Jump to content

What shouldn't be done...about climate change


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Do you understan how protesting works?. If you disrupt  public transport, you generate a lot of pressure. Its by no means insignificant and it can cause some serious problems to the goverment.  

Disrupting public transport on a citywide scale where the city is sufficiently large would generate some pressure, yes. Messing with a single train in a city with more than 10 lines plus commuter rail and buses... not so much.

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

You second "point", makes no fucking sense. 

If you want it rephrased, these people are not doing anything that has any impact on the people in power. At best (like in New York), they're entertaining and at worst (like in London), they make the day of some random set of people who have no power to change anything somewhat worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

Disrupting public transport on a citywide scale where the city is sufficiently large would generate some pressure, yes.

Hmm, @Rippounet I’m pretty that would be quickly called terrorism yes?

Actually, you’re complaint here seems to be a step away from your initial complaint. It seems more an issue with tactics than overarching strategy of EXs.  That they’re not sever enough in pursuing their strategy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hmm, @Rippounet I’m pretty that would be quickly called terrorism yes?

Yes.

And it's even possible to wonder whether some measures taken officially against "terrorism" (with very broad definitions in the texts) could not easily be applied to pretty much any form of radical environmentalism.

Which is why a group like XR that emphatically wants to be non-violent and law-abiding will find its actions severely limited - to the point where it will sometimes resort to stupid forms of action.

Of course at this point, any violent or illegal action could be unproductive since it could turn public opinion against it, not to mention the fact that it could give law enforcement a solid reason to crack down on the organization itself.

But in the face of global inaction, how long will that be the case? I cannot bring myself to condone violence, but the threat of violence against certain corporate interests could go a long way toward corporations actually changing some of their worst practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile the fucking German Agriculture lobby DBV asked thousands of farmers to block numerous roads today in protest of a half-assed law suggesting that they might consider obeying European standards in regards to liquid manure and use of pesticides and herbicides... sometimes in the future. Fuck this world and the power of big companies over the fears of small farmers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started reading about the latest IPCC report...

It's bad... It seems we're now heading for +7°C by 2100.

And historically speaking the IPCC reports have been rather prudent, and more often than not the worst-case scenarios are the ones coming true, with even a few (melting of the ice poles, rising sea levels) being worse than all the predictions.

For instance, some cautious predictions originally talked of +2,5m... We're now considering scenarios of +60m to +70m!

And I keep wondering... When does "terrorism" against the corporate interests responsible for this become the sensible course of action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I started reading about the latest IPCC report...

It's bad... It seems we're now heading for +7°C by 2100.

And historically speaking the IPCC reports have been rather prudent, and more often than not the worst-case scenarios are the ones coming true, with even a few (melting of the ice poles, rising sea levels) being worse than all the predictions.

For instance, some cautious predictions originally talked of +2,5m... We're now considering scenarios of +60m to +70m!

And I keep wondering... When does "terrorism" against the corporate interests responsible for this become the sensible course of action?

If I may..

Which report are you referring to? The AR5 or similar do not hold 7 degrees as a realistic endpoint in a 100 years. I don't even think it's within the error bars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rorshach said:

Which report are you referring to? The AR5 or similar do not hold 7 degrees as a realistic endpoint in a 100 years.

They do now.

These are major headlines on Le Monde's website today. Le Monde is France's major newspaper, comparable to Britain's Guardian or Germany's Spiegel.

You have two articles. And holy cow but they were not behind a paywall a couple of hours ago...

The first one explains that the most pessimistic predictions have come true because scientists have -all in all- underestimated how much CO2 is produced anually (the article mostly blames China for that underestimation).
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2019/10/23/rechauffement-climatique-comment-la-realite-a-pris-la-science-de-vitesse_6016624_4355770.html
It's a pity there's a paywall now because there were graphs that everyone could easily read...

The second one explains that +7°C is the new worst-case scenario according to French climatologists (about a hundred researchers), and whose new model will be the basis of the next IPCC report (apologies for my mistake here).

