Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

1…1213151718…43

Comments

  • #422
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    The equivalent of 18 nuclear power stations will be needed for the EU alone:

    https://www.magnuscmd.com/electric-vehicles-and-the-energy-sector/


    Cribbing about vacuum cleaners using too much electricity whilst advocating electric cars seems ironic, to me at least.
    It's not ironic to anyone else given that an electric car is 3 times more energy efficient than an equivillent internal combustion engine.

    And lower wattage vacuum cleaners can be much more efficient than high wattage cleaners and produce exactly the same performance

    I think we'll have to add in 'Irony' to long the list of things you don't understand

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #423
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    2011 wrote: »
    I don’t suppose you would be able to share your calculations??
    I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used.

    Dense's 'calculations' are that the annual energy demand of Belgium doesn't count as 'significant' because the EU uses a lot of energy.

    Dense is a very stable genius.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #424
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    2011 wrote: »
    I don’t suppose you would be able to share your calculations??
    I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used.


    A potential saving of up to 20twh per year of the total electricity generated was suggested, and the total electrycity generated is 3.10m gwh per year:


    https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-products/vacuum-cleaners


    Europe as a whole can save up to 20 TWh of electricity per year by 2020.




    https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_production,_consumption_and_market_overview



    Converting 20twh to gwh gives approximately 20,000gwh according to my calculations, which is just 0.6% of the 3.10m gwh of electricity generated per year.


    https://www.convertunits.com/from/TWh/to/GWh





    A 0.6% saving cannot be described as a significant saving by any metric.



    I would welcome any correction in these calculations, I posted them before in a different thread and no one including Akrasia disputed them.


  • #425
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Not so long ago (in climactic terms) the scientists were saying they could see no end to the global cooling that was being caused by the ever increasing C02 concentrations as recorded at the time by the Moana Lua observatory.


    And that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere was going to push us headlong into a new ice age.


    The current wheeze is that the scientists say that more C02 might make it get a bit warmer.



    Or burn the earth to a cinder or something.



    https://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/18/archives/us-and-soviet-press-studies-of-a-colder-arctic-us-and-soviet-press.html




    https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html


    http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

    What are you going on about?
    Nowhere, ever did any kind of consensus exist amongst scientists to say that extra CO2 in the atmosphere was cooling our planet.

    We've known for a century that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere.

    There was the phenomenon of Global Dimming, where the surge in particulate emissions from human industrial activity was causing a cooling effect, but since the 70s, the greenhouse effect has more than offset the global dimming effect and we have reduced particulate emissions in recent decades which has led to 'global brightening'

    Global warming was masked in the early 20th century by the smog humans pumped into the air. Since we have largely cleaned up our act, the particulate emissions havehas reduced, and some portion of the warming in recent decades was actually related to emissions from the first half of the century that were masked by our pollution.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7346-clearing-smog-has-led-to-global-brightening/

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #426
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Akrasia wrote: »
    What are you going on about?
    Nowhere, ever did any kind of consensus exist amongst scientists to say that extra CO2 in the atmosphere was cooling our planet.

    It's ironic that climate change deniers shout very loudly about "scientific dogma" and a concerted effort to push climate change as an idea.
    Well, duh! It's called scientific consensus.
    In fact the climate change deniers are the ones who are either paid shills or professional cranks and it is they who are trying very hard and loud to push an opposing viewpoint based on propaganda and pseudo science.

    Usually if someone disagrees with a scientific paper, they would set out to disprove that paper by conducting their own tests and experiments.
    They would then publish their results and if the results disprove the previous paper, it will be withdrawn or amended.
    However, climte change deniers don't operate that way. They are trying to influence scientific fact through public opinion by shouting and pseudo science.
    The problem is, you cannot influence facts by popular demand. But sadly we are living in the post-fact world, where lunatics have taken over the asylum.

