstars. Advertise with them. Change peoples behavior! Give them new metrics... Looting doesnt fit in that image..  )



If you havent gleaned it by now - "why are elites so much into moonshot (/lighthouse) projects". When you have f*ck you money, but really understand, that you cant help everyone, or even just all the people in your nation (f.e. because investment conditions (ROI) are poor). What do you do?

You build palaces. You realize, that you dont have to benefit many people, really - just, maybe the population of swizerland and new zealand - would be enough, no? And those like you, because of the monuments you build. The 'crazy projects' for posterity. That all in all - arent that costly, compared to the structural stuff.

So you dont pay for climate change mitigation. Of course you dont. That would be a philantropic effort. But you pay for the projects that produce the new trend, that does the stuff you yourself have understood as important - then you make society shift their goals. Thats how the bigger stuff gets done.

(Palaces (if located in Belgium  ) can then be used to found - lets say museums that hold exhibitions on the 'naturalistic appeal' of the native people in the Kongo, That gets peoples imagination going! Hey - how about a business expedition into the Kongo! With co-investment from whom?  (Historic example. Founding museums as a 'lighthouse project' - in an economic interest. (Back then driven by colonial interest.) )

If you fail, countries get a little more nationalistic - and there will be new wars, and depending on how you (or the main industries in a country) are invested, Both of those are horrible for your bottom line. Also for the world. (Overarching argument, wars would take the 'decade of opportunity to do something on climate chenge' away from that region.')

edit: Some of the philanthropic efforts also fall into that category. At least thats how the german government makes it sound, if it (and the UN) is looking for sponsors https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-humanitarian-aid-is-an-investment-in-the-future/a-55246553

They know why. But in the end, no one with 'f*ck you' money wants to be in philantropy for philantropiys sake. (Gates is a blueprint for pretty much no one else..  )

edit: Follow up: https://www.dw.com/en/lack-of-polit...r-german-development-minister-says/a-55269493


----------



## notimp (Oct 14, 2020)

What is 'f*ck you' money?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54515518
https://www.dw.com/en/expedition-in-arctic-ice/av-52860343
https://www.dw.com/en/german-research-vessel-to-return-from-dying-arctic/a-55238214

440 People, 80 Institutions.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 14, 2020)

Since I don't really care about this thread, I'll say something that is partiality related. Vertical forests are pretty cool, when done right.


----------



## notimp (Oct 14, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Since I don't really care about this thread, I'll say something that is partiality related. Vertical forests are pretty cool, when done right.


So are vertical axis windturbines, its just that they dont scale. 

European forests are also pretty neat for a leisurely walk, its just that at least I try to look at the topic here with all romanticism removed.

The concept of being one with nature can be seen as an age old trope, that works on the subconscious level for many people, out of the box.

I'm much more interested in the implementation level. 

edit: Stuff like this:


> We need you to be in the vanguard of making the changes we need.
> 
> I count on you to come to my climate summit prepared to inspire the world with your actions and your plans and influence your own Governments.
> 
> I hope the climate action summit will also help empower you to deliver on your plans, including through generating the finance you need.





> Indeed, financing is critical.
> 
> That is why I have enlisted the President of France, the Prime Minister of Jamaica and the Emir of Qatar in a high-level political effort, in the run-up to the Climate Summit, to mobilize international support for the funding we need.
> 
> That means reaching the goal, determined in Paris, of $100 billion per year, from public and private sources in developed countries, to advance mitigation and adaptation in the developing world.


src: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg...enerals-remarks-the-r20-austrian-world-summit

PS: But I also like a good ... tree. As much as the next guy.


----------



## Vovajka (Oct 17, 2020)

lol we all know its nonsense, its just a political stunt.


----------



## notimp (Oct 20, 2020)

> "There are good political reasons for Europe to maintain a certain European steel industry and make sure that it produces steel in a carbon efficient way," he (Ingo Schachel, head of equity research at Commerzbank) told DW. "Whether they find the right means to make it possible and to create market mechanisms that incentivize green European steel production — that could well be, but the next three to five years will be quite decisive."
> 
> They will likely be decisive for Thyssenkrupp too, whatever deal is done regarding its steel business. For the 27,000 workers still employed at its European steel operations, the best hopes for those eager to remain in steel production in the future are likely to be tied up in those possible green policies.





> The EU is considering a carbon border tax that would impose charges on goods, such as steel, produced in countries with lower environmental standards. That could give a new birth of freedom to European steel producers, so long as they cement their status as leaders in so-called "green steel" production.
> 
> Yet in order for the old steel producers such as Thyssenkrupp to fit smoothly into this new era, they will likely have to make themselves much smaller in order to make the switch.


https://www.dw.com/en/thyssenkrupp-...ry-finds-itself-at-decisive-moment/a-55332804

Oh subsidies are a wonderful thing.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 20, 2020)

notimp said:


> So are vertical axis windturbines, its just that they dont scale.


Not sure why vertical forests wouldn't scale. I'm not saying every building is going to be one, but I can see more and more of them popping up.


----------



## notimp (Oct 20, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Not sure why vertical forests wouldn't scale. I'm not saying every building is going to be one, but I can see more and more of them popping up.



I thought along those lines:
https://www.newgeography.com/content/001689-how-much-world-covered-cities

When it comes to carbon capture and storage, you hear about pumping CO2 into the ground (have to find sediments, where it doesnt easily leak out), which is not very cost effective, seeding fields and soil with minerals that lead to more carbon capture, and can be used as a fertilizing agent (has to be partly subsidized), link with detail should already be somewhere in here, algae farming (know too little about it, seems costly). Reforestation (issue, thats land thant cant be used for higher economic gains, which means this is a long term subsidies project, largely in third world economies. Reforestation projects and changing the properties of the top soil layer are projects that are already in place.

Issue on both is, that in todays economy they dont pay especially well. Which is also where the carbon border taxes come in.

The idea here is, because market prices arent taking carbon output into account you'd have government force that cost onto processes to build incentives for them to change. (This is largely what COP Paris was about.) If you do that as an economic union (/large country), you make your own industry less competitive in comparison with any other nation not engaged in 'some effort roughly equal to yours' which is where border taxes come in. Which would work wonderfully, if all bigger countries in the world would be pulling on the same rope so to speak (remaining nations would have to adopt), but with the US having moved entirely out of the trajectory of the Paris climate accord, this becomes an issue.

Mainly on how fast you can scale up carbon pricing. (Currently some parts of the US are engaged in efforts voluntarily, that will not cut it, once carbon price has to be scaled up (currently we are in the 'hike up efficiency and implement circular something something' phase, reduction phase (via harder means) would come after that. (Need smart grids, need changes in peoples behavior, need... alternative means of looking at economic growth.)

Most of the deciding factor on how we tackle the issue (where global climate can be stabilized) is said to take place in the next 20-30 years. Building entirely new cities, just isnt fast enough. 

Also, with vertical gardens, afaik you are mostly talking about food production, or PR, which still would be less efficient than what we have today (industrial farming..  ) so you run into another set of issues..  Also carbon would have to be stored longterm, for which whatever grows on your balconies, is not that efficient.  Also - far too little room on balconies, acreagewise, even if scaled upwards. 

The idea mostly is to remodel economies in a way thats compatible with goals. (Then let markets find solutions on their own), issue is - that economically, you wont find that that enticing. (Oil is a very dense form of energy storage, at a very low price. On renewables you mostly have a 'sustained output' and transport issue. (Sustained output is needed for electric grids, otherwise they break down, transport issue (storage) means, that you loose energy as soon as you are transporting it. But looking at cost per unit of solar energy production, bigger electricity grids seem to be a way forward. US energy grid is ehm... yeah. Renew all of that first, before you renew cities..  Whats coming into play in urban environments is retrofiting (making buildings more energy efficient) and finding alternatives to concrete (very high CO2 output in production). ))

See f.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2020)

German.

