The higher these concentrations, the warmer the planet. This is what we're seeing. It seems like a small change, but it is having (and will continue to have) a very large effect on the planet. It's true that it's been much warmer in the past, and that CO2 has (in conjunction) been much higher as well -- during the time of the dinosaurs, for example. But humans weren't around then. That was a much different world with a different biosphere. — Xtrix

Hmm.. aren't greenhouses good for the environment? It is a "green" gas. That's good for nature. Having a hot climate like a the dinosaurs did sounds great! Maybe our climate can change to a more dino-like biosphere.

And how do you know this is all due to CO2? What if the planet is going through a generational shift, or getting solar flares from the sun? And do you really think the climate would stop changing if we stopped releasing CO2 in the air? Would it slow it down enough to stop climate change? Why limit fossil fuels if climate change is inevitable?

The solutions are already known. A magic bullet isn't necessary. No miracles, no totalitarianism, no radical/shocking upheaval of human life: investments in clean energy and research, a shift in subsidies, carbon taxes (proposed by many Republicans), a shift in investments to cleaner industries (which the major asset managers are already doing), divestment from fossil fuels, retrofitting buildings, infrastructure -- including high-speed rail and the public transportation systems, higher efficiency standards, better regulations, and so on. — Xtrix

These are pretty vague and without focus. Better regulations? That sounds so empty. To me that just sounds like more laws and less productivity

And considering the doom and gloom many environmentalists associate the future with, I think we will need a totalitarian dictatorship to save the planet. Public transportation still puts CO2 in the air, and by the looks of the science, I doubt the climate will stop changing.

Also, I'm not a republican. I don't like republicans or democrats.

It's a big moment -- right now in congress there's a chance for the use of a reconciliation bill to fund much of this stuff, which would be a good start. Republicans are trying to block it all, and some moderate democrats are also standing in the way. It seems like an absurd scenario, but that's what "capitalism" does. When congress is bought by special interests who don't want anything done, usually nothing gets done. Not until it's too late or enormous damage has been done -- which is already true. — Xtrix

Which is why I think environmentalism will lead to a fascist dictatorship. Under capitalism, people wouldn't be waiting around for the government to fix the issue, individuals with their free minds would take their own actions to fix the climate, if they even see it as a threat. The government doesn't get things done. PEOPLE get things done. Policies don't save the planet. Businesses, products, and fossil fuels save the planet. Innovators and entrepreneurs save the planet with their ideas. People need to be FREE to test out their ideas.

t'll effect where we live, as sea level rise will impact coastal communities. It'll effect agriculture -- so the global food supply, due to droughts and desertification. That will be devastating. It will effect fishing. It will effect water supply (as the mountain ice caps disappear, as they're already doing, and rivers dry up due to increase heat, as is already happening). There will be massive movements of people from one area to another -- much larger than anything in human history (think Bangladesh alone, which is increasingly becoming more and more inundated with water). That's millions of refugees -- not thousands. I could go on and on. Much of this is already happening, as you know. — Xtrix

I mean yeah it will effect us, but I don't see any impending doom. You talk like humans won't be handle this. When problems arise, people adapt. Also, fossil fuels are the greatest defense against these issues. Fossil fuels can help us grow more food, irrigate water, build new and exciting cities. Capitalism can innovate to build walls, or island cities or whatever solutions people come up with.

Haha wow, fishing will be affected. Okay so fishing affected? So what all the fish die. People can find food elsewhere.

When some lands become dry and barren, new lands will open up. Maybe Canada and Russia will become much warmer and inhabitable.

If the sea levels rise, just move. It's great there will be mass movements of people. Immigration is good.

A really great point that Alex Epstein makes is that as CO2 emissions have gone up, climate related deaths have plummeted.

https://youtu.be/0_a9RP0J7PA at 16:55

If no one is dying, what are we so worried about? Why would we take away fossil fuels, when fossil fuels are preventing deaths and increasing people's quality of life?

It makes zero sense to me.

That long-winded rant was really good. 10/10 — Kasperanza

Thanks. So no corrections to what I posted, then?