    There is a deeply flawed and idiotic idea that everyone's opinion is valid and must be respected.
    I am sorry, but if you believe that aliens are controlling the illuminati through mind control rays, you can get free energy out of thin air, vaccines are dangerous, the Earth is flat and, of course, climate change does not exist or has nothing to do with humans, your opinion is not valid, we must not respect it and we are rightly pointing and laughing.

    There is a certain malevolent, wilfull and militant stupidity out there that I find deeply worrying, the alt right, Alex Jones, trump voters, right wingers, climate deniers, anti vaxxers, the list goes on.
    In the 90's conspiracy theories were something fun, not to be taken seriously, but in recent times these ideas have been taken over by some vey peculiar people, who are extremely militant about their ideas.
    I have no words for it, but it's like a lot of people have collectively lost their minds.
    What can I say:

    hqdefault.jpg


    https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-deniers/


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    2011
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,663 Mod ✭✭✭✭2011


    dense wrote: »
    I would welcome any correction in these calculations, I posted them before in a different thread and no one including Akrasia disputed them.

    Please link to the post that contains these calculations in this other thread.


  • #428
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Climate change has become one of the causes that the liberal left have attached themselves to. Like most issues these people become attached to it has become a sort of cult. Anyone who even questions the consensus is labelled a 'denier' There are climate scientists in top US colleges who complain that funding is only given to scientists who accept human caused climate change and some are even afraid to voice their opinion for fear of the backlash.

    I would agree with you that people often accept the climate change narrative without question, without fully understanding it (it is incredibly complex after all) and can be very sanctimonious towards anyone who questions it.

    Even still, that doesnt mean that climate change isnt happening and that there is cogent evidence that a significant contributor is human activity.


  • #429
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    2011 wrote: »
    Please link to the post that contains these calculations in this other thread.


    Why?


  • #430
    2011
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,663 Mod ✭✭✭✭2011


    dense wrote: »
    Why?


    I gave you the reason when I asked to see this calculation, I said:
    "I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used."

    This was in response to your statement that you "did the calculations and found that vacuum cleaners, not surprisingly are not using significant amounts of energy in the EU."

    Why are you reluctant to share this "unchallenged" calculation?


  • #431
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I would agree with you that people often accept the climate change narrative without question, without fully understanding it (it is incredibly complex after all) and can be very sanctimonious towards anyone who questions it.

    I agree and quote the IPCC's own advice to those who believe every scientific climate claim without question:

    Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes. In particular, there is a need for additional systematic observations, modelling and process studies.

    The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Even still, that doesnt mean that climate change isnt happening and that there is cogent evidence that a significant contributor is human activity.

    If it is happening, shouldn't those who say it's happening be able to demonstrate what weather events have occurred where human activities rather than nature, have been proven to be the significant causal factor?


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    2011 wrote: »
    I gave you the reason when I asked to see this calculation, I said:
    "I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used."

    This was in response to your statement that you "did the calculations and found that vacuum cleaners, not surprisingly are not using significant amounts of energy in the EU."

    Why are you reluctant to share this "unchallenged" calculation?


    You asked if I'd share my calculations with you.

    2011 wrote: »
    I don’t suppose you would be able to share your calculations??
    I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used.

    I just have:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107907839&postcount=434


    Are you disputing them or accepting them?


  • #433
    2011
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,663 Mod ✭✭✭✭2011


    dense wrote: »
    Are you disputing them or accepting them?



    I do not see a calculation (by you) of how much energy is used in the EU by vacuum cleaners in the post that you linked to.

    EDIT: I reread the posts and see that your point is that although vacuum cleaners consume around the same energy as Belgium this is a small percentage of the energy consumed throughout the EU as a whole. Is that correct?


  • #434
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    If it is happening, shouldn't those who say it's happening be able to demonstrate what weather events have occurred where human activities rather than nature, have been proven to be the significant causal factor?

    There are already deadly weather events happening which scientists say were not possible without climate change
    This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to find that some extreme events were not possible in a preindustrial climate.

