08 Nov 21
@zahlanzi saidExactly.
What do you mean the world will end in 12 years? Are you dumb enough to think anyone is saying that humanity will just end, like fliping a switch? Or did you invent that just because you can't comprehend what scientists are actually warning against?
No dear, it will be a gradual process. A process that is happening right now. Mass migration. Famine. Diseases. Wild fires. ...[text shortened]... rse than it is today and 50 years from now they will remember with fondness the good days of 2030's.
And if Americans think they have a problem at the Southern Border now .......
Of course, as a Canadian, I have my own concerns about a bunch of hee haws coming across the 49th parallel shouting "America first !!".
You know......when we have all the viable farmland.....
08 Nov 21
@eintaluj said"Human activity is not the only possible cause of climate changes"
This question has been already answered above. Human activity is not the only possible cause of climate changes. If someone argues, as someone did above, that denying the human cause is the same as denying climate change, then one has claimed that there are no natural causes of climate changes. Climate, however, has changed already long before scientific-technological progre ...[text shortened]... and so a simple argument, then please do not disturb me anymore. Besides, your tone is unacceptable.
Sure it isn't. Nobody is arguing otherwise. It is the main one for the current climate change. The one that is of particular interest to us, as we're bloody living through it.
"If someone argues, as someone did above, that denying the human cause is the same as denying climate change, then one has claimed that there are no natural causes of climate changes"
Wrong. The natural causes of climate changes are irrelevant. They don't happen over 20 or even 50 years. Whenever someone serious (not a climate change denyer) is speaking about climate change the discussion is obviously about how we, humans, are fukin the planet up and how every year that passes without making real change fuks it up further and makes it even harder to put a stop to it or even harder, reversing it.
What is happening right now is not part of a natural cycle, it is a direct result of the impact we have on the planet. The natural causes of the last ice age are irrelevant.
"Climate, however, has changed already long before scientific-technological progress began."
And it was already taken into account. This is way beyond what climate changes occur naturally.
"Besides, your tone is unacceptable."
Eh, caring for your feelings is at the very end of my list, you pompous snowflake. It was cute for a while how you used big sentences to say absolutely nothing of substance because you thought it made you sound smart but it's getting old. If we only took your replies to me in particular it would be obvious you have no idea what is being talked about and just dance around the general idea.
Spare me what you think is acceptable or not, man-up (or woman up) and discuss the arguments or please do not disturb me anymore
08 Nov 21
@mghrn55 saidThe original post mentioned how propaganda is trying to use climate change to push for a carbon tax on the general populace (instead of dealing with the vast majority of polution coming from a few corporations) which i thought was actually an interesting topic. It quickly degenerated however in flatout climate change denial (which now i can't believe i have to clarify that it is not about denying ice ages occured, which is just... peachy)
This debate was always going to happen.
I had a look at the original post and yes, there can be some truth argued here.
I do believe climate change has been a part of earth history.
The city I live in has been under 50-100ft of ice 4 or 5 times in the last million years.
Increase in volcanic activity can contribute to climate change.
As can a minute change in solar act ...[text shortened]... it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality is for those who just get left behind.
Opportunity knocks.
08 Nov 21
@Zahlanzi
The 12 years comment is young activists saying we have to have net zero emissions within 12 years or we won't be able to stop severe climate change.
If we continue on the path we are now then in 12 years it will be irreversible and we are doomed!
I think Bernie Sanders started that mumbo jumbo in 2018 🤔
Young activists swear by it 😆
08 Nov 21
@contenchess said"The 12 years comment is young activists saying we have to have net zero emissions within 12 years or we won't be able to stop severe climate change.
@Zahlanzi
The 12 years comment is young activists saying we have to have net zero emissions within 12 years or we won't be able to stop severe climate change.
If we continue on the path we are now then in 12 years it will be irreversible and we are doomed!
I think Bernie Sanders started that mumbo jumbo in 2018 🤔
Young activists swear by it 😆
If we continue on the path we are now then in 12 years it will be irreversible and we are doomed!"
Ooo i would love to discuss what some unnamed "young activists" said and what you misunderstood from that.
08 Nov 21
@Zahlanzi
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/
08 Nov 21
3 edits
@Zahlanzi
The second paragraph explains who says these ridiculous claims.
AOC, and Greta and some others.
Mostly young drama queens.
It's written by a climate activist who thinks these ridiculous claims need to stop.
08 Nov 21
@contenchess saidNo point bothering with reading about the context of it, right? That would be too much work.
@Zahlanzi
The second paragraph explains who says these ridiculous claims.
AOC, and Greta and some others.
Mostly young drama queens.
It's written by a climate activist who thinks these ridiculous claims need to stop.
It was one tweet making an exageration to underline the freakin point that asholes responsible for the mess we're in focus on "how we're going to pay for it". It was one sentence thrown out in frustration . Sure, if it makes you feel better, the world will not end in 12 years. Depending on your definition of "ending".
Maybe when most of China's farmland lies under water, they won't invade other countries, sparking a potential world war, a nuclear one. Maybe they will figure out how to feed 1.5 billion people peacefully and so will India. Maybe the city levelling storms will only level New Orleans and New York, some cities will survive. Maybe the next waves of refugees won't be that bad.
Things will get bad, but we're resillient. Humanity won't end in 12 years, is that what you want to hear? We might hold out for decades in the wasteland we're creating. Your grandchildren will sing you praises for being such an intellectual giant and corrrectly call out on semantics someone asking us to do reasonable things. Who needs to look at a complex issue throughly? AOC did an exageration once, or a teen girl activist didn't sufficiently explain a statement. That means climate change is a hoax.
08 Nov 21
@zahlanzi said"Sure it isn't. Nobody is arguing otherwise."
"Human activity is not the only possible cause of climate changes"
Sure it isn't. Nobody is arguing otherwise. It is the main one for the current climate change. The one that is of particular interest to us, as we're bloody living through it.
"If someone argues, as someone did above, that denying the human cause is the same as denying climate change, then one has claimed ...[text shortened]... cceptable or not, man-up (or woman up) and discuss the arguments or please do not disturb me anymore
You are changing the theme. Right now, we discussed that the sentences
"The climate is warming"
and
"The climate is warming because of human activity"
are different and have a different meaning. You attacked me and said I was Big Smart and did not explain the difference. This thread began with the post sharing one article of one scientist. If you were unable to understand the difference between different concepts, you should not participate in this thread devoted to discussing what scientists have argued about climate.
08 Nov 21
@eintaluj saidA sense of urgency gives an extra incentive to actually invest in new types of energy, to develop them sufficiently, to use them even if they are less cost effective. To pressure governments to think long term and not leave it to CEOs interested in generating value for their shareholders.
@mghrn55
You can search for better sources of energy even without the assumption that human activity has seriously damaged the climate. It is sufficient that human activity has seriosusly damaged the environment.
Surely i don't have to explain the logic in that, o bigly educated one?
08 Nov 21
@eintaluj saidThen leave? You just participated in this thread to say you're no longer going to participate in this thread? Or you mean you're going to do that right after this scathing remark?
I cannot participate in such "debates". The quality of the comments by many participants is very low in several ways.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
08 Nov 21
@eintaluj saidTake a look;
"Sure it isn't. Nobody is arguing otherwise."
You are changing the theme. Right now, we discussed that the sentences
"The climate is warming"
and
"The climate is warming because of human activity"
are different and have a different meaning. You attacked me and said I was Big Smart and did not explain the difference. This thread began with the post sharing ...[text shortened]... ould not participate in this thread devoted to discussing what scientists have argued about climate.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/climate-change-in-ten-graphs