You can't have economics if you take away people's freedom. — Kasperanza

To my mind already answered this aptly. My post on freedom which you gave 10 out of 10 to ought to have indicated via its satire that freedom, while being an all-around feel-good term, is not a good thing in all conceivable cases. The freedom to pursue happiness via the mass murder of others is an example most take to be a bad freedom. Going by this example, a proposed truism: freedom is good only in so far as it doesn’t unfairly harm others.

Do you agree with this premise? If not, on what grounds should a person’s freedom to pursue happiness via mass murder be prohibited by others? Or should it not be?

If you do agree, then by what consistent reasoning should freedom to devastate the world and the humans that inhabit it in the name of personal happiness not be prohibited?

Please note, I ask from a philosophical perspective in respect to the generalized notion of freedom. Whether or not global warming is real, is human caused, is a means of devastating the world, etc., is not the issue I’m presently addressing here.

the real-world consequences of such membership are likely going to be severe (e.g. losing your job) — baker

Possibly true. You should read Grabe, I think she'd be right up your street.

They change behaviour as well. Online everyone's an individualist at the centre of their own virtual world. Real groups have real group dynamics. — Kenosha Kid

True, that anonymity of online discourse also allows multiple personalities, so they're not just one individual, but several. I actually think this might be a good thing for adolescents, but coming into the adult world needs to have the reality of a groups you can't so easily re-form. Oddly (or perhaps obviously) it ties in with your line of thought about hunter-gatherer moral and economic decision-making. The less flexible and easily replaceable the social group around you is, the more effort it is advisable to but into social relations and proportionately less into individual self-construction. Social media seems to be the pinnacle of a move away from focus on the network links and more toward the nodes.

Anyone not addressing the relationship between the shift in social dynamics and the failure to tackle issues with socially-owned resources is just pissing in the wind as far as I'm concerned, but then I'd be naive to think they were doing so out of a strong desire to solve the problem.

building more advanced societies would help — ssu

Better than building rabbit-proof fences, yeah. This mentality is what I was thinking of btw:

I mean yeah there's all this science, but what are we supposed to do about it? Just cut out fossil fuels without a real replacement? To me that's scary. Epstein's point is that fossil fuels protect and enhance people's lives. Fossil fuels protect people from heat waves. And yet the environmentalists want to limit them. I find it to be worrisome. — Kasperanza

This is very typical in my experience. It'd be like trying to ban guns in the US, people would just lose their minds.

I'm all for clean, green, and hip energy if it can be sustained under capitalism and not through government intervention. — Kasperanza

Meeting the climate challenge without constant and crushing interventions in the market is precisely the point. Magma energy can sustain capitalism - and so maintain the personal and political freedoms capitalism allows for.

I’m just stating what I believe on a popular topic, and the only effect I’ve had is your weird, baffled rage. I assure you, though, I’m not some nefarious figure in your little propaganda fantasy. I don’t care enough about what people believe to even bother. I just despise the conformity and invariable statism your kind of proselytizing demands. It doesn’t seek to change minds; it seeks control, and I will dissent from it every time. That’s all.

. It doesn’t seek to change minds; it seeks control, and I will dissent from it every time. — NOS4A2

Dissent for the sake of dissent? Orr is there a principle behind choosing freedom over the collective good?

Thanks. So no corrections to what I posted, then? — javra

Why would I bother to correct a straw man of my argument?

To my mind ↪Banno already answered this aptly. — javra

I'm not surprised that you find one-word answers suitable.

Do you agree with this premise? If not, on what grounds should a person’s freedom to pursue happiness via mass murder be prohibited by others? Or should it not be? — javra

i was talking about economic freedom, a freedom that is sustained with individual rights. Why would I advocate for a freedom in which murder is legal?

If you do agree, then by what consistent reasoning should freedom to devastate the world and the humans that inhabit it in the name of personal happiness not be prohibited? — javra

The world, environment, or nature is not the standard of value. Human beings are the standard of value. Individual rights allow for a rational freedom.

Hmm.. aren't greenhouses good for the environment? It is a "green" gas. That's good for nature. — Kasperanza

Just how old are you?