Presentation of a crosssectoral study on how to make Germany (/the EU) 'climate neutral' by 2050:


Short summery, methodical mix, so you can not stop it with activism or lobbying in a single segment. High reliance on electrical power, thats then generated via upsizing the renewable sector (solar most, off shore wind significantly, cross country wind - significantly), high reliance on creating greater efficiency. Which never the less leads to an increasing reliance on electrical power, because you'll now also use it for mobility. hydrogen only in cases where going electric is not an option (airtravel and shipping) to not have efficiency losses there. Reliance on fostering investments from the public sector through shifting subsidies, in both personal travel and heating. Limiting economic growth to 1.3% annual average. Airtravel is set at lowered Covid rates in the model. (So no 'recovery' for that industry.)  Large investments in R&D to make technologies like electric mobility and  long distance heating affordable for the public. Penalty payments for anything fossile fuel related, subsidies for the poor. (Via subsidies for electric energy, that would make it cheaper - but you need more of it (mobility).)

In terms of investment volume needed below 2°C climate goal trajectory is possible for germany.

No word on fallout from reduced productivity (when you shift subsidies, and move away from fossile fuels, which still are more interesting in terms of profit margin - at market prices), possible recession is glanced over.

In the minds of the people creating those models, the world is moving into an international investment and R&D race right about next year, and investments are needed for europe to have anything even halfway profitable 20 years from now (Europe has lost in the automotive sector (if we go electro mobility), in AI, in software services, in fast prototyping, in banking, in steel production, ...).

At least they've moved the 'individual behavior modificatioon' to the 'where marketable' level, and dont expect the german public to become largely vegan. Fucktards..

Next ten years will be raising efficiency and R&D investment, after that its raising efficiency goals so much, you are changing how your entire economy works.

edit: Ah yeah, every new car in germany would have to be an electric car by 2035. So that industry is practically gone.
edit. Oh yeah, and with the long term goal to run gas power plants (load balancing) on hydrogen, thats created as an energy storage medium (with high effciency losses - so you scale up renewables more). And carbon capture and storage for the parts you cant run on electricity or hydrogen.


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2020)

New conspiracy theory - from Stefan Rahmsdorf - fossile fuel industry invested in dark PR to popularize discussions about "personal footprint". BECAUSE PERSONAL REDUCTION THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER WORKED!

Well fuck no. That went different - initially... A-hole. And that way the historical lies for the future are born.


----------



## Captain_N (Oct 22, 2020)

I wonder if these teens realize they are part of the problem. Buying all the mass produced tech just to toss it and buy it again in 3 months. Teens not having kids aint gonna do anything.
DO they realize that trees turn the co2 we produce into breathable air? co2 is not a pollutant and anyone that says it is, is a dumb ass. Everyone is breathing in co2 with the o2 we need to live. I bet they dont even know that in the past there was a greater co2 content present in the atmosphere then exist today and the planet was happy with that. Many plants and trees grew and life was flourishing. 

They probably dont know anything about the research thats been going into fusion reactors that produce no co2. They talk about burning biofuel, but guess what, its still producing co2. The real solution to clean power generation is Nuclear Fusion.

I like to watch them talk about electric cars and i laugh. DO they realize that in the US 60% of power generation comes from fossil fuels. lol SO what do they think is charging their cars lol. Ant even worse is the batteries in those cars. That shit is toxic to the environment.

The amount of pollution we pump out is the real problem. The pollution has to stop. To many heavy metals from industrial run off poising the ground.


----------



## eyeliner (Oct 22, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> I have never heard this argument. Rather, how proficient can she be at understanding the complexity of climate/weather systems at such a young age? The mathematics that describe these systems require a few years of college level math/modeling alone.


Temperatures up.
Water levels up.
Mass extinction.
Death.

Simple Math to me. I'm sure she can pull it of.


----------



## Lostbhoy (Oct 22, 2020)

I was a teen once. I remember saying I'll never have kids. 



I got 3 now.


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2020)

Captain_N said:


> I wonder if these teens realize they are part of the problem. Buying all the mass produced tech just to toss it and buy it again in 3 months. Teens not having kids aint gonna do anything.
> DO they realize that trees turn the co2 we produce into breathable air? co2 is not a pollutant and anyone that says it is, is a dumb ass. Everyone is breathing in co2 with the o2 we need to live. I bet they dont even know that in the past there was a greater co2 content present in the atmosphere then exist today and the planet was happy with that. Many plants and trees grew and life was flourishing.
> 
> They probably dont know anything about the research thats been going into fusion reactors that produce no co2. They talk about burning biofuel, but guess what, its still producing co2. The real solution to clean power generation is Nuclear Fusion.
> ...


All, even put together not good enough as an argument. Sadly.. 

Biofuels dont scale. High energy (edit: and water) input, not that much output compared to the input. Not enough furtile fields for it to scale much larger. You use them where you cant use other forms of energy - in the renewable model. Apart from that, they dont matter.

Rare earth minerals for batteries is an issue, but you maybe can develop different materials for the cathode, eventually. Not short term. (Until then you foster the almost supernatural believe of creating a circular economy.  ) And yes, you are still talking strip mining, but here is where Michael Moore is naive, nothing in the sustainable sector is done because of 'wholesomeness' at this point, but basically because of -- a need, thats either societally accepted or not. But thats that.

Waiting for 'the miraculous solution' that will make all the problems go away, in terms of '(cold) fusion' isnt an option either. You hedge bets, you go with some of the options, that seem most promising. Also, you mostly go with your best option in terms of energy efficiency, and as of today thats solar. (Issue then is storage and transport. Where you lose significant parts of the actual energy created.) Oh, and going with solar you loose pretty much all value add. Factories in germany are now reopened because quote 'its cheaper, than transporting that stuff manufactured from china - if we go full automation'.

And even if you had fusion reactors, you dont have them in cars. 

CO2 is not a problem, because trees breath it, sadly is not exactly the situation here either..  Too much salt can kill you. Too much global warming can make large regions of the world uninhabitable. If you simply ignore that - you are evil. 

Making 'not having children' a trend, is a fad. The way I've perceived that being popularized for a hot week in the german debate, was that a looney was featured by mainstream press for said hot week, to sensibilize people towards certain 'life designs' (life decisions). It was always low tier understandable - that that person (wrote a booka bout why she is morally superior, doing that) was slightly looney (not the norm). So in essence, this is not a lesson you draw from this in terms of 'what could be done', its just a lesson in terms of - when to nod your head an say nothing, when your opponent engages in 'convincing themselves, they dont have kids for the planet in 200 years'. 

Oh, and a comment on the kids. They are playing low tier revolution (as at that age kids should (question everything) - strife for higher moral goals, ...), but the entire organisation part this time arround is the opposite of naive.  But then - neither were youth trends (like the emo movement  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emo_artists )) in the past, I guess..  (Most youth cultures are actually manufactured. (At least in the music industry..  ).Or look at 'professional gaming' - its similar there as well..  )


I'm still flipping on mass manipulation (behavioral modification), which in all models was written in as 'buffer that could actually be significant (needed), so as a 'simple thing to change' (conceptually, everyone and their mother in the field where engaged in collective behavioral management - which was seen as a large part of the solution, right until the point where people realized how effective Covid lockdowns were in terms of o CO2 output reduction. (Not that much.) And exprapolated, what would happen, if they push it more, maybe even during the next recession in their countries. Now all of a sudden it was never the actual goal. The goal was to create a political movement that would influence policy making.

Effectively - both were true.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 23, 2020)

eyeliner said:


> Temperatures up.
> Water levels up.
> Mass extinction.
> Death.
> ...


Sir! We have _surely_ moved on from this dated subject matter, although I'm amused by your simple approach to such a complex system, so I will humor your response. Please, in the future, lets not waste each others time with such matters.

No need to go into a long-winded explanation here, as your response is quite easy to hand wave. The study of climate requires the implementation of _non-linear systems_ and (often) a high-degree of calculus. I won't even bother getting into a further explanation of our _very limited _knowledge of the potential factors impacting climate in the first place: the motions of astral bodies, activity of the sun, a meteor passing several hundred light years away, etc, etc, etc.

Lastly, climate change has become a political matter, so no longer of any interest to me. Once a subject matter passes into the Left Wing/Right Wing "oblivion " it becomes absurd.

Please, let us move on.


----------



## notimp (Oct 23, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> the motions of astral bodies, activity of the sun, a meteor passing several hundred light years away, etc, etc, etc.


?

