Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

[smf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

I know how weather and climate works

You really don't.

 

[notimp]

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]

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]

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]

 

[notimp]

@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]

@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]

@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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)