And how do you know this is all due to CO2? — Kasperanza

We know because we know the physical properties of CO2.

Why limit fossil fuels if climate change is inevitable? — Kasperanza

Death is inevitable, yet we don't drive without seatbelts or brakes.

The government doesn't get things done. PEOPLE get things done. — Kasperanza

Does the government not consist of people?

Policies don't save the planet. Businesses, products, and fossil fuels save the planet. Innovators and entrepreneurs save the planet with their ideas. People need to be FREE to test out their ideas. — Kasperanza

You complained above about a statement being "vague and without focus". This here is certainly vague and without focus. Just a collection of nice sounding words.

I mean yeah it will effect us, but I don't see any impending doom. — Kasperanza

Do you care about people dieing preventable deaths?

It makes zero sense to me. — Kasperanza

Because you're apparently completely unwilling to consider future consequences.

i was talking about economic freedom, a freedom that is sustained with individual rights. Why would I advocate for a freedom in which murder is legal? — Kasperanza

Where is the line between murder and getting people killed via economic policy?

Human beings are the standard of value. Individual rights allow for a rational freedom. — Kasperanza

So freedom is whatever is best for human beings?

Hmm.. aren't greenhouses good for the environment? It is a "green" gas. That's good for nature. Having a hot climate like a the dinosaurs did sounds great! Maybe our climate can change to a more dino-like biosphere. — Kasperanza

It’s comments like this that make it obvious you don’t have a clue. Excess amount of greenhouse gases produces a greater greenhouse effect. That’s not good for human beings or nature as we know it. If we have a climate like the dinosaurs, we’re toast as a a species. Which you’d know if you deign to read anything about this topic outside denialist propaganda.

And how do you know this is all due to CO2? What if the planet is going through a generational shift, or getting solar flares from the sun? And do you really think the climate would stop changing if we stopped releasing CO2 in the air? Would it slow it down enough to stop climate change? Why limit fossil fuels if climate change is inevitable? — Kasperanza

It’s not all due to CO2, but that’s the main driver. Methane and other gases also contribute.

It’s not solar flares or generational shifts— believe it or not, this has been considered by climate scientists. What we see is outside of natural variation. But feel free to believe that because you’ve watched a YouTube video by a well known climate denier, you’ve cracked the case. Maybe a lecture from you on why quantum mechanics is “stupid”?

Yes, stopping burning fossil fuels will have an effect on the earth’s global temperature average, which is the goal.

Under capitalism, people wouldn't be waiting around for the government to fix the issue, — Kasperanza

“Under capitalism”?

The capitalism you’re talking about — Rand’s version— doesn’t exist. It’s a fantasy. Try looking at the real world instead.

There’s no reason to believe our government can’t solve this issue, and rather easily. What’s in the way is what you’d call “capitalism”: greedy, profit-driven industries who buy off politicians and lobby for what they want. Pretty obvious.

I mean yeah it will effect us, but I don't see any impending doom. You talk like humans won't be handle this. When problems arise, people adapt. Also, fossil fuels are the greatest defense against these issues. — Kasperanza

No, they’re the cause of the problem. They and the privileging of profit over people. You’re simply deluded.

You don’t see impending doom? Oh good. Your expert opinion gives me solace.

Haha wow, fishing will be affected. Okay so fishing affected? So what all the fish die. People can find food elsewhere.

When some lands become dry and barren, new lands will open up. Maybe Canada and Russia will become much warmer and inhabitable.

If the sea levels rise, just move. It's great there will be mass movements of people. Immigration is good. — Kasperanza

Is this a joke? Or are you a joke?

I’ll go with the latter. Oh well.

had is your weird, baffled rage. — NOS4A2

Not enraged, and certainly not baffled. Not by you anyway.

it seeks control, and I will dissent from it every time. — NOS4A2

Yeah, you’re a hero. How brave.

It makes zero sense to me.
— Kasperanza

Because you're apparently completely unwilling to consider future consequences. — Echarmion

And because he apparently doesn’t read anything outside climate denial— and maybe not even that, given that the only reference given thus far has been to a YouTube video.