I think we pretty much know how the earths rotational axis is situated, how ebb and high tide work, activity of the sun you can meassure at the level of space, so to understand that you need no understanding of atmosphere at all, you just look at numbers, meteors 'several light years away' have no impact on climate - ehm, you sure made it sound difficult, but none of those are complex factors (afaik). If you want to read up on factors that go into the calculation of climate models, they are in this thread already. Should be a video from the chaos communication congress. (German hacking conference, where a young scientist working on a part of said models explained how the modeling works, and how you can take a look at the data and spin up your own (impact) models if you want to..)

edit: Here, its the second video:




notimp said:


> Still not wrong.  (Poles f.e.)
> 
> Now we are getting into 'resolution' of models. This is where the real complexity starts. You dont have to just model sunshine, or atmosphere (CO2/green house gasses) f.e. - but atmospheric pressure, or water circulation (golf stream), and a bunch of more stuff if you want to make predictions on what will happen - locally/regionally.
> 
> ...


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 23, 2020)

notimp said:


> ?
> 
> I think we pretty much know how the earths rotational axis is situated, how ebb and high tide work, activity of the sun you can meassure at the level of space, so to understand that you need no understanding of atmosphere at all, you just look at numbers, meteors 'several light years away' have no impact on climate - ehm, you sure made it sound difficult, but none of those are complex factors (afaik). If you want to read up on factors that go into the calculation of climate models, they are in this thread already. Should be a video from the chaos communication congress. (German hacking conference, where a young scientist working on a part of said models explained how the modeling works, and how you can take a look at the data and spin up your own models if you want to..)
> 
> edit: Here, its the second video:


Believe me sir, I require no explanation, nor lecture, on the generation of theoretical and/or empirical models, given my line of work.

Your response here is inadequate; your cited examples are but a small sample of a large pool. Furthermore, If you refuse to admit the complexity of weather/climate models, I do fear our conversation here is over.

I have already explained (insufficiently perhaps), that this has become a political matter, and consequently is not deserving of our attention.


----------



## notimp (Oct 23, 2020)

Thats not what you did. You listed three impact sources, all of which are largely irrelevant (as a source of uncertainty) to mainstream climate modeling. Then you cried - believe me, its complexity thats made political  here for nefarious reasons.

Then you referred to personal (/professional?) status as proof. 

My interpretation of your behavior is, that you picked up some reasonings for why climate change can not possibly be human made, from an ideological source, and ended with 'I'm better than you, I dont need any explaination - the only thing I need you to agree on is, that there are model uncertainties (none of which come from the issues you posted) --- at which point I (as in you) fill in uncertainty and doubt.'

From what you posted, you know nothing about the issue at hand.

So what exactly is your expertise? 
-


If you need this broken down even more. Because of a lack of actual ability to falsify projections 'into the future', because you only have one system - and it is highly complex. You go not with 'scientific proof' (falsification based), but with scientific consensus (scientific canon), thats based on something akin to 'expert intuition', but averaged out across most of your experts, who create models, that have to predict historical climate activity with a low degree of variance.

Also - because of the amount of complexity you can add to your models, even currently - which exceeds computational modeling capacity, what 'obviously has to be in climate models', and 'by how much (resolution of constants)' - is impacted by scientific decision making. Meaning, opinions. Then in the end, you average all of it.

So the idea, that soemwhere in there you need the concept of a master manipulator, who just leaves out the obviously important stuff (as per your proclamation, earth rotational axis, moon cycles and solar activity), to then get 'politically desired results', makes no sense, based on several principals. The most obvious of which would be - its freaking easy to hide influencing factors somewhere in the margins. (How about at the stage where you segment models just so you can calculate them (in segments) at all?)

The idea, that - "No, no wait for it, its actually the solar cycle, and a meteor 100 lightyears away - someone, found out!" Is far more likely to be storytelling, than 'the specific filter bubbles capacity' to find a smoking gun of actual 'political manipulation'.


The entire thing is based on - "we cant say for sure", "we acknowledge that we cant say for sure", "here is our best estimate, of what will happen", and "here are forty of the estimates averaged".

So in essence, eff of with your story of 'its the solar cycle, thats the smoking gun, I know - because I know complexity'.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 23, 2020)

notimp said:


> that you picked up some reasonings for why climate change can not possibly be human made, from an ideological source, and ended with 'I'm better than you, I dont need any explaination (sic) - the only thing I need you to agree on is, that there are model uncertainties (none of which come from the issues you posted) --- at which point I (as in you) fill in uncertainty and doubt.'


Dear sir,

It is unfortunate you have _assumed_ my opinions on this matter to be nefarious.

-I have never made claims that climate change was not "human made", nor otherwise, nor have I ever discussed the "cause" of climate change in this forum. It's a shame you would put these words in my mouth and _guess at my position_. So very askew from our previous interactions on this site; I am a bit disappointed!

-My original comment, (which has now become lost among the political ramblings), was that it would be difficult for a younger individual, (not nearly removed from grade school), to provide an accurate account of weather models and their predictive power. It is a _reasonable _perspective, that is all.

-I only disclose my profession to provide some merit to my opinion with respect to empirical/physical models and how they are generated. To claim instead I am somehow _gloating_ is rather unfortunate. (I will refrain from revealing my profession here, in case you would further claim I am posturing). 



notimp said:


> The entire thing is based on - "we cant say for sure", "we acknowledge that we cant say for sure", "here is our best estimate, of what will happen", and "here are forty of the estimates averaged".


Certainly, so where have we gone astray? Do you still believe my motives are political, even though I have attempted to denounce such claims early in my conversation? On the other hand, why do you approach this matter with such conflict? 

Sighhhh, well sir, I have stated earlier that I wanted to leave this subject matter be. I only responded here to defend myself and my positions, which you have completely fabricated (and even went so far as to suppose what I _might _say). I hope we can have more meaningful conversation in the future.


----------



## notimp (Oct 23, 2020)

Fair.

I'm just irritated, by you listing earth rotational axis, lunar cycles (?), and solar flares, as sources of uncertainty - thats all. 

Oh and projections, not estimates. Made that mistake myself, thought about correcting it, then didnt. Semantics..


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 23, 2020)

notimp said:


> I'm just irritated, by you listing earth rotational axis, lunar cycles (?), and solar flares, as sources of uncertainty - thats all


Fair enough, perhaps I was overreaching with those particular examples. A bit exaggerated, perhaps.
I sincerely believe this matter does not deserve our attention, let us leave this be.


----------



## notimp (Oct 23, 2020)

> I sincerely believe this matter does not deserve our attention, let us leave this be.



*postpostingabouthowactualgoalsenactedintenyearstimewillchangehowsocietyfunctionsfundamentallyapageago*

*postsentireseriesofpostsonpoliticalandactivistdecisionmakingbeinginfluencedbyidentifyablepressuregroups*

*postsaboutstructuredaffortstoinfluencechildrentotheninfluenceboomersbehaviorally*
(To then provide investments needed. Also posted example of nudges in actual financial sector regulations I believe. (Like when the EU made it mandatory for every financial institution to also provide financial council on a 'sustainable option', when you are investing money with them.).)
edit: Basically stuff like this:
https://katten.com/esg-and-sustainable-finance-the-european-perspective

*postsaboutactulsocietaleffortsinbehavioralmodificationusingachangeinsocialnorms*

*postsaboutresultsofinternationalconferencesalteringtheconceptionofwhateconomicgrowthis*

*postsactualworkinggroups(thinktanks)effortstoalterthedefinitionofwhateconomicgrowthis*
https://gbatemp.net/threads/what-are-alternative-economic-indicators.572607/

*postsunsecretarygeneralsremarksonhowtousengostoinfluencenationalpolitics*

*postsbillionsspendoneffortsbothforandagainstitusingactualexamples*
(For: Costs and institutions involved on one artic factfinding mission on ice propagation properties.In this thread. Against: Rumored fossile fuel money financing the entire election campaign of the current supreme court replacement of SBJ. And the entire judicial system (making up procedural entities, under 20 different names, but having them financed by 4-5 private entities). In the SBJ thread.)

'But I think, that no attention is the right amount of attention.'

Sure, sure...


----------



## notimp (Oct 23, 2020)

notimp said:


> (To then provide investments needed. Also posted example of nudges in actual financial sector regulations I believe. (Like when the EU made it mandatory for every financial institution to also provide financial council on a 'sustainable option', when you are investing money with them.).)


Looked that one up again:

EU regulation for financial services, having come into place this year:



> The Disclosure Regulation will require the integration of sustainability risks in financial market participants' investment decision-making processes or, where relevant, advisory processes and transparency as regards financial products which target sustainable investments, including reduction in carbon emissions. Specific requirements include pre-contractual disclosures; disclosures on websites and disclosures in periodic reports in relation to financial products.
> 
> The Disclosure Regulation forms part of a raft of legislation published by the European Commission as part of its Action Plan on sustainable finance in March 2018. This includes: a Regulation amending the Benchmarks Regulation in relation to low carbon benchmarks and positive carbon impact benchmarks (see briefing here); a Regulation on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment (the Taxonomy Regulation); and a Delegated Regulation amending MIFID II Delegated Regulation 2017/565 to integrate ESG considerations and preferences into investment advice and portfolio management.


https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/esg-disclosures-regulation/

See also PWG ESG Paper page 7:
https://www.pwc.at/de/dienstleistungen/Advisory/esg-paper.pdf

Resulting organisational requirements:


> *Organisational requirements*
> 
> The draft delegated act amending Delegated Regulation 2017/565 on organisational requirements also introduces the definitions of “sustainability preferences”, “sustainability risks” and “sustainability factors” into the Delegated Regulation. Under the draft delegated act, investment firms will be required to consider sustainability risks when establishing, implementing and maintaining risk management procedures which identify the risks relating to the firm’s activities, processes and systems.
> 
> When conducting the assessment of sustainability and providing suitability reports under Article 54, investment firms would under the draft rules need to take into account in the selection process to recommend financial products to their clients, including risks, costs and complexity of the financial instruments, and including any sustainability factors. The draft delegated act also requires firms to prepare a report for the client explaining how the investment recommendation meets their sustainability preferences alongside their investment objectives, risk profile and capacity for loss bearing.


https://www.regulationtomorrow.com/...ts-on-the-introduction-of-esg-considerations/

Thats nudging.

edit: Or in plain english:


> A new EU law was agreed in April 2019 which compels professional investors and financial advisors to disclose, in quite some detail, how the risks of negative environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts may affect the value of the investment. In addition, they will have to be transparent about whether and how they take account of longer term negative ESG impacts. Investment products with sustainability claims have stricter disclose standards about their claims. This information needs to be made available to all (individual) potential investors. In the meantime, the European Commission (EC) has already regulated that advisors must ask potential individual investors whether they prefer investments with ESG considerations. In the long term, the EC wants to adopt binding regulations to ensure professional investors and advisors actually undertake assessments of ESG risks, and, to a certain extent, ESG impacts.


https://www.somo.nl/new-eu-law-obliges-investors-to-disclose-sustainability-risks/

Thats nudging.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 24, 2020)

Here's my two cents.

For years, a huge climate disaster has been around two years away. Did it ever come? No.
Besides, even if global warming _was_ real (which it isn't), what's the solution? Destroying our only method of communication during this endemic?


----------



## notimp (Oct 24, 2020)

Oh yeah, thats on top of the role of the EIBs:
https://www.eib.org/en/about/priorities/climate-action/index.htm

On top of making the CBA mechanism a new direct income source for the EU budget.
https://wiiw.ac.at/getting-serious-...en-deal-with-a-carbon-border-tax-dlp-5390.pdf

On top of the JTF:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/cl...limate-policy-endures-rough-eu-budget-summit/

On top of germanys green bond vehicle to absorb investment risk:
https://www.ceps.eu/germanys-inaugural-green-bond-not-so-green-after-all/

On top of the long term commitment from the EU budget:
https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/14...ke-europe-the-first-climate-neutral-continent

...



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> Here's my two cents.
> 
> For years, a huge climate disaster has been around two years away. Did it ever come? No.
> Besides, even if global warming _was_ real (which it isn't), what's the solution? Destroying our only method of communication during this endemic?


If you only would read. Like - ever.. 

Posted the proposed action plan to make germany climate neutral by 2050 - two days ago.

You quadruple solar capacity until 2030, you triple offshore wind capacity, and you almost double on shore wind capacity.

Read the rest here:
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/e...w-germany-can-become-climate-neutral-by-2050/

Its like talking to morons.

'No its not true...'
'But its actually happening.'
'No, but even if true, how?'

How can I ever take any of your opinions in other fields seriously? 

You have a mind thats literally resistant to reality at this point.

Thats two people that are telling me 'no I dont believe this is real' and 'I dont believe this is important to like, look at' back to back - after I told them how actual implementation would look like.. 

PS: Agora Energiewende is a joint initiative of the Mercator Foundation and the European Climate Foundation.

The European Climate Foundation is funded by the Nationale Postcode Loterij, The Arcadia Fund, The Children's Investment Fund Foundation, The ClimateWorks Foundation, The McCall MacBain Foundation, Oak Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

China, Japan and South Korea, also pledged to be carbon neutral 2050 in the last few days:
https://www.ft.com/content/185e5043-fd72-4fef-a05c-f2a5001c7f4b


Meanwhile (unrelated, but close in sentiment (oil industry interests)) in the US: Lets make the Iran sanctions irreversible:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/using-...hopes-to-tie-bidens-hands-on-iran-11603473828

You just know that Trump is just played like a fiddle here...


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

Freaking paywall... ft article is accessable without a paywall, when visiting from google news.

So go here, and click on the first link:
https://news.google.com/search?q=South Korea follows Japan and China in carbon neutral pledg&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

edit: Content dump:


> *South Korea follows Japan and China in carbon neutral pledge*
> Moon Jae-in promises green transition as part of coronavirus recovery package
> 
> South Korea has become the third big Asian economy to pledge carbon neutrality, marking a big victory for environmentalists after intensifying pressure on one of the world’s biggest polluters. President Moon Jae-in promised that his country would achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and pledged to spend Won8tn ($7bn) on green-focused growth as part of an unprecedented financial stimulus to combat the economic fallout from the coronavirus. “We will move towards the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050 by actively responding to climate changes together with the international society,” said Mr Moon, who was speaking to the National Assembly in Seoul on Wednesday. “We will replace coal power with renewable energy and create a new market, industry and jobs.” Mr Moon made the pledge just two days after Yoshihide Suga, the Japanese prime minister, made the same announcement. This follows earlier similar promises by the EU, as well as China’s groundbreaking vow to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. Recommended AnalysisBig Hit Entertainment South Korean boy bands give investors a case of buyers’ remorse The shift away from fossil fuels poses a serious challenge for Asia’s fourth-biggest economy, which remains heavily reliant on coal to power its energy-intensive high-tech manufacturers. South Korea derives just 5 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources, the lowest proportion of any OECD country, according to International Energy Agency data. South Korea has the 12th largest economy, according to World Bank data, but is also the seventh largest emitter. The announcement came amid mounting criticism from environmentalists and international investors, who have accused South Korea of falling behind other advanced countries in taking action to comply with the Paris climate agreement, which Seoul ratified. Joojin Kim, managing director of Solutions for Our Climate, a Seoul-based non-government organisation, said much work was needed “to make this declaration actually meaningful”. “The most urgent tasks are enhancing its 2030 emissions reduction target, presenting a clear road map to phase out coal by 2030 and putting a complete stop to coal financing,” said Mr Kim.
> ...


----------



## notimp (Oct 30, 2020)

More PR:
https://www.visitaruba.com/news/gen...nited-nations-2020-climate-neutral-now-award/


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2020)

Renewables, building and industrial sector shares are gaining traction in the US (following the Biden retrofitting and infrastructure project pledges. ):
https://www.dw.com/en/wall-street-drops-donald-trump-in-favor-of-joe-biden/a-55420944


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 10, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Nov 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


>



https://thebulletin.org/2020/04/britain-has-139-tons-of-plutonium-thats-a-real-problem/

Uranium isnt much better. Neither is Thorium.

Also that stuff stays highly problematic for thousands of years.
Then you have end of life problems ( https://www.dw.com/en/series-of-french-radiation-leaks-raise-new-safety-concerns/a-3511480 ) as all reactors are built for a finite lifetime, And then you are still using up a quite rare, limited resource. Which becomes an issue, if everyone in the world switches to it.

Short summery here: https://justenergy.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-energy-safety-cost-efficiency/ (Actuallly reads like PR, so be aware, but al least they list the negatives as well. All search results I came up with trying to find sources for the negatives for 5 minutes read like PR, btw - which is... interesting.)

On top of that you have the social exceptance issue. And accidents.

So - some countries will use it. But expanding the usage far beyond its current scope, is an issue. (Problems increase with it.)

edit: Also they are rather expensive up front, which you dont want, if you want to switch to higher clean energy usage rather quickly, at the same time as you increase reliance on electrical energy (because you want to phase out petrol and coal.).

edit: Here is the "not that cheap" argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants


----------



## notimp (Dec 5, 2020)

F*ckers.


> What is servitisation, and how can it help save the planet?
> 
> Servitisation is where customers pay for a service - such as air conditioning - rather than buying the equipment themselves.
> This model can be a major contributor to the systemic efficiency approach to decarbonisation.
> It also has potential to assist the post-COVID-19 economic recovery.


src: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/what-is-servitization-and-how-can-it-help-save-the-planet/

(Please don't ban me for not editing the last post.)


----------



## jimbo13 (Dec 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> https://thebulletin.org/2020/04/britain-has-139-tons-of-plutonium-thats-a-real-problem/
> 
> edit: Here is the "not that cheap" argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants




Nuclear power is the future.   It is the only route that puts us toward becoming a type 1 civilization and moving up the Kardashev scale.

Here is the elephant in the room;

Plans for safe & clean nuclear plants exist and are totally viable, the problem is governments are not interested in these because they don't produce weapons grade material.


----------



## Teslas Fate (Dec 5, 2020)

morvoran said:


> I have to say that I'm so proud of these teens that are refusing to have kids until we fix the issue of climate change.  God speed to these brave kids that are willing to sacrifice themselves for a brighter future.
> 
> It's great to know that they will not be breeding their ignorance and blind conformity into our next generation and, hopefully, stop the belief in this sham science to leave more room for the much smarter, less gullible humans of the future that we so desperately need now.  I hope they stick to this plan for the sake of humanity


Hey is this only about the liberal children because if not I’m still gonna have conservative children live like John Brown and instead of kill pro-slave sympathizers I’ll kill liberals


----------



## notimp (Dec 5, 2020)

jimbo13 said:


> Nuclear power is the future.   It is the only route that puts us toward becoming a type 1 civilization and moving up the Kardashev scale.
> 
> Here is the elephant in the room;
> 
> Plans for safe & clean nuclear plants exist and are totally viable, the problem is governments are not interested in these because they don't produce weapons grade material.


The problem with nuclear power is mostly twofold.

- You get waste material that no one wants to store. To understand that, you have to understand, that typical state confiscation or redeclaration of land is set up for 100 years max. The half-life time of uranium is 4468 billion years. So guaranteeing what 'happens' to it is something nobody can. If you are negotiating with other states to 'take over' your waste problem, they come to that conclusion pretty quickly - so no one really wants to be 'known' as or own the end storage place for that waste. Even if you fill it into empty salines (mountains), those storage places get full. Because everyone has a tendency to ignore it, you cant move it from there (usually stored in steel barrels that eventually rot away). So over time, it simply becomes too much of a problem. Dump it into the ocean also isnt the solution, because that stuff moves.

- All powerplants are built to specifications for a certain 'lifespan'. Towards the end of life, whoever runs the thing usually is incentivized to cut costs. Coupled with the risk profile on those things, thats not a great thing to face. So if you make that issue too structural - you are bound to have something happen at some point.

Running nuclear reactors regardless of the aim to generate weapongrade material is common place already. The discussion about that capability is only highlighted in debates with countries that dont have nuclear weapons capability yet. The race to nuclear weapon capability in certain nations is held, because it promises you a seat at the big table, where you arent pushed around by world powers as much anymore. Usually because of risk mitigation. Depending on if the US feel hawkish or not in their foreign policy trajectory that decade.
--

There are countries like France or Japan, that will to a large extent bet on nuclear power for quite a while still (usually because of a lack of alternatives) (population vs. energycosts vs. alternatives). But in general it is not expected that many other nations will make big investments along those lines. Its definitely talked about as a way to lessen the 'renewable energy is not reliable throughout the day/you cant easily turn it off and on (loadbalancing)' issue, but governments usually dont like it too much because they'd have to explain it to people as well.

edit: Roughly: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200309-are-small-nuclear-power-plants-safe-and-efficient


----------



## notimp (Dec 6, 2020)

Mazzucato: In the G20 56% of Covid recovery money was given to fossile fuel based projects.


----------



## notimp (Dec 17, 2020)

A little late, but hey, better late than never:


For better context, watch this:


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Dec 17, 2020)

notimp said:


> A little late, but hey, better late than never:
> 
> 
> For better context, watch this:



You'll own nothing, and we'll beat you until you act happy. Welcome to Marxism.


----------



## notimp (Dec 17, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You'll own nothing, and we'll beat you until you act happy. Welcome to Marxism.


No, no...



We will fake humility and tell you your job is so important as well (mostly if you pamper boomers, until they are dead, because they can still pay) - love what you are doing for society, but never allow social mobility - except for where it fits for PR purposes. (Zero growth societies - for decades.)

When Michael Sandel has to feign humility, something is very wrong.

Whole thing comes too fast. Everyone is worried.

Fake PR movements for the masses, business as usual for elites. (Upstarts now just get told, that they now have to be like Stefan Weiss-Fanzlau

Marketing Manager for Orange Austria, Co-Initiator of the Climate referendum in Austria, demanding that Climate targets get written into our countries constitution, working in an honorary capacity - along side his main job of selling people consumption contracts. (Just picked a random example, really.) )

And by whole thing, I dont mean just climate change.
--

edit: Common concept is, to pivot away from 'individual freedoms' on the PR level.


----------



## notimp (Dec 17, 2020)

Plan for the US is live:



> But it would still require a massive technological phase shift and an utterly remade country. In the next 10 years alone, the report says, we would need to add 50 million electric vehicles, quadruple the size of wind and solar in the United States, and expand the transmission infrastructure by 60 percent. It would certainly take a concerted effort — and legislation that, right now, it is hard to imagine Congress signing onto.
> 
> “If you took it as a given that you were going to get to net zero by 2050, this is the full onboard, all-hands-on-deck kind of thing that you would need to do,” said Susan Tierney, a senior adviser at the Analysis Group and an energy expert who advised on the report. “And it’s overwhelming.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...-by-2050-heres-what-that-would-actually-take/

Referencing this report:
https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/



> The Princeton team used detailed energy-system modeling, with five separate scenarios, to figure out how the United States could cease to emit any net amount of greenhouse gases by 2050. The details vary. For instance, most scenarios still use some nuclear power and some fossil fuels, but with carbon capture to remove their emissions. But a 100 percent renewable-energy scenario, somewhat more costly to achieve because of its deliberately constrained options, rules even this out.



On feasibility:


> The incoming Biden team knows what needs to happen, Victor said. “They know that electricity is central, and they know that you have to combine decarbonization with known technologies with a big investment in innovation,” he said.
> 
> But how tied their hands will be remains to be seen.
> 
> And hands will be tied not only by national politics, Tierney noted. There could be all kinds of “friction” that energy system modelers say they’re not able to include in their scenarios, she said: Legal issues. Permitting issues. Changes in consumer behavior, or resistance to changes.





> “It is a reminder that if we are serious about deep decarbonization, every week needs to be Infrastructure Week from now on,” Bordoff said.
> 
> But of course, the United States will not get to net zero in precisely the ways described in the report, Jenkins acknowledged, nor is it likely to get there precisely in 2050. Rather, the document lays out the exacting details, and the people decide how many of them to accept — and when.



This is in direct contridiction to 'expert commitees' in my country, who try to ram it through, by pointing at the competition in other countries, and that 'we cant risk give the first mover advantage away', combined with lies, that this will all in a sense pay for itself because it would make us less dependant on fossile fuel imports, and thereby prop up our foreign trade balance.