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/09/17/jusqu-a-7-c-en-2100-les-experts-francais-du-climat-aggravent-leurs-projections-sur-le-rechauffement_5511336_3244.html

Edit: though as I reread the beginning of the article... +6,5°C to 7°C by 2100 is the prediction according to their new model, but it's only +1°C above the previous predictions so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2019 at 8:24 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Everything you’ve just said is wrong.

Prove it - scientifically - with facts and figures and not just fundamentalist humanist bullshit.

I guarantee, whatever you argue, I can find the math to back up how incorrect you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2019 at 7:05 PM, polishgenius said:

Are you doing a bit? Most of those things you listed are either not as dangerous as climate change, or just complete bullshit (there's a long way to go before war between the US and China is inevitable. And what the fuck is dangerous axial tilt?). But even if every single one of them was a clear and present danger that still wouldn't mean we should be blase about billions of people dying. 

The collapse of the global economy will likely occur within 2 years.

Axial tilt is the wobble from the Earth's normal rotation about it's axis, it changes, due to gravitational and solar pressure - look it up https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php it likely has more effect on climate than anything Western humans currently do.

Billions of people dying is now inevitable, get used to it and organise your own way forward.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2019 at 5:56 PM, Liffguard said:

This is not even remotely true.

It is entirely true. Human's, by nature of their very existence, oppose the natural environment on this planet. Does not matter if you are a simple hunter gatherer of advanced Western consumer - you take from nature to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2019 at 11:12 AM, Pecan said:

I do agree that human population levels are sort of the elephant in the room. You can't expect to have a population of 10+ billion that consume at the level of Americans, Canadians, Western Europeans, etc., and also expect to have a livable planet. We can talk about clean energy and sustainability all we want, but I'm skeptical that anything we can do (green new deal or whatever) will make any real difference in what will happen in the next 50-100 years. If humans do somehow muddle through the next few centuries, I suspect we'll come out the other end with a much smaller population.

It's not only population but ageing demographics - we are heading fir a once in a 1000 year conundrum. Economic and civilization collapse.

Look, I don't mind the climate fundamentalists - their hearts are basically in the right place - but they don't seem to recognize the relationship between our species population levels and the environment. They want to cry about saving the future with ridiculous dreams that do not take reality into account. I see little difference between them now and the apocalyptic fundamentalists at the time Christianity was rising in Rome.

Here is the reality - Western nationalism is gathering to oppose corporate globalism at a time both the economy and planet is fucked. There is no easy way out. Communist classism (identity politics) will lead to most of us being sacrificed for the elites to survive.  Nationalism will lead to global war. Pick your poison. The future is about to get messy and those running around promoting the Paris Accord have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ummester said:

It is entirely true. Human's, by nature of their very existence, oppose the natural environment on this planet. Does not matter if you are a simple hunter gatherer of advanced Western consumer - you take from nature to survive.

"Nature" isn't a thing in and of itself. It's a word we use to describe a lot of different phenomenon. What does it mean to say a human "takes" from nature? Is this taking different from when a leaf extracts energy from sunlight, or when a sloth eats a leaf?

I fully concede that many aspects of human behaviour, both present and past, are harmful to other organisms, often on a very large scale. But organisms causing harm to other organisms is itself natural. Organisms have caused harm to other organisms in the past on a scale that dwarfs what humans are currently doing. Organisms alter the environement in which they and others live all the time.

My point is not to defend human activity that causes harm by leading to climate change (among other things). I'm just pointing out we're a part of nature, not above it, not separate from it, not an aberration. Our existene does not "oppose the natural environment" by its fundamental nature. Actions cause harm, not the mere fact of existence. And if our actions cause harm, we can choose different actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

"Nature" isn't a thing in and of itself. It's a word we use to describe a lot of different phenomenon. What does it mean to say a human "takes" from nature? Is this taking different from when a leaf extracts energy from sunlight, or when a sloth eats a leaf?

I fully concede that many aspects of human behaviour, both present and past, are harmful to other organisms, often on a very large scale. But organisms causing harm to other organisms is itself natural. Organisms have caused harm to other organisms in the past on a scale that dwarfs what humans are currently doing. Organisms alter the environement in which they and others live all the time.

