CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Akrasia wrote: »

They’re endorsing the candidate who has committed to tackling climate change who is running against a climate change denier

They’re not talking a position on any of his other social or economic policies

Which just proves how amoral they really are.

Danno wrote: »

So you support the brain drain from under-developed and developing nations, thereby keeping those nations in perpetual poverty as they will lack an educated work-force to develop.

Have you learned nothing from Ireland's experience of mass-emigration throughout the 1900s - it took us several generations to modernise somewhat.

You know as well as the next person that the vast vast majority of people coming to the developed nations are under-educated and by-and-large take up menial labour jobs, ideal candidates for the captains of industry to keep wages depressed.

Meanwhile, you and your ilk advocate for punitive carbon taxes which hammer the low-paid. Such an immoral and disgusting stance to hold.

no i dont support brain drain, but its important to realise why such actions exist, most of those countries have been subjected to external pressures, largely from western nations, such as our own, and one of the main tools used is 'debt peonage', from mainly western financial institutions. it is indeed such facts prevents these nations from escaping such situations, resulting in these outcomes.

again, low wage inflation is largely due to western created and implemented polices, this has been particularly evident in the last few decades, the so called, neoliberal/neoclassical era, i.e. it has little or nothing to do with the scary foreigners, in fact, they themselves have been subjected to the same political ideologies, over the last few decades, resulting in their plight.

i actually dont advocate for such things, one of the major faults of this political ideology is the fact, when governments default, particularly when trying to balance their books, they default to the only place they think they can, you! hence increase in taxation etc, this is now failing, in fact, theres a possibility we maybe experiencing its global collapse, only time will tell

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

What do you mean by this tough? In what way are 'we' thinking wrong and they, who are fleeing from their destitute native lands, thinking right? This needs explaining.

its clearly obvious, something catastrophic is occurring, in many respects, to life on this planet, the most obvious being environmental issues, different thinking is required to begin dealing with these issues, the scary foreigners may just be able to help with this different thinking, as us westerners seemed to be too arrogant to accept, we re fcuking up!

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I don't follow this train of logic though. It sounds legit but you forget that these 'different thinkers' are fleeing to regions that are heavily dependent on fossil fuels in order to obtain a better standard of living for themselves and not the other way around.

they are indeed fleeing, but the truth is, we re all getting screwed by more or less the same policies and ideologies, and from my own experiences, different cultures think and approach problems differently, we have to start working together to try solve these issues, by accepting these individuals into our lives, it might just increase the likelihood of us resolving these similar problems, together, but if we continue to build walls, both metaphorically and in realty, we reduce this likelihood

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Hahaha, no bother, once again, I've moved on from the science, Ive accepted the science since childhood, I spent my time looking into why this is happening, particularly from a more political, social, psychological and economic point of view, as they say, there's only so many hours in the day....

So you haven't bothered with the science of it, don't want to hear squat about any new discoveries, advances, but you still comment on the science because you're interested in politics, psychology and economics. That's some logic right there.

Thank you for explaining this, I have to somewhat agree with what she's saying, I do believe the planet is trying to balance this increase in energy, or the increase in energy, is manifesting in more frequent and more intense storms.

Case in point...

Please explain your final statement? Thank you

I think I just have. Plenty of people with little or no knowledge of the subject other than the hyperbolic spin they read from others with an equally low level of knowledge.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ive spent about 5 years at third level studying the science, which has lead me into the world of politics, psychology, economics, social science etc etc etc.......

I think you, and other higher minds on here, will appreciate this discussion so. And there is much, and much from many angles, to be taken from it:



Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5C2qwbBM0s


As I recall a lecturer of mine years ago saying: the real purpose of fiction is to shine a light on the bigger truths (or something along that line)

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ive spent about 5 years at third level studying the science, which has lead me into the world of politics, psychology, economics, social science etc etc etc.......

...so yes, ive completely ignored the science!:rolleyes:

you wouldnt be judgmental now, would you!

Five years but they didn't teach about things like the AMO? And you did all that when you were a kid? Good for you!

Wanderer you could be confused as a troll.

"With nearly 7.7 billion people inhabiting this Earth, every choice, every footprint, every action makes a difference," the Duke of Sussex said on Instagram a few days before jetting off with the Duchess to Ibiza, Spain and then to Nice, France.

BBC calculates that those two flights alone produced six times more emissions than the average Briton does each year and over 100 times more than the average resident of the African nation of Lesotho.

“I’m calling on the press to cease these relentless and untrue assassinations,” said Elton John.

“Imagine being attacked” tweeted Ellen, the comedian, “when all you’re trying to do is make the world a better place.”

Poor rich people. At least they know the science is settled and just choose to ignore it. Oneiric... You could do with some of that enlightenment, accept then ignore. Life is easier that way.

Nearly 1,500 private jets to land at climate change-focused Davos summit
https://nypost.com/2019/01/23/nearly-1500-private-jets-to-land-at-climate-change-focused-davos-summit/

"All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people."

– Sir David Attenborough, Population Matters patron

When asked about the greater effects of his proposals on poorer families he coldly responded: “Yes. I’m afraid that is the case.”

What a legend. Lets keep the poor down and reduce the population.

reading alot of the posts on this particular topic and alot of the recent posts make no sense .topic closed i would say .

Watching the Southampton v Spurs match now and it's another match with 7 goals. That's three 7-goal matches this weekend, to add to the high number of goals last weekend too. I'm just waiting for someone to comment that all these extra goals are all due to increased ghg and more evidence of the devastating effect the rich are having on the more vulnerable. :pac:

I feel that the pandemic has put CO2 emissions reduction in a fragile position. If you went back to this time 2019 and the pressure from green parties resulted in the lockdown of global economies for 4 months it would have been signaled as a triumph.
Now that we have been in lockdown, the message from global alarmists is stronger than ever. The pandemic did nothing are the head lines.

The pandemic didn't solve climate change. This week's disasters are proof
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/18/weather/coronavirus-lockdowns-climate-change-extreme-weather-intl/index.html

Usual shíte from CNN, as I don't think anyone expected that a change would be observed in the short term. Particularly based on the AGW model.


But it does raise the question, is CO2 reduction required to halt the proposed AGW warming possible within the next 50 years? If it is possible at what cost?

Perhaps diverting away from solar renewables and investing green taxes into carbon scrubbing or cold fusion is the answer. Standard of living and life expectancy are tied to available energy. The emancipation of women from the kitchen is inextricable tied to energy. Having people accept AGW as a problem is one thing... actually getting them to do something meaningful is a challenge. That is in my opinion not going to happen regardless of environmental the impacts. History shows that human suffering or environmental devastation hasn't stopped us in the past or at the present from seeking a better life.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ive spent about 5 years at third level studying the science, which has lead me into the world of politics, psychology, economics, social science etc etc etc.......

...so yes, ive completely ignored the science!:rolleyes:

you wouldnt be judgmental now, would you!

ah yes the failed researcher track - very common these days. You get to talk big about how you're so important and leech taxpayers money for as long as conceivably possible with all the student grants and funding these days, never ending up with any job other than lowly minimum wage labwork given out of pity.