Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

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.

Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

3:16

Well-Known Member

President-Elect

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

President-Elect

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum