Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by morvoran, Sep 20, 2019.

  1. morvoran
    OP

    morvoran Trump supporter

    Member
    7
    Dec 19, 2010
    United States
    Drinking leftist tears...Yummy!
    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.
     
  2. morvoran
    OP

    morvoran Trump supporter

    Member
    7
    Dec 19, 2010
    United States
    Drinking leftist tears...Yummy!
    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?

    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.
     
    Last edited by morvoran, Sep 23, 2019
  3. Flofflewoffle

    Flofflewoffle Advanced Member

    Newcomer
    2
    Sep 15, 2019
    Denmark
    Super Wonderful Puppyland
    Of course you don't want any children if the world is going to die anyway, I mean that makes perfect sense.
     
  4. SyphenFreht

    SyphenFreht Member

    Newcomer
    3
    Oct 19, 2016
    United States
    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.
     
  5. kumikochan

    kumikochan GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    11
    Feb 4, 2015
    Belgium
    Tongeren
    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.
     
    Last edited by kumikochan, Sep 23, 2019
  6. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Sep 23, 2019
    DarthDub likes this.
  7. FoxMcloud5655

    FoxMcloud5655 GBATemp Developer

    Member
    5
    Nov 16, 2015
    United States
    Cornaria
    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.
     
  8. burial

    burial GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    5
    Aug 15, 2018
    United States
    Good.....theres too many goddamned people already.

    Oh and at least they believe in reality.
     
  9. morvoran
    OP

    morvoran Trump supporter

    Member
    7
    Dec 19, 2010
    United States
    Drinking leftist tears...Yummy!
    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).
     
  10. SyphenFreht

    SyphenFreht Member

    Newcomer
    3
    Oct 19, 2016
    United States
    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.
     
  11. morvoran
    OP

    morvoran Trump supporter

    Member
    7
    Dec 19, 2010
    United States
    Drinking leftist tears...Yummy!
    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.
     
    DarthDub likes this.
  12. billapong

    billapong GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    2
    Sep 21, 2019
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited by billapong, Sep 24, 2019
    morvoran likes this.
  13. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    9
    Feb 23, 2009
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
    Last edited by smf, Sep 24, 2019
    Xzi likes this.
  14. mezz0

    mezz0 Member

    Newcomer
    3
    Mar 10, 2009
    Belgium
    ::1
    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.
     
    morvoran and PanTheFaun like this.
  15. billapong

    billapong GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    2
    Sep 21, 2019
    United States
    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.
     
  16. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    It's is a perfectly fine decision to not have children, and it's not necessarily a mistake.
     
  17. billapong

    billapong GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    2
    Sep 21, 2019
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited by billapong, Sep 24, 2019
    PanTheFaun likes this.
  18. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    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.
     
    Xzi and KingVamp like this.
  19. MacRoith

    MacRoith Newbie

    Newcomer
    1
    Sep 24, 2019
    United States
    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.
     
  20. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States
    nvm. nuffs been said.
     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Sep 24, 2019
Quick Reply
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...