    The events were the 2016 record global heat, the heat across Asia, as well as a marine heat wave off the coast of Alaska
    https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/
    thousands died in that Asian heatwave BTW

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #435
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    2011 wrote: »
    I do not see a calculation (by you) of how much energy is used in the EU by vacuum cleaners in the post that you linked to.


    Oddly enough I did not see a calculation from the EU about how much energy vacuum cleaners use in either, but it doesn't prevent one from working out the potential savings from the total electricity generated in the EU and putting it into some context.

    With more efficient vacuum cleaners, Europe as a whole can save up to 20 TWh of electricity per year by 2020.


    https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-products/vacuum-cleaners







    A 20twh saving out of 3.10million gwh produced.



    A potential 0.6% saving.

    BTW, I didn't mention Belgium?


  • #436
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The EU has targeted a 20% reduction in energy use (compared with projected energy use) by 2020 and are committed to a 32.5% reduction by 2030

    Vacuum cleaners are just one part of this strategy, they're mandating energy efficiency in all areas, from construction, to transport, to home appliances

    The incandescent lightbulb ban has saved 40tw of energy every year since 2000, and the upcoming ban on Halogen bulbs (from next week) will save an additional 53tw of energy, bringing the savings from lighting alone up to the equivalent of all the power Portugal uses every year

    Of course, Dense will claim that this too is 'insignificant' because it's only a few percent of the EU's energy requirements, but when all the measures are taken together, they add up to significant savings.

    These measures are energy savings for no real cost in terms of quality of life. Superior alternatives exist to old inefficient technology and they are absolute no brainer measures to everyone except people who have no brain.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #437
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    There are already deadly weather events happening which scientists say were not possible without climate change

    thousands died in that Asian heatwave BTW


    Climate attribution scientists finally affirming climate attribution scientists?


    There is no way they can decide whether one weather event was man made and not natural or natural and not man made, when all they are basing their observations on is the "preindustrial period" of, get this, 1881–1920, a period which is way after the 1720-1800 reference period recommended elsewhere:

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1

    You really need a bit of balance:

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0030.1


  • #438
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The EU has targeted a 20% reduction in energy use (compared with projected energy use) by 2020 and are committed to a 32.5% reduction by 2030

    Vacuum cleaners are just one part of this strategy, they're mandating energy efficiency in all areas, from construction, to transport, to home appliances

    The incandescent lightbulb ban has saved 40tw of energy every year since 2000, and the upcoming ban on Halogen bulbs (from next week) will save an additional 53tw of energy, bringing the savings from lighting alone up to the equivalent of all the power Portugal uses every year

    Of course, Dense will claim that this too is 'insignificant' because it's only a few percent of the EU's energy requirements, but when all the measures are taken together, they add up to significant savings.

    These measures are energy savings for no real cost in terms of quality of life. Superior alternatives exist to old inefficient technology and they are absolute no brainer measures to everyone except people who have no brain.


    Well let's take a look at your figures then.


    20twh saving from vacuum cleaners and another 40twh from bulbs and another 53twh from other bulbs.


    That's a total of 113twh a year all things going extremely well.


    That's a total potential saving of around 9% of the electricity generated.



    And less than 50% of the 2020 20% savings target....so some way to go still.



    Any word on the EU kettle directive laying down the law about when you can boil a kettle?



    It's amazing, the consumer's reward for using less and greener electricity here is electricity prices continually rising.


  • #439
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    What can I say:



    Your tag line, it relates something about the affection you hold for your old diesel truck????


    :P


  • #440
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Climate attribution scientists finally affirming climate attribution scientists?


    There is no way they can decide whether one weather event was man made and not natural or natural and not man made, when all they are basing their observations on is the "preindustrial period" of, get this, 1881–1920, a period which is way after the 1720-1800 reference period recommended elsewhere:

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1

    You really need a bit of balance:

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0030.1
    So you asked for evidence of scientists attributing weather events to climate change, and when you are given some, you say 'Climate attribution scientists finally affirming climate attribution scientists?'