Just some kid doing his impression of Ayn Rand. I don’t see much point in continuing.

A really great point that Alex Epstein makes is that as CO2 emissions have gone up, climate related deaths have plummeted.

https://youtu.be/0_a9RP0J7PA at 16:55

If no one is dying, what are we so worried about? Why would we take away fossil fuels, when fossil fuels are preventing deaths and increasing people's quality of life?

It makes zero sense to me. — Kasperanza

B.C. heat wave saw 719 people die in one week, says B.C. coroner

Fossil fuels protect people from heat waves. — Kasperanza

Where?

Oh, wait, all those people in those hot African countries, India, and so on, they should just move elsewhere.

Just some kid doing his impression of Ayn Rand. I don’t see much point in continuing. — Xtrix

Actually, I think people like him have it really good in life. So often, ignorance in fact is bliss.

The capitalism you’re talking about — Rand’s version— doesn’t exist. It’s a fantasy. Try looking at the real world instead.
There’s no reason to believe our government can’t solve this issue, and rather easily. What’s in the way is what you’d call “capitalism”: greedy, profit-driven industries who buy off politicians and lobby for what they want. Pretty obvious. — Xtrix

Yeah, the real world sucks because people don't know what real freedom is.
I've lost my faith in government, especially after COVID. The government passes laws, in other words, restrictions. Restrictions take away freedom. People need freedom to be happy and flourish. Really basic concept.

If we have any hope of dealing with climate change, it's allowing capitalism to come up with solutions with competition and innovation, not the government controlling people like animals. And depriving them of fossil fuels, which is our only means of survival from the climate.

No, they’re the cause of the problem. They and the privileging of profit over people. You’re simply deluded. — Xtrix

You realize that's a contradiction? When people make a profit, it's because they've provided value to the economy, people are benefitting from the product.

Just some kid doing his impression of Ayn Rand. I don’t see much point in continuing. — Xtrix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElP6Xq7BHpc

Just some kid doing his impression of Ayn Rand. I don’t see much point in continuing. — Xtrix

Nailed it.

Restrictions take away freedom. People need freedom to be happy and flourish. Really basic concept. — Kasperanza

So laws are "restrictions," in Ayn Rand's eyes (sorry, I mean "your" eyes), and thus restrict freedom. How quaint.

By this I gather you exempt the laws ("restrictions") that keep the wealthy in their positions of powers, like the corporation as a person (a gift from the state), patent laws, copyright laws, private property laws, etc. To say nothing of roads, bridges, police, military, subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts when they fail. All from the government. That's all fine, I assume.

Traffic laws should probably go, though. So should laws against malpractice. That's not cancer you're dying from -- it's "real freedom."

Laughable if it wasn't so sad that people really think like this.

Actually, I think people like him have it really good in life. So often, ignorance in fact is bliss. — baker

Yeah, another kid who thinks he has it all figured out because he's discovered some Ayn Rand or Thomas Sowell (the latest "libertarian" darling) videos on YouTube. I can see that. They speak with authority, are well educated, and aren't completely insane. Some things of theirs I even agree with. But when I see how their followers apply their thinking to issues like climate change or corporate malfeasance, it's fairly obvious that something's gone wrong.

If we have any hope of dealing with climate change, it's allowing capitalism to come up with solutions with competition and innovation, not the government controlling people like animals. And depriving them of fossil fuels, which is our only means of survival from the climate. — Kasperanza

I've asked you to take ten minutes to read about climate change, and you've refused. Eventually I'll just ignore you. But since 10 minutes may be a long time to some, here's literally 60 seconds worth:



You keep repeating this, and you're confused. So I'll repeat: there is no "capitalism." I don't know what you're referring to when you say that. So either explain what you mean or stop embarrassing yourself by mindlessly repeating slogans.

Second, fossil fuels (and the greed of the industry, driven by profits at the cost of society -- what some would call "capitalism") are the cause of this crisis. Using more of them is literally the opposite of what needs to happen. Do you see that or not? Clearly you don't. Which, again, is why I would recommend learning about this topic.