In reality, this cant be seen as a zero sum game, so this has political implications, this impacts other countries economies. If everyone sees it like that, world trade is dead.

But no one cares to correct the pleasant lies.


----------



## laudern (Dec 17, 2020)

Pretty simple question I have  but I'm somewhat new to fully understanding climate change.


The climate changes naturally
Humans are allegedly speeding up the rate of change
My question is, what is the rates number that humans have sped up climate change? How can we tell what the rate of increased change is, if we don't know what the rate would be without us here?


----------



## notimp (Dec 17, 2020)

laudern said:


> Pretty simple question I have  but I'm somewhat new to fully understanding climate change.
> 
> 
> The climate changes naturally
> ...


We have ways to know the CO2 cycles from before the industrial revolution (ice core drilling mostly).

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

edit: Also 'rock strata' and tree ring analysis (trees grow faster if more CO2 in the air (that doesnt mean, that planting more trees solves the issue alone)) f.e.
https://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/3-3-7.php

edit:

Also US mostly is not moving into zero growth economies anytime soon, this part of the statement mostly is valid for european economies.


----------



## Teslas Fate (Dec 17, 2020)

Guys I know how to fix Climate Change but, it results in us all becoming Communist for the sake of equality.


----------



## notimp (Dec 18, 2020)

Washington Post article from above archived on archive.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/2020121...-by-2050-heres-what-that-would-actually-take/


----------



## notimp (Jan 1, 2021)

Bill Gates now also has become a climate expert.


I have to say - this _is_ a bit odd...

edit: At least he's not lying...


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jan 2, 2021)

notimp said:


> Bill Gates now also has become a climate expert.
> 
> 
> I have to say - this _is_ a bit odd...
> ...



He also patented COVID-19 before it went mainstream.


----------



## notimp (Jan 2, 2021)

Teslas Fate said:


> He also patented COVID-19 before it went mainstream.


Thats somewhat understandable, he is in that scene - its also understandable, why media features him as much, as hes now the main sponsor of the WHO (to no fault of his own), so I expect some pandering.

But climate change expert? *scratch head*

edit: Probably the Economist really running out of high profile people to talk to to seem important...  At the same time they advertise the next joint event, where young people could enlist, to get the loaddown.  ("Economies of the future" stuff.) So its also 'right scene'. In that sense. But it is a little bit silly....
----------

edit2: Might have a better reason. They are searching for 'big shot' company leads that can symbolically say, how they'd go into the green transition. Billy boy is good for that. Rich - and company wise (his foundation) small footprint enough to offset carbon cost by buying CO2 certificats (which currently (no government minimum CO2 pricing), are still cheap). At the same time he can talk about MS, which last time I checked only had 'we recycle' as a PR mesage out there concerning their data centers. He now hints at a larger commitment. But thats still a commitment.

(You have to make those, because other wise you are loosing out on young talent, which now all are asking, but hows about the companies CO2 footprint, what are yous doing, or are you evil?)

Hes the right person for that job.. 

Posterchild.

On the topic he is saying nothing exciting or new. Its just a somewhat accurate summery. Its just, that hearing him 'inventing climate economy terms' and a journalist noding that off - _is_ a bit rich.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 2, 2021)

I'm always annoyed with the egotistical wording that World campaigns use in regards to Climate Change - you don't have to save anything, the Planet doesn't need you to save her.

Currently, the Planet has two Biospheres - the current one we're living with that is Oxygen-based and the Shadow Biosphere which is Nitrogen-based. It's a wonder that with 78% of the atmosphere comprising of Nitrogen the Oxygen side of things is more dominant, but it just goes to show that everything in the Universe has a Plan B, including Earth, whether we're too self-centred to see it or not.

The worst thing we can do is kill off our own Biosphere, which can activate one of two options; the Shadow Biosphere may gain dominance or the Planet resets after a few million years with an identical Oxygen-based Biosphere. There is still enough life in our Sun to keep a few more Earth Hard Resets, as it were, going before it finally dies.

We're literally not the Centre of the Universe; if you're going to save the Planet, it's to save your own hide.


----------



## notimp (Jan 2, 2021)

tomasowa said:


> I'm always annoyed with the egotistical wording that World campaigns use in regards to Climate Change - you don't have to save anything, the Planet doesn't need you to save her.
> 
> Currently, the Planet has two Biospheres - the current one we're living with that is Oxygen-based and the Shadow Biosphere which is Nitrogen-based. It's a wonder that with 78% of the atmosphere comprising of Nitrogen the Oxygen side of things is more dominant, but it just goes to show that everything in the Universe has a Plan B, including Earth, whether we're too self-centred to see it or not.
> 
> ...


Ah, always great to see people resort to quasi religious motives (light and shadow), and then argue for 'life on earth is still possible' - well yeah, just not in several regions.

Here is a chart of what happens at 4-5 degrees temperature rise until 2100. (Which we are on track for - if 'nothing is done')







Whats plotted are the days where 'living/working' outside for humans would be deadly. Red = 365 days a year, white = 0 days a year.

Then you add the fact that 'something is done', and you end up at 'its not about the daily heat days' so much, its about food security for people, and about migration pressure to richer countries, which can afford to buy food and water on the market - even then.

Then you add - that its very, very hard to reverse the trend, once its there (much more 'energy' needed than to slow it down and bring it to a halt earlier). And you've understood the situation.

But leave it to the religious mind, to tell you about the yin and yang of the atmosphere, and that the worst thing to do would be to 'disturb it' to lead you into an actual mass extinction event, or wars.. 

Chart is from a recent talk of the german climate poster boy - Volker Quatschnig ( https://media.ccc.de/v/rc3-11371-nach_der_coronakrise_ist_mitten_in_der_klimakrise ) who is just dumb enough, that he uses target numbers derived from the concept of 'from now on - everyone has an equal amount of CO2 they still can put into the atmosphere' with every human on earth getting an equal share to still spend. Which is very noble, and very humanistic, but not how the world works, and not the targets with which the UN or any government in the world opperate. So - he is just dumb enough to do that, but also hold an engineering degree.

Which makes him an ideal person to feature him in the media, which is exactly what has happened in germany, where he is maybe the most important 'TV scientist' on the matter.

Also those targets, are also the ones Fridays for Future is operating with - but not the actually important think tanks (in germany for example (linked in here before)), that produce the actual transition planning, they are then lobbying for politicians to implement.

Roughly meaning, public activism does do jack sh*t, other than to convince the public not to rebel, once implementation comes along. Especially, if you listen closely to what Billy boy is saying in the video above. (If the US doesnt participate goals arent going to be reached in 2050, or 2060, or...)


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 2, 2021)

notimp said:


> ...



I'm not sure who you're referring to, but if it's me then let me know.
Since I'm in the reply, I'll add this, though.

If we look at the progress of History and Technology, the inevitability is that we'll reach a point of where pressures are great enough for us to change, either external or internal; whether this push is hard-wired into our DNA is a question for the ages, but we as a gregarious species have not been to change without it.

"The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."
- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.

The simplest analogy I would have is of the Birthing Process; it's not particularly pleasant for all involved and pushes one out of the womb, but is a much-needed process to the next phase and actually the beginning of Life as we know it.

There are a lot of moving causal parts to Climate Change and their speed and impact to the World can only be speculated at best.
One very recent example of Humanity thriving under pressure is the COVID-19 vaccine and, ultimately, medication; there is no model in the World that could have predicted the response time, despite Political aspects throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it.

As such, I'm not one to lose faith in Humanity because it serves no point; those who do can feel free to dig a nice hole in the ground, lie down and wait, for all they're worth.


----------



## notimp (Jan 2, 2021)

tomasowa said:


> I'm not sure who you're referring to, but if it's me then let me know.
> Since I'm in the reply, I'll add this, though.
> 
> If we look at the progress of History and Technology, the inevitability is that we'll reach a point of where pressures are great enough for us to change, either external or internal; whether this push is hard-wired into our DNA is a question for the ages, but we as a gregarious species have not been to change without it.
> ...


You preach to them boy.