    Yet more evidence that you have absolutely no interest in evidence unless you think you can twist it to fit your crazy world view.

    The AMETSOC looked at 30 separate weather related events from 2015/2016 and found 21 that were affected by human factors with 9 events that have no connection with AGW or an uncertain connection

    https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/summary-of-results-anthropogenic-influence-on-event/

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #441
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    dense wrote: »
    Your tag line, it relates something about the affection you hold for your old diesel truck????


    :P

    Yep, and I no longer own it.
    New one is still diesel, but with DPF.
    That Tesla will have to wait a bit.


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Yep, and I no longer own it.
    New one is still diesel, but with DPF.
    That Tesla will have to wait a bit.


    All joking aside, do you really think a DPF is going to undo the environmental damage you've already done, not to mention the fact that scientists now say long term emissions exposure may have damaged the general public's intelligence?


    How can you sleep at night????
    Air pollution causes ‘huge’ reduction in intelligence, study reveals

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/air-pollution-causes-huge-reduction-in-intelligence-study-reveals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard



  • #443
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    All joking aside, do you really think a DPF is going to undo the environmental damage you've already done, not to mention the fact that scientists now say long term emissions exposure may have damaged the general public's intelligence?


    How can you sleep at night????

    Long term emissions damaging intelligence related to the lead that your beloved oil industry added to petrol for 3 quarters of a century.

    That same oil industry who knew about the risks but fought any attempts to remove the lead from their fuel through organised misinformation campaigns and are funding the same kinds of misinformation relating to climate change today.

    https://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-history/

    Breathing in polluted air reduces intelligence in the short term because CO2 is toxic to humans at the levels we have currently increased the atmosphere, and on days where air quality is especially low, the co2 levels are much higher than the background levels in the atmosphere

    https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #444
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Long term emissions damaging intelligence related to the lead that your beloved oil industry added to petrol for 3 quarters of a century.

    That same oil industry who knew about the risks but fought any attempts to remove the lead from their fuel through organised misinformation campaigns and are funding the same kinds of misinformation relating to climate change today.

    https://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-history/

    Breathing in polluted air reduces intelligence in the short term because CO2 is toxic to humans at the levels we have currently increased the atmosphere, and on days where air quality is especially low, the co2 levels are much higher than the background levels in the atmosphere

    https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/


    Tell us again how you've persuaded yourself that your own carbon footprint is something you don't care about (and presumably neither do any of the rest of the climate-alarmed club) and how it is that your own careless usage of oil industry products permits you to preach to others who use the very same oil products and care just as little as you do about their carbon footprint?

    Theres a terrible smell of holier than thou from your emissions Akrasi.
    Hypocrite:


    1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
    2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


  • #445
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Long term emissions damaging intelligence related to the lead that your beloved oil industry added to petrol for 3 quarters of a century.

    That same oil industry who knew about the risks but fought any attempts to remove the lead from their fuel through organised misinformation campaigns and are funding the same kinds of misinformation relating to climate change today.

    https://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-history/


    The same poor oil industry that's at the mercy of the global climate change conspiracy? Poor lads cant catch a break


  • #446
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Tell us again how you've persuaded yourself that your own carbon footprint is something you don't care about (and presumably neither do any of the rest of the climate-alarmed club) and how it is that your own careless usage of oil industry products permits you to preach to others who use the very same oil products and care just as little as you do about their carbon footprint?

    Theres a terrible smell of holier than thou from your emissions Akrasi.

    right after you finish explaining to me why an individuals carbon footprint is important, but the carbon emissions of entire countries is 'insignificant'

    I've never said that i don't care about my own carbon emissions, I have consistently said that individuals are largely powerless to affect global climate on their own, and what we need is political action at every level, from local to supernational global treaties.

    There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about it.