Lastly, you likewise keep repeating that fossil fuels are the "only means of survival from the climate." Based on what you've previously said, you mean air conditioning and electricity and things like that, which is mind-boggling. The more we use fossil fuels, the worse the situation will get. Period. So yes, we need electricity for heat and air conditioning, and we need transportation. This can all be done with renewable energy -- nuclear energy, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. That's what needs to happen. That's what we're transitioning to.

Your position is literally: "Wow, it's getting really hot out -- who cares? As long as we can stay cool inside, with our air conditioners, what difference does it make what happens 'out there'?"

You're the embodiment of science illiteracy.

Here are some resources to ignore:

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.ipcc.ch

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

And once more, for good measure:

Lastly, you likewise keep repeating that fossil fuels are the "only means of survival from the climate." Based on what you've previously said, you mean air conditioning and electricity and things like that, which is mind-boggling. The more we use fossil fuels, the worse the situation will get. Period. So yes, we need electricity for heat and air conditioning, and we need transportation. This can all be done with renewable energy -- nuclear energy, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. That's what needs to happen. That's what we're transitioning to. — Xtrix

This new energy is expensive and difficult to come by. It's absolutely 100% not true that fossil fuels make things worse.

The more we use fossil fuels, the easier it is to manipulate our surroundings to make life on Earth comfortable. Fossil fuels are not the enemy. Fossil fuels are a reliable, cheap, and plentiful source of energy.

I don't give a squawk what the climate does, I'm not departing from fossil fuels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Re2WKKasI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2J5aiSHCj8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulg_R3L9Z_U

:lol:

Just as I thought. Stick with your dogma and be happy. The world is transitioning away from fossil fuels, which are 100% contributing to the climate crisis (despite your delusions), whether you like it or not. Sorry!

Whether it happens quickly enough, I don’t know.

I don't give a squawk what the climate does — Kasperanza

That’s because you’re scientifically illiterate. But I don’t care if you don’t care— by all means troll somewhere else and be happy with your Ayn Rand/capitalism worship. This happens to be titled “climate change.” If you don’t care about it, next time don’t comment.


https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.ipcc.ch

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

That’s because you’re scientifically illiterate. But I don’t care if you don’t care— by all means troll somewhere else and be happy with your Ayn Rand/capitalism worship. — Xtrix

Ayn Rand makes me happy; I think she's a beautiful thinker. So I'll stick to it.

Ayn Rand makes me happy; I think she's a beautiful thinker. So I'll stick to it. — Kasperanza

Good for you! It’s clearly doing wonders.

When people make a profit, it's because they've provided value to the economy, — Kasperanza

I missed this one. :lol:

Yeah, the real world sucks because people don't know what real freedom is.
I've lost my faith in government, especially after COVID. The government passes laws, in other words, restrictions. Restrictions take away freedom. People need freedom to be happy and flourish. Really basic concept. — Kasperanza

So take SARS-CoV-2 to court.

Laughable if it wasn't so sad that people really think like this.
/.../
Yeah, another kid who thinks he has it all figured out because he's discovered some Ayn Rand or Thomas Sowell — Xtrix

Some people really are able to think and live in cutthroat terms, though. They don't have humanist sensitivities. For them, it's perfectly normal that species, including humans become extinct -- nothing to make a fuss about. They can be quite careless about their own death as well.

For them, it's perfectly normal that species, including humans become extinct -- nothing to make a fuss about. — baker

If one finds epic poignancy in contemplating the demise of our species, that's love. It means all the cynicism and religious based self hatred has dropped away.

Not everyone can handle experiencing that love. Some can't stop hating humanity because they can't stop hating themselves. These are the people who can't think rationally about climate change. All they can do is rage like toddlers as if that will make any difference.

Our congress:

According to new analysis from the Center for American Progress, there are still 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress, including 109 representatives and 30 senators, who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. All 139 of these climate-denying elected officials have made recent statements casting doubt on the clear, established scientific consensus that the world is warming—and that human activity is to blame. These same 139 climate-denying members have received more than $61 million in lifetime contributions from the coal, oil, and gas industries.