Problem is - do you then have enough reaction time to do something. No? Well business as usual is out of the question then.

Also - yes, its on an 'everybodys best guess' basis. (We dont have a second earth to do experiments.) But there is a scientific consensus. Which doesnt say - this much, by this year - but gives a range. And that range is worrying enough as is.

US always is incentiviced to act later than other parts of the world - not because of them being directly exposed to 'heat' related risks so much - but because of other structural changes that are happening as a result.

From a business perspective, the most worrisome aspect right now is 'risk mitigation'. Basically insurance companies telling them, they cant carry the risk of keeping certain countries 'stable', they are operating in.

The US is pretty well situated to 'isolate' itself from migration pressures, and have an economic partner to develop, right at their border (Exporting grain to mexico? Hey - great!  ) - other countries (more dependent on world trade) - less so.

That drives, who is invested in the issue currently, and how strongly.


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jan 2, 2021)

notimp said:


> Thats somewhat understandable, he is in that scene - its also understandable, why media features him as much, as hes now the main sponsor of the WHO (to no fault of his own), so I expect some pandering.
> 
> But climate change expert? *scratch head*
> 
> ...


I’m really surprised it’s not King Bezos who’s trying to make his own company reach zero carbon emissions.


----------



## notimp (Jan 3, 2021)

Teslas Fate said:


> I’m really surprised it’s not King Bezos who’s trying to make his own company reach zero carbon emissions.


I'm not.  Amazon is a logistic company (and cloud storage), they drive around more vehicles than any other single company in the world currently.  And tech is not there yet where it would make sense for them to offset.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/a...ring-billions-into-transport-network-cfo-says

While they will eventually profit from technological developments in that sector the amount to offset there is so large that they cant do it as a PR move.

Basically. Companies who are highly dependent on a well educated talent pool are going to be doing it, for their image - industry is mostly doing structural change, when states set carbon taxes - and need them to be 'advertised' years beforehand, so their investment structure can change (those are made for 10 years plus). And they will do it - slightly before they are forced to, because CO2 price (made up to incentivice structural change), is set to increase quite steeply (again currently we are in the 'get energy efficiency' up phases, because thats cheapest, but also whats needed first). Small and medium size companies (mom and pop shops), need 'price signals'. (And maybe even more than that, which is also part of why you try to put it into constitutions. To make it a necessary part of their businesses. (Because you cant 'grasp' (influence) them as easily with lets say industry regulation legislation. (They are too diverse.))


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2021)

ECB now has two goals. Keeping the currency stable - and  climate change:

https://www.bis.org/review/r210127d.htm

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecb-climate-lagarde-idUSKBN29U0TA

Someone should write about the god principal in central banking:


> Furthermore, several factors associated with climate change may weigh on productivity and the equilibrium interest rate, potentially reducing the space available for conventional policy. For example, labour supply and productivity may diminish as a result of heat stress, temporary incapability to work and higher rates of mortality and morbidity. Resources may be reallocated away from productive use to support adaptation, while capital accumulation may be impaired by rising destruction from natural hazards and weaker investment dynamics related to rising uncertainty. And the increase in short-term volatility and accelerated structural change could hamper central banks' ability to correctly identify the shocks that are relevant for the medium-term inflation outlook, making it more difficult to assess the appropriate monetary policy stance.
> 
> Our strategy review enables us to consider more deeply how we can continue to protect our mandate in the face of these risks and, at the same time, strengthen the resilience of monetary policy and our balance sheet to climate risks. That naturally involves evaluating the feasibility, efficiency and effectiveness of available options, and ensuring they are consistent with our mandate.



God affects everything. As everything also concerns the things we love most (securities), he also affects us. Because we are unsure what god is going to do - our uncertainty increased to the point where we are unsure, that our risk projection mechanisms work. So we've founded a new review entity, ... And set in place new stress tests with goals of what god likes most, which we will have defined shortly...

Holy smokes.

Regardless, that there is a process logic to it being decoupled from your process to the point where you admit, this could impact your future work to the point, where you have no understanding of whats coming - and therefore you must and are allowed to move your entire strategic outlook is... interesting. Turns out the "danger for humanity" principle really is apt to overrule everything.

And this (fist link) is the speech putting that into a public organizational framework.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 5, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You'll own nothing, and we'll beat you until you act happy. Welcome to Marxism.


"Everything I don't like is Marxism"


----------



## XDel (Feb 9, 2021)

I like the Green Peace narrative where they state that Capitalists are so bent on making money that they don't care if there is no Earth around tomorrow to spend it on. Funny stuff.


----------



## Seliph (Feb 9, 2021)

Alright which one of you necroposted on this awful thread


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Alright which one of you necroposted on this awful thread


It appears to have been our good old friend newtimp


----------



## Seliph (Feb 9, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> It appears to have been our good old friend newtimp


Fantastic


----------



## SG854 (Feb 9, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> It appears to have been our good old friend newtimp


He got suspended again. Dude can't stop getting suspended.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2021)

SG854 said:


> He got suspended again. Dude can't stop getting suspended.


You would think he would've learned his lesson by now


----------



## notimp (Feb 14, 2021)

So people in here dont want me to update the climate change thread with information that the ECB has now announced, that its mandate is now "price stability of the currency (EUR)" and "climate change" - because of a lesson I should have learned?

I was banned for a week for posting two videos laying out Jeff Bezos media strategy in India, stating, that he liked to associate with people who searched out the company of others because of status, namely actors with the ability to summon crowds of potential consumers, and literally put them into a frenzy.

The lesson I should have learned from that was to "accept authority", according to people who badmouthed me in the discord for complaining.


People in this thread draged me through the mud, for please read it up -

- helping people out here in detail on how climate models are created
- always speaking up against the notion that climate change was a hoax
- posting that the ECB has now conjured up a mandate to print money for climate change

and they did it, because they cant fathom to live in a world, where a thread with a topic title like this is allowed to exist. Even if I didnt create it. The mere reason, that I updated it with current developments on the issue (which by the way will not go away) - to them is a thought crime.

Something is wrong here - and its not the thread title, which by now is refuted about five times, by facts posted in here. (Its not the children, that are doing stuff, ...)


----------



## wonkeytonk (Feb 14, 2021)

Overpopulation generates all sorts of problems, not just climate change. So this must be a good thing.


----------



## Deleted member 514389 (Feb 14, 2021)

Obviously.
If half the women were against children completly, that'd help tremendously.

Just imagine:
If you have children now, what world will they even grow up in ?
Irresponsible.

Also: Adoption is a (though to realise, but still) thing.



wonkeytonk said:


> Overpopulation generates of problems, not just climate change. So this must be a good thing.


It's not enough, but if it can be used as "Posterchild" of sorts if it proves to be successful


----------



## notimp (Feb 19, 2021)

Our daily dose of climate propaganda - here in Austria. Snapshot, of the front page of diepresse.com (one fo the two 'quality' dailys in the country (the conservative one)).






src: https://www.diepresse.com/

Headline article:
Climatekiller owning your own home? "An example of communist paternalistic politics."
Says one of the Local politicians in a region - here is his fight against the 'PR-focused' winners of the energy transition.

Directly followed by:
Who needs to own their own home? A commentary.

Directly followed by:
Owning your own home, as the 'enemy image' of the green party.


Top right - "The people who have fallen through the (social) mesh of society are congregating on Servus TV" (TV station entirely financed by the owner of Red Bull.) A commentary.

Right - "Corona humor is creating community in isolation" (Image: Little Red Riding Hood is getting a ticket for having visited grandma.)


I HATE THE WORLD I'M LIVING IN.


Media manipulates through agenda setting.


(In addition, the Munich Security conference (thats ongoing as we speak) is a bunch of liars - holding motivational speeches teaching people the onethink needed for the next 50 years, they all know that they lie (I can tell) - that also doesnt help.

(edit: WHO now has an advisory group on behavioral science. Please shoot me.)

edit: Bill Gates was the only one (that I cought so far) that didnt lie outright, but sidetracked his answers. At least he doesnt treat his audience as the morons they are seen as.).

Need emotional support right about - now.


----------



## notimp (Feb 22, 2021)

Naomi Klein (now professor Naomi Klein) - is trying to simplify some stuff again.

