dense wrote: » Hold up a moment. This is your own gibberish being handed back to you! You're constantly moaning about global warming melting arctic ice and causing climate change and calling for the transition away from fossil fuels as if that's going to restore the melting ice and fix climate change. If transitioning away from fossil fuels won't effect a manmade restoration of that arctic summer ice and provide the means for humans to arbitrarily control the climate and prevent it from changing just come out and say so! You are now saying it's "gibberish" to suggest such a thing.
Akrasia wrote: » If we lose the summer arctic sea ice, it's not coming back any time soon and the change in albedo and the release of methane from the continental shelf and tundra permafrost could cause a further amplification.
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.
dense wrote: » So it's quite clear then that ditching fossil fuels and going for windmills isn't going to restore any of that lost Arctic ice or preserve current summer levels. It's going to do nothing for it basically. We are, apparently, on a trajectory to lose Arctic summer ice within the next few decades anyway, isn't that right? So it really does seem like gibberish to claim that ditching fossil fuels will provide man with the means of arbitrarily controlling global temperatures or even preserving summer arctic ice.
blanch152 wrote: » Take a line of cars, all rolling down a slope towards a cliff with their handbrakes off. It might be a forlorn chase to stop the first car from going over the cliff (and once gone, it is smashed) but it mightn't be too late to apply the handbrakes in most of the other cars to ensure that they don't follow it. So while one or two cars may be lost forever, the community will still have some cars.
Oneiric 3 wrote: » How on earth does this tie in with 'international socialism' that you claim the UN is overseeing? :
Oneiric 3 wrote: » Really getting tired of this US campus speak that has infested the European political narrative over the last few years.
Wanderer78 wrote: » 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'.
dense wrote: » The problem with that analogy is that it fails to address how reducing C02 in the community will empower the community with the ability to control either the local climate or local temperatures. Because that, we are told, is how climate change has manifested itself. And how it will manifest itself, because different parts of the world will experience climate change differently. Which is quite handy, if a little haphazard. A bit of everything thrown in for good measure if you like; global warming will cause it to be warmer, snowier, colder, wetter, hotter, droughts there, floods here, but, and here's the thing: none of it is going to be caused by what was traditionally known as "weather".
dense wrote: » Can you (or anyone) name the curiously unnamed global political and economic regime that the UN does want to be implemented then? It must have a name of some sort? And it ain't capitalism. So what is it? Nobody here seems to want to discuss the slow, deep, global transformation that the UN is calling for: "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. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally It's all a bit people before profit and Paul Murphy isnt it?
Akrasia wrote: » They're talking about transforming energy systems, which are a major part of the world economy.
dense wrote: » No, can't be, there's no mention of transforming "energy systems" there.https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally They talk about "the necessary transformation of the world economy". So, anyone else want to have a stab at it? Transform from capitalist to what exactly? Come on folks, can someone step up to the plate here?
Akrasia wrote: » you're just doing what you always do, you're zeroing in on words or phrases and ignoring the underlying context and meaning. They are clearly talking about transforming from a fossil fuel based economy to a carbon neutral one. And this needs to be negotiated and planned internationally via investment targets and international assistance for LDCs to meet their targets, all of which are to be negotiated via international agreements.
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
Akrasia wrote: » Have you learned the difference between controlling something, and affecting something yet?
dense wrote: » No Akrasia, you're attempting to put some eco spin onto it. Read it again, there's no mention of fossil fuel or anything to do with being carbon neutral in that press release about the ambition to transform the world's economic system.https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
So for the last time, the UNFCC and the eco activists are advocating a move towards what global economic system? Something different from what's currently in place. There must be a name for it? Some sort of campus speak? Something something based around social justice and putting people before profit by the looks of it. Here's a better example:https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
dense wrote: » So now, when it suits, its actually nature, and not man made C02 that predominately controls temperatures?
Akrasia wrote: » The Lima Draft which was referred to in the statement is entirely about becoming carbon neutralhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/dec/08/goal-to-end-fossil-fuels-by-2050-surfaces-in-lima-un-climate-documents
dense wrote: » The same one that your eco allies at Friends of the Earth describe as being a mobilisation and resistance "against the patriarchal, racist and homophobic capitalist system"?https://www.foei.org/news/the-lima-declaration
Akrasia wrote: » No, not the same one. You're showing here that you don't know what you're talking about, and rather than find out, you're just googling for anything that suits your narrative.
dense wrote: » Because its so easy! And it's there for anyone who wants to see! Look- Here's Professor Human Breath Causes Climate Change Sweeney sending notes back from COP20 enthusing about the star of the show claiming that climate change is a result of free trade and capitalism. So it clearly is capitalism these environmental activists are railing against.http://www.antaisce.org/articles/thoughts-lima-2-prof-john-sweeney-reports-cop20-un-climate-conference Here's another well known climate activist, socialist Brid Smith TD railing against capitalism talking about Climate Chaos and other NGOs "fighting the good fight to try to get us all to wake up and realise that a race for the future is going on here" and claiming that "capitalism is completely incompatible with climate justice."http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2017120700061 Seems like you're all down on capitalism and want to replace it with some sort of socialist system. Do you want to tell us what system it is you all want that will help them dispense their climate justice? -And no campus speak please.
blanch152 wrote: » I never said it would give the community the ability to control either the local climate or local temperatures. It is clear that you fail to understand the analogy and the underpinning logic. You might want to read it again and reflect further.
Atlantic Dawn wrote: » The diesel solution that the Greens brought in is 'working', it kills off 23k people a year in the UK, that's 23k people using less resources on the earth each year just for the UK alone.http://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/gd52wh/dispatches--britains-diesel-scandal-channel-4-dispatches/
dense wrote: » Hey, no hard feelings ok? People often think it's easy to write a good analogy, and of course when they try, they find it's not as easy as it looks. They're a little like jokes, some of them just fall flat. I felt that one did https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2014/10/21/good-analogies/
Akrasia wrote: » Any luck with your learning yet Dense? Have you found out the meaning of the words Control and Affect yet? What about De Facto? Have you learned the difference between Descriptive and Prescriptive speech yet? I recommend you try, it will make a big difference to your comprehension when you figure these out.
Mr Bumble wrote: » I always find you've lost the argument when you're posting stuff like this. The words quoted are well up there on the list of the most condescending posts in the history of Boards. Your passionate wish to hector everyone into believing your point of view may be you life's work but I can't read any more. You've driven me out of this thread with your unimpeachable certainty about everything. Have a nice Grand Solar Minimum.