While the number of climate deniers has shrunk by 11 members (from 150 to 139) since the CAP Action Fund’s analysis of the 116th Congress—largely in the face of growing and overwhelming public support for action on climate—their numbers still include the majority of the congressional Republican caucus.* These climate deniers comprise 52 percent of House Republicans; 60 percent of Senate Republicans; and more than one-quarter of the total number of elected officials in Congress. Furthermore, despite the decline in total overall deniers in Congress, a new concerning trend has emerged: Of the 69 freshmen representatives and senators elected to their respective offices in 2020, one-third deny the science of climate change, including 20 new House Republicans and three-of-four new Republican senators. Of note, no currently serving Democratic or independent elected officials have engaged in explicit climate denial by this analysis’ definition. —

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2021/03/30/497685/climate-deniers-117th-congress/

I've said my piece, and I think its fair. Nowhere does this blog say "everything is fine, go back to consuming" it just said "not as bad as the media makes it out to be". There's lots to do, and undoubtedly the third world is going to suffer tremendously so we agree there. But you don't have to be disagreeable and go "oh you're just delusional, you don't know anything. We're fucked and you're an idiot." You've given me two articles, one of which is not written by a scientist and the other which is an interview with a scientist. That's fine and all, but scientists aren't infallible. I could easily flip what you're saying around and just say this particular scientist is being alarmist and going against established literature. You're going to say I have my head in the sand and that I'm trying to make myself feel better, when all I'm doing is trying to make things as realistic as possible. Hell, even Michael Mann who tends to exaggerate the severity of the issue admits that the "we're doomed" mindset is a new form of denialism. I agree with you that the other poster here is being silly-free market capitalism isn't the proper solution to climate change, but it's also false that current governments aren't doing anything about climate change. Many are doing the bare minimum, but a lot of other countries (most notably China) consistently manage to overachieve their IPCC pledges. So no, I'm not a climate denier-I'm just not an eco pessimist or an "everything is fine there is no climate change" moron

Nowhere does this blog say "everything is fine, go back to consuming" it just said "not as bad as the media makes it out to be". — Albero

It says it's not as bad as the media make it out to be because it's nit-picking. Playing semantic games at a moment like this, when scientists around the world are alarmed and telling us how catastrophic this can be if we don't do something very quickly, is just irresponsible and feeds right into climate denialism, or at best climate apathy. It's "not as bad" because some people make the (potentially) erroneous claim that not all humans will survive, or it won't occur for another 100 or so years -- and by then we'll know how to solve the problem. This is the logic. If you don't see why this is misguided, you haven't been listening to the vast majority of climatologists.

But you don't have to be disagreeable and go "oh you're just delusional, you don't know anything. We're fucked and you're an idiot." — Albero

I don't think you're an idiot, and I don't think we're fucked if we act on this issue right now. As I said many times, there are sensible solutions. It's right there. It just takes pressuring of these so-called leaders of ours.

What I disagree with is when people -- like you -- choose to give far more attention and weight to a small minority of people (usually not climatologists) who claim that either nothing is happening or, in your case, that it's happening but it won't be as bad as the most extreme claims and so we don't need to worry as much about it. That's not delusional, it's dangerous.

That's fine and all, but scientists aren't infallible. I could easily flip what you're saying around and just say this particular scientist is being alarmist and going against established literature. — Albero

It's worth paying attention when 97% + scientists, around the world, are telling us we have about 12 years to get a move on things. It's also worth opening your eyes to what's happening right now. If you want more literature or references, I'll be happy to give them.

Hell, even Michael Mann who tends to exaggerate the severity of the issue admits that the "we're doomed" mindset is a new form of denialism. — Albero

Where?

I agree with you that the other poster here is being silly-free market capitalism isn't the proper solution to climate change, but it's also false that current governments aren't doing anything about climate change. Many are doing the bare minimum, but a lot of other countries (most notably China) consistently manage to overachieve their IPCC pledges. — Albero

When did I say that governments aren't doing anything? Like you say, they are -- but not nearly enough. Especially the US and China.