Issue - part of her argument doesnt reflect reality.

I think this is a good time to point out that -

This:


This:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveke...hunberg-merkel-backs-decarbonization-by-2050/

and this exists at the same time:
https://neftegazru.com/news/politic...d-merkel-s-position-on-nord-stream-2-project/

For the last point I needed the quotes, and they are flipping hard to find, so I resorted to a russian news source.. 

Basically:

Germanys reliance on natural gas as an energy source will increase short term, even though energy transition is still the long term goal. Also hydrogen generation - out of natural gas with carbon capture - still is not out of the question, or out of the picture. (There are additional questions around how reliable carbon capture and storage is.)

So now you know more than the professor.  (Ok, just Naomi Klein, but still..  )


----------



## notimp (Mar 2, 2021)

Facebook launches climate project to tackle misinformation 



> After coming under fire for not doing enough to stop climate myths from spreading on its site, Facebook will now add info labels to climate change posts and direct users to a fact-checked website. But is it enough?


https://www.dw.com/en/facebook-starts-bid-to-fight-climate-misinformation/a-56713217


----------



## notimp (Apr 2, 2021)

Promised an update on Mazzucato on the outlook front - here it is:

(The interviewer is a dumbnut. She is a little 'too radical' in the ideaspace, but that thinking is getting traction.)

In terms of investment scope - she agrees with the 'not enough' notion, that many activists currently have - but its all gaining shape.

Biden Speech on the topic (3 Trillion dollar investment in infrastructure and future technologies (investment pegged to infrastructure (retrofitting), climate and digitization) in the US.):


----------



## notimp (Apr 23, 2021)

We now have our answer, on why the heck some interest groups started to finance initiatives to influence young people to dream of religious concepts again.



Demand side for sustainable investment portfolios is up in the generation that is currently (and will be in the next years) inheriting money from their parents. They are restructuring their investments and thereby filling a large part of the investment gap in Europe with private investment money.

To be absolutely clear - they do so, in a short term, going against informed investor and (institutional) long term investment trends - so getting out less return on investment than if they would not do that. (Long term different story.)

Deutsche Bank even has problems getting their portfolios ready, because the investor demand looking for yield - never went into that direction.

So there you have it. It worked. Young people in my generation inhereting wealth, are investing wrongly - for better social cohesion, short term. Maybe.

In Europe they are largely financing the retrofitting projects (thats our "infrastracture investment" out of the crisis, making the houses of the rich folks better), while the large investment fonds only sponsor green projects up to 30% - with recovery money - because they have to see to it, that society doesnt tank for a lack of job creation.

European Investment Bank is financing green initiatives to a larger extend, but also trending down (short term), as their funds also are needed to get out of the Covid crisis. That they are pushing sustainable financing is fine btw. They are the ones that should.

Issue - we are not doing this through structural investments, we have an actual financing gap of roughly 300bn (hope I remember that number correctly), where the private sector is supposed to jump in.

Investors? Mostly people inherenting boomer money being ethically driven investors (great). Mandatory laws (EU), that those packages have to be presented to clients (nudging) also helped. (*sark*)
--



In other news - US just doubled their commitments on CO2 reduction compared to what the Obama administration pledged. But thats not through senate yet, and it will have a hard time going through.

In essence, US is going heavily into carbon capture and storage, will use biofuels, will switch to gas instead of oil where possible, and sometime in the far future - move towards renewable energy production only.

On how much they are investing into R&D on green energy technologies, I have no feel yet. The person heading the US initiative in that sector seems - like a bureaucratic pick, so maybe not 'moonshot' level investments yet.. 

More info should become available once COP comes around, the current administrations blueprint is very vague.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/

But they significantly upped their commitment.

Issue - without a CO2 tax - you arent going onto a reduction pathway anytime soon. (Carbon capture and storage aside.) So - words.

edit: src: https://www.barrons.com/articles/u-...ious-climate-strategy-expert-says-51619100610

edit: Oh, and in the US the private sector investment funds on the topic are basically non existent - but "its growing". So, yeah.


----------



## notimp (Jul 15, 2021)

CBAM Fit for 55: What are the redline issues?


Analysis based on a leaked proposal.

Fit for 55 was officially announced yesterday and is the EU Industrial strategy for CO2 reduction - even though the press does its best to hide it from readers and instead focus on fluff. (Imho)


----------



## notimp (Jul 29, 2021)

Good documentary that illustrates the keystones of industrial revolution (also political social, commercial, PR) in the more recent years (especially after the second world war) in a little more than an hour. In a climate change context.

Sadly only available in french and german.

French:

German:


The Paley commission report of 1952 was new and interesting to me:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v01p2/d16
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1975/01/1975a_bpea_cooper.pdf
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Paley

Might be a good entry point into reading up about something..


----------



## notimp (Aug 14, 2021)

Interesting video (Middle East Institute - NUS (Research Institute in Singapur)):

Potential GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) strategies for transitioning.


----------



## laudern (Aug 14, 2021)

These kids need to take it one step further and withdraw their own presence off this earth. It would make the world's future soooo soooo much better.


----------



## smf (Aug 14, 2021)

laudern said:


> These kids need to take it one step further and withdraw their own presence off this earth. It would make the world's future soooo soooo much better.



The dinosaurs thought that too.

Your future might not be so great if you don't get what you think you are entitled to, but I don't think you can talk about the world's future if you are only interested in yourself.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 14, 2021)

I only just noticed that climate change is in quotes in the title of this thread.

Here's a little fact: This past July was the hottest month ever recorded since records began 142 years ago. That should worry anyone that knows how little it would take to melt enough polar ice to cause serious flooding around the world.


----------



## notimp (Aug 28, 2021)

Came across a paper that explains how the shift away from GDP as the main indicator for economic growth was implemented by the EU in 2013:

REGULATION (EU) No 99/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 January 2013 on the European statistical programme 2013-17
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:039:0012:0029:EN:PDF



> 2. Accounting frameworks
> 
> The Commission Communication of 20 August 2009 entitled ‘GDP and beyond: Measuring progress in a changing world’, and the publication of the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress have given new impetus to the key challenge for the ESS, namely how to achieve better statistics on cross-cutting issues and more integrated statistics to describe complex social, environmental and economic phenomena beyond the traditional measures of economic output. The European System of National and Regional Accounts (ESA) offers an integrated and consistent framework for all economic statistics that should be complemented by other indicators in order to provide more comprehensive information for policy- and decision-making.
> 
> ...



And here are some paragraphs concerning environmental goals:



> Objective 2 .2 .1
> 
> Provide environmental accounts and climate change-related statistics, taking into account international developments in this area.
> 
> ...





> Objective 3.3.2
> Provide environmental statistics to support the policy-making process of the Union.
> 
> The objective will be implemented by:
> ...



edit: The concept was developed by CMEPSP (Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress) who then came out with the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report, german Wikipedia has an entry that illustrates the goals. English wikipedia has not. So use google translate if necessary. Heres the link:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-Kommission


----------



## notimp (Sep 21, 2021)

notimp said:


> BTS new music video (premiered a week ago) is about saving humanity and nature in americas back yard.
> 
> 
> Are you woke yet?
> ...



The propaganda is turned up again.. 



Anyone wanna work at the UN? Just follow the BTS.. 

(This time a PBS production.  Better fit than NBC  getting access to Grand Central Station to film a music video..  (link in the quoted posting, you have to expand it) )

UN are those guys - btw:
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2019-05-28/remarks-r20-austrian-world-summit (repost)

Dont worry, It doesnt have to make sense. Its just happening. For no reason.. 


edit: Greta is now also more on general UN line - and interested in social egality - so good news, I guess..


----------



## notimp (Oct 4, 2021)

UN Pre Conference (UN youth for climate summit) to the next COP (preconference held in Milan):

Greta was holding a longer speech in front of a largely friendly audience:


I refrain from commenting. Watch without having your opinion moved one way or another, and decide, if its going well.. 

One of the points she is making that by 2030 the IPCC projects 16% higher CO2 emissions, worldwide (judging from todays levels I presume).


----------



## notimp (Oct 7, 2021)

Neat discussion on climate technologies:


Imho.


----------