    You are a hypocrite in demanding that individuals sacrifice everything to be more environmentally friendly so that they can be taken seriously, and then do nothing but scoff at those people who genuinely do take extreme measures to limit their own environmental impact.

    The solution to climate change is collective action, along with huge investments in technology and infrastructure and that's not going to work if people are berated into drastic lifestyle changes and self sacrifice. Your demands that people walk everywhere in their bare feet or else they're hypocrites is just another PR strategy by the coal and gas industry to avoid the debate.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #447
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The predictions made by climate scientists and climate models have been scarily accurate.




    How many predictions have the 'skeptics' ever made and what is their track record?

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #448
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,148 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    I think they were still batting for Big Tobacco at that point.


  • #449
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    right after you finish explaining to me why an individuals carbon footprint is important, but the carbon emissions of entire countries is 'insignificant'

    Let's look at what your own go to source of knowledge says about someone who says their emissions make no difference:
    Mr Jones, willing to preserve both his high consumption lifestyle and an image of a good and responsible citizen, may be tempted to forget the whole issue switching to another topics, denying the problem or saying that his emissions are only an insignificantly small part of the problem (or use a number of other well-known justifications for not-changing-anything).

    I wondered about it a lot and decided that doing my best to limit the "height of the carbon footprint bar" is the right thing to do (now it’s around 5.8 tons CO2/year). There are a few reasons, why:

    There are tipping points in the climate system. There may be a ton that will be "a ton too far".

    Lower carbon footprint means less spending, leading to savings instead of debt, less pressure to chase the money and more time for what’s really important in life. I’m very happy with this attitude.

    Pursuing happy selfish consumption now, at a price of extinction of countless species and cataclysmic future of our children is an attitude based on ethics I don't share (well, that's my opinion, some people may think otherwise).

    Credibility: if you tell others that we have to reduce the emissions, meanwhile driving SUV, flying around the world and buying a lot of stuff, you will be perceived as a hypocrite. This will do more harm then good. We have to walk the talk.
    Seems sensible enough if you're a fan of theirs, and you are.



    https://www.skepticalscience.com/Carbon-CO2-Footprint-Emissions-Calculator.html
    Akrasia wrote: »
    I've never said that i don't care about my own carbon emissions, I have consistently said that individuals are largely powerless to affect global climate on their own, and what we need is political action at every level, from local to supernational global treaties.

    There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about it.

    See above. Your seemingly insignificant ton of carbon could be the one that sets off the tipping point you're so scared of.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    You are a hypocrite in demanding that individuals sacrifice everything to be more environmentally friendly so that they can be taken seriously, and then do nothing but scoff at those people who genuinely do take extreme measures to limit their own environmental impact.

    The solution to climate change is collective action, along with huge investments in technology and infrastructure and that's not going to work if people are berated into drastic lifestyle changes and self sacrifice. Your demands that people walk everywhere in their bare feet or else they're hypocrites is just another PR strategy by the coal and gas industry to avoid the debate.


    I don't make demands of anyone, but if people wish to have their major concerns about emissions taken seriously, they could at least pretend they're making an effort to reduce their own instead of worrying about everyone else's.


  • #450
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The predictions made by climate scientists and climate models have been scarily accurate.





    CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png

    The laters one don't look too accurate....


    CMIP5-19-USA-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    The same poor oil industry that's at the mercy of the global climate change conspiracy? Poor lads cant catch a break


    Do you also believe that "the same poor oil industry" has successfully been suppressing alternative energy advances for decades?


    A lot of conspiracy theorists do, and also blame government involvement too (the same government involvement that they are relying on to "fix" climate change for them, due to their claim that it is pointless trying to do it on an individual level):

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression
    The suppressors are usually oil companies, but can also be the government or special interest groups.

    Proponents of this conspiracy may also believe that governments and lobby groups are actively weakening renewable energy technologies like solar, biofuels and geothermal.
    Yay/nay?


Advertisement