My point is not to defend human activity that causes harm by leading to climate change (among other things). I'm just pointing out we're a part of nature, not above it, not separate from it, not an aberration. Our existene does not "oppose the natural environment" by its fundamental nature. Actions cause harm, not the mere fact of existence. And if our actions cause harm, we can choose different actions.

In essence I agree - but would this not suggest there is a balance between the human species and 'nature' and. if there is, would that not suggest that 'nature' has taken the expansion of our species into some for, of account, if not a simplistic action/reaction scenario ? 

Let me spin you a tale - when I traveled Africa, I witnessed our truck stopping near a baby Impala. The mother ran off and an Hyena took the baby. Everyone on the truck then started arguing about how human effect nature. I called BS and said humans are part of nature - perhaps we we here just so that a Hyena pup could survive and nature knew that all along.

Point - to truly understand nature we must detract our own humanity from it. Nature does not care for us as a species, we are but slightly broken gears in a massive cog. Accept that the end of our species may be upon is and move forward from there. Do it without malice and humanism and 'its not fair' ism. It is what is it is. We are tiny cogs in a massive machine which is as beyond our control as it is our comprehension. I know the ethos of the modern age is to think we can understand and control - but that is all total BS - we cannot, it is all random.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ummester said:

 

Axial tilt is the wobble from the Earth's normal rotation about it's axis, it changes, due to gravitational and solar pressure - look it up https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php it likely has more effect on climate than anything Western humans currently do.


I know what axial tilt is, I just want to know where you got the idea that it's dangerous or currently affecting the climate more than anything humans are doing.

 

3 hours ago, ummester said:

The collapse of the global economy will likely occur within 2 years. 

That is a very confident statement, so I'm sure you have lots and lots of very credible evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are people under the impression that the Milankovitch cycles or solar cycles aren't the first thing climatologists looked at when trying to figure out what was causing warming? They are the ones that discovered the effects these things can have on the climate after all. The Milankovitch cycles operate on a minimum scale of 10's of thousand of years. They are not the cause of the warming of the last century.

Especially because for at least axial tilt, we're in about the middle of the cycle, and decreasing tilt. And a decreasing axial tilt causes cooling, not warming.

Also what unmester described is axial precession not axial tilt. Axial tilt is the angle between an objects rotational and orbital axes. Not the wobble. I don't know what effect the precession has on climate off hand, but it's on like a ~20000 year cycle. So it can't be having a large one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Why are people under the impression that the Milankovitch cycles or solar cycles, aren't the first thing climatologists looked at when trying to figure out what was causing warming? They are the ones that discovered the effects these things can have on the climate after all. The Milankovitch cycles operate on a minimum scale of 10's of thousand of years. They are not the cause of the warming of the last century.

Especially because for at least axial tilt, we're in about the middle of the cycle, and decreasing tilt. And a decreasing axial tilt causes cooling, not warming.

Also what unmester described is axial precession not axial tilt. Axial tilt is the angle between an objects rotational and orbital axes. Not the wobble. I don't know what effect the precession has on climate off hand, but it's on like a ~20000 year cycle. So it can't be having a large one.

TM, you are using facts to argue against religion. I applaud the effort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

That is a very confident statement, so I'm sure you have lots and lots of very credible evidence.

To be fair, there are a lot of serious analyses predicting a major economic crisis in the next couple of years or thereabouts. But there's a huge difference between another economic crisis, as bad as it may be, and a "collapse" of the global economy.

And even a worse-case scenario on the economic front is still somewhat less worrying than making the planet almost uninhabitable by the end of the century... I'm not even certain that a collapse of the global economy would be a bad thing for the environment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

To be fair, there are a lot of serious analyses predicting a major economic crisis in the next couple of years or thereabouts. But there's a huge difference between another economic crisis, as bad as it may be, and a "collapse" of the global economy. 

And even a worse-case scenario on the economic front is still somewhat less worrying than making the planet almost uninhabitable by the end of the century... I'm not even certain that a collapse of the global economy would be a bad thing for the environment...

 


Yeah, exactly. A recession or what have you is bad news but the idea that something on a scale that would make climate change seem a minor thing is predictable and will happen in two years is ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...