Gaoth Laidir wrote: » So you're willing to preach to everyone else yet there's no evidence that you're doing anything yourself. This discussion has gone way beyond science now and is taking on a political theme, so I'm out.
Wanderer78 wrote: » It's important to realise the complexity of the subject matter, in order to approach resolving our environmental issues, we currently have no other options but to turn to our political institutions in order to do so. I personally believe, if one ultimately wants to save the planet, you need to ultimately leave it, i.e. currently it is in fact impossible for humans to survive on this planet, without having negative impacts to it, I'm also not convinced our political institutions are equipped to do this yet, including pro environmental parties such as the green party, as we must first accept our most fundamental economic theories and ideologies are in fact flawed, leading me to term them, 'anti-human and anti-environmental in nature'.
dense wrote: » Remember "the agenda" you were asking about some time ago?
Akrasia wrote: » Global political cooperation, this is an emergency and immediate global action is required. We need massive global investment in infrastructure to speed up the transition to renewable energy. Strict emissions reduction strategies, stricter energy efficiency regulations on buildings, industry and food production. Global investment in helping developing countries to transition to carbon neutral economies and to utilise their solar energy resources. Trade embargo's against nations and industries that cannot produce sustainably. Carbon taxes to speed up the transition to green technology and subsidies to make the technologies affordable. The universal adoption of existing CO2 scrubbing technology to capture carbon from industrial sources so it can be sequestered. For a start
Christiana Figueres “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Christiana Figueres “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
Akrasia wrote: Climate change is a threat to human flourishing not human survival. I see it like WW2. We fought the NAZIs and Fascists for the survival of our way of life, our values and for human dignity.
Pa ElGrande wrote: I think the mods would prefer this thread kept to the technical discussion of climate systems, politics can be discussed elsewhere on the forum. I reckon this particular thread has reached it's conclusion.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » I think the mods would prefer this thread kept to the technical discussion of climate systems, politics can be discussed elsewhere on the forum. I reckon this particular thread has reached it's conclusion.
dense wrote: » So you are articulating a belief that humans are in fact "alien" to this planet, imposters, and in order to preserve it would be best advised that humans not behave as humans but as lower intelligence forms to be led as a herd by ambitious eco fascists in order to "save the planet". Let me assure you that the planet will save itself, regardless of whether humans are on it or not. So there is obviously some other ideology at play here that you're not telling us about; as in why you're using a save the planet angle to adjust fundamental human behaviour considering that the planet will take care of itself.
Wanderer78 wrote: » absolutely not, humans are very much a part of our global biosphere, a critical part in fact, and its understandable why we are indeed the most successful species on this planet, but we have in fact also been the creator of most of our own environmental issues due to these successes. but i will agree, there is indeed elements of 'group think' and 'herd mentality', leading to failures in dealing with our environmental issues, and in many cases, exasperating them. i do believe many or possibly most individuals and groups that indeed are trying to 'save the planet', are actually genuine, but have become somewhat confused by the same 'group think' and 'herd mentality'. theres no conclusive evidence to support your statement, 'the planet will save itself', and why shouldn't we try increase the longevity of our species and all existing species survival on this planet? i class your thinking as ignorance, and please dont take that personally, its not meant to be. this kind of thinking is what id simply call human arrogance and ignorance, like we have a divine right to be here, and do whatever we want, and to hell with the consequences, particularly for future generations. the ideologies im most critical of are very well written about, and continue to be so, i.e. ideologies such as neoliberialism and our most predominant macro economic theory, neoclassical theory. if you want see how disturbingly misunderstood human behavior is and 'integrated' into our economic models and systems, id recommend research into these ideologies and theories, in particular neoclassical theory, with its' rational expectations':rolleyes:.
Akrasia wrote: » Humans are problem solvers. It is our nature to identify risks and overcome them. We, as humans, have identified that we are causing our global climate to change. We have identified that this change will reduce our ability to survive and flourish here, so we as humans should act together to solve this problem. Just like how we solved smallpox, developed antibiotics, prevented the loss of our ozone layer, reduced smog and acid rain... We have the resources to fix the problem, or at least reduce the impact to a manageable level. We just need to make a choice to act to phase out fossil fuels sooner rather than later
Pa ElGrande wrote: » The political intentions behind the global warming movement are clear and their dogmatic version of climate science is ancillary to their agenda. So there is no doubt she restated it
dense wrote: » She did, and others too. They're unhappy with capitalism but can't bring themselves to naming the system they do want.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » Quite a few disparate groups with failed ideologies who have coalesced around CAGW all with ulterior motives. On the dark green end of the spectrum you have the neo-maltusians, neo-eugenicists and others who see humans as parasites on earth and want the human population reduced of course they see themselves are enlightened and not subject to their own ideology. The middle of the spectrum who rally under the moniker "climate justice" who see international socialism under the auspices of the UN and income redistribution with power in their hands as members of the enlightened tribe, to the light green end of the spectrum that just wants a nice clean safe environment without doing anything but virtue signalling as observed by the late George Carlin " [..] environmentalists don’t give a **** about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.". If you really believe CAGW is a problem, then you have to sort yourself out and act in your own personal capacity to measure and reduce your personal carbon footprint, and you must relate your personal experience to show the way for others and tell us how you reduced or improved your standard of living as a result. When you tell us the solution is the state must reduce our freedom and well being using coercion to solve this problem you must realise you are asking for both your own and our enslavement and imprisonment. If you have the solution then go raise the capital and use the principle of voluntary exchange of private property rights to solve the problem, you won't because that carries much higher personal risk and the probability of failure is high. Some questions for the CAGW believers:1. How much energy did you use yesterday?2. Do you measure your daily consumption?3. Based on your consumption patterns have you find ways to eliminate waste or not consume energy?4. What will you do today to reduce your energy consumption?5. Are you financially better off as a result of your efforts?6. Does your family support your efforts?7. Did you have to compromise your standard of living to achieve those energy savings?8. Are you eating more that you should? Are you throwing away food?9. Did you drink coffee from a Styrofoam cup in the last week? How did you dispose of said cup? These questions can go on since every activity you carry out in a modern world requires the expenditure of energy, and if you are not measuring your consumption and charting the savings from your efforts then really I must conclude you don't believe the science and you are just virtue signalling.
Akrasia wrote: » If all environmentalists choose to never use oil or gas, it just makes the price lower for the people who don't care to waste more energy. Well thought out and properly implemented regulations work, personal crusades don't.
Akrasia wrote: » The unasked question at the end is 'why haven't you killed yourself yet?' Individual action won't make a difference. 1 person can boycott coffee cups forever and do less good than a lobby group that push for tougher environmental regulations. If all environmentalists choose to never use oil or gas, it just makes the price lower for the people who don't care to waste more energy. Well thought out and properly implemented regulations work, personal crusades don't.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » Put your own life in order before you go crusading to change the world.
dense wrote: » If all environmentalists stopped using oil or gas the world would be a better place for everyone else. If all environmentalists stopped constanty buying and walking around with bottles of water and cups of coffee the world would be a better place for everyone else. If all environmental would stop preaching to others about what they want them to do, the world be a better place. If all environmentalists lived by example the world would be a better place. People are fed up to the back teeth listening to plastic environmentalists whinging about how bad everyone else is. If people want to make a difference, sure, go and be brave and make it. Then they can come back and tell us how good life is for them and their families using just solar power and wind, going vegan to reduce methane, changing the car to electric to cut their emissions, contributing any spare cash they might have to Trocaire in order to rectify climate injustice, teaching their own kids the value of not having children because it's simply not sustainable and dispensing with foreign holidays and modern technology so as to reduce their carbon footprint. Sounds a gas. Who's up for it? Or is it all just aspirational stuff, full blown virtue signalling without taking the first step? Surely the crowd that advocates dancing against climate change can be leaders here, using their vast network of environmentalists to effect real change here in this country. No, they're just well heeled attention seeking hobbyists, trying to show much they care about how much they care.
Akrasia wrote: » I'm on here challenging the false information put forward by climate change deniers, or people who think it's not a major problem, even when they acknowledge that summer ice in the arctic will be gone within their own lifetime.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » With an average temperate of about 1ºC and a temperate range of -10º to 10ºC during the short Summer months the Arctic will never be ice free in either your or my lifetimes.
Be the change that you wish to see in the world and apply the knowledge you have learned from the science to your own life, go measure and quantify your own personal contribution to global warming and apply that knowledge and don't mind the naysayers. It is only your actions that will persuade others in your community to change their behaviour since you will not find any new converts to your crusade here. If you wish for state violence to impose the prophecy handed you by others then realise those same standards will be applied to you and your family and will not have the freedom to disagree. Do you think that all the people who earnestly thought socialism was the way forward in the 20th century expected that they would be sent to Gulags for having the wrong opinions? These were not evil people they were well meaning. What do you think the people in the dark green end of the environmental spectrum are going to do if they ever get power? I'll tell you; they will implement their own apocalyptic vision of the world and you will do their bidding you won't have a choice.
Akrasia wrote: » [..] WTF are you on about violence? Prophesy? This is a technological economic and political problem that will have technological, economic and political solutions
dense wrote: » So let's talk numbers. 410ppm. Let's say 5% of that C02 is "man made".
That's 20.5ppm. So let's just say we COMPLETELY stop emitting C02, which we are told, is what we should do. When would we get down to 389.5ppm? To the "optimum" 280ppm? What year? What year will the climate return to it's "natural equilibrium" after us having stopped emitting C02?
Pa ElGrande wrote: » All the prophesies of an ice free Arctic by climate scientists have been wrong, none has yielded a credible explanation as to why they have been so wrong and with that track record of failure they are no longer credible.
Human behaviour does not change in order to implement the wish list that others have handed you it necessarily requires that your and my freedoms are reduced. The negative consequences of such a political system that would implement these changes on human welfare are well known but ignored by people like you who do not think beyond the solution proposed. The state does not have wealth on its own, it must tax the labour of it's citizens and guest workers and when it attempts to plan peoples lives it as the solutions you have endorsed do it becomes a dictatorship. With no freedom to exchange property rights or thought this creates chaos and the complex chains of market interactions that ensure your present day survival fail.
dense wrote: » And I'm on here challenging anyone to just explain exactly how and when "transitioning off fossil fuels" will effect a manmade restoration of that arctic summer ice and the means for humans to arbitrarily control the climate and prevent it from changing.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » The middle of the spectrum who rally under the moniker "climate justice" who see international socialism under the auspices of the UN and income redistribution with power in their hands as members of the enlightened tribe.
Akrasia wrote: » I try to see other people's points when they post, even if the posts aren't clearly written, but you're just talking gibberish now.
