But like most trolls, he just moves on to the next crappy denial line after the previous one has been thoroughly debunked. Utter waste of time. Might as well be talking to a bot. — Mikie

Well i talk to everyone but I see your point

No, I believe in environmental change (not just the UUUUH IT IS GETTING HOT part championed by the automatic masses under their corporate overlords). — Lionino

What do you think of this analogy? Is it possible the climate is like a large spinning object, say a hydroelectric turbine, and that enough small changes to the balance of either can cause rapid catastrophic failure (failure of the climate here would be runaway rapid warming)? What kind of odds would you give to the climate being that way?

It would be funny if it weren't sadly hypocritical how the moderators are willing to let their chihuahua bark and attack others but will censor anyone who gives the 36 year old bachelor a taste of his own sour medicine.

Is there a manlet alliance behind the curtains on this website? If you want to say there isn't, start moderating both ways, not just one way. There is no third option here.

He got his mod powers removed for a reason, and this is not about politics.

What kind of odds would you give to the climate being that way? — RogueAI

100%. As soon as I say a few factories make no difference here and there you will just move goalpost and say that doesn't qualify as "enough small changes". Your weasel word there is "enough", it can mean anything from cow farming all the way to nuclear warfare.

I am still not gonna eat the bugs, I will use AC, I will drive a car.

Consider


^{(including all kinds of details would make it cumbersome, use charity where in doubt, you know what I mean)}

YY and NN aren't so interesting for this inquiry.

So, what's the worst that could happen in case of NY and YN respectively?
(By "do something" I'm not thinking of everyone committing suicide. :grin:)

As far as I can tell, "We do something about the environment" is generally the most rational (re)action, at least if caring about our children's children.
More importantly, what do you think?

100%. As soon as I say a few factories make no difference here and there you will just move goalpost and say that doesn't qualify as "enough small changes". Your weasel word there is "enough", it can mean anything from cow farming all the way to nuclear warfare. — Lionino

So to keep going with the turbine analogy, let's say we have an airplane turbine which can withstand a number of bird impacts before catastrophic failure. Noone is quite sure how many.

You're in an airplane with that turbine. There is one bird strike, then another, etc. after 20 bird strikes, the turbine is still running. If you fly on, there'll be more bird strikes. The engine could fail at 21 bird strikes or 100. The probability goes up with more bird strikes but since you don't know the base probability you only know that the risk increases.

At what point do you land the plane?

What kind of analogy is that? RogueAI was talking about a hydroelectric turbines, not plane turbines.

I am aware. But there was agreement on that point so I'm bringing up a further analogy to address your rejoinder.

I am still not gonna eat the bugs, I will use AC, I will drive a car. — Lionino

:lol:

But what about governments subsidizing things like solar and wind energy? If the atmosphere is capable of coming completely unstuck due to GHG emissions, shouldn't we try and reduce those emissions a lot? And what about governments subsidizing lab grown meat?

But what about governments subsidizing things like solar and wind energy? — RogueAI

Wind turbines are not worth it for a lot of regions — low efficiency and high maintenance. Solar is good if maintened and recycled properly. Hydroelectric and nuclear are the best options currently. Hopefully China figures something out with fusion eventually. But the Greens in Germany and their troglodytic, lower-palaeolithic brain easily surpassed by that of an Australopithecus have decided that it was a good idea to shut the nuclear plants down. I once heard the cope justification that the nuclear plants became a negative investment, but if that is the reason, suddenly for the greens a bit of money is more important than destroying the environment by burning millions of tons of coal like Germany is doing now.

And what about governments subsidizing lab grown meat? — RogueAI

Untenable sci-fi stuff for the next 100 years championed by the "we heckin love science"/"I can't solve middle school math" crowd (Mickei). Those 3D printed steaks are full of carcinogens for all we know.

As far as I can tell, "We do something about the environment" is generally the most rational (re)action, at least if caring about our children's children. — jorndoe

Yeah. It’s strange that we wouldn’t take their word for it on such a complex subject. Everyone seems to think they’re an expert or that it’s ok to have a strong opinion about climate change, but they wouldn’t do the same thing with microbiology or biochemistry or astrophysics or something. Someone brought up this point before and I agree. I think there’s always a chance things are wrong but when there’s such broad agreement, I tend to go with that. Especially when it’s important. Like the ozone was years ago. Countries came together to solve that problem and they succeeded. But with this one, for some reason it has become partisan. Like people think it’s a political thing, like a left wing issue. I don’t know who came up with that like if it was the left wing pundits or the right wingers but that’s how it was framed in people’s minds.

@Mikie I read some of that book and the parallels between this and tobacco industry \ smoking - cancer is very interesting. Companies like Exxon use some of the same PR people as Philip Morris! My thing is; don’t the ceos of these companies have kids and family? I mean they must know what they’re saying is bs but they still do it for the buck. Just weird to me. I guess they must have convinced themselves. Anyway, thanks for the recommendation!

At what point do you land the plane? — Echarmion

Should be right away! Good analogy

My thing is; don’t the ceos of these companies have kids and family? I mean they must know what they’re saying is bs but they still do it for the buck. Just weird to me. — John McMannis

Glad you liked the book.

Yes, it is bizarre, but it’s understandable when you look at it. In the same way that Christian fundamentalists deny evolution, the religious cult that is Trumpism and the republican party was easily duped into climate denial. All they had to do was tell them that climate change is a lie from the devil to take over the world. The devil being in this case “liberals” (which to them means anyone from cities or the coastal states, or anyone who’s ever looked down on them).

Unfortunate, but that’s what money can buy.

Achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions critical to limit climate tipping risks
^{— T Möller, A E Högner, CF Schleussner et al · Nature · Aug 1, 2024}

Every 0.1°C of warming increases risk, with acceleration above 2.0°C

Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of US Congress

Climate denialists – 23 in Senate and 100 in House – are all Republicans and make US an outlier internationally

Speaking of Oreskes:

Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University who has long studied anti-climate rhetoric, said it was “unsurprising” that the report found old-school climate denial is on the decline.

“It’s harder to deny the science when it’s so much more apparent that the climate is warming, that extreme weather is getting worse and happening constantly,” she said. “Nobody can deny the science with a straight face, given everything.”

She noted, however, that the fossil fuel industry and its allies have long used a variety of messaging to rebuff concerns about the climate. She said she was unsure those other forms of rhetoric were any less harmful.

“As far back as the 1990s, they were saying renewable energy isn’t reliable enough, or they were saying that wind power … kills whales,” she said. “Is it really so different from climate denial if you don’t deny the science but you deny the possibility of solutions?”

Interesting article. They spell it out in undeniable terms. But it’s not from Nature — it’s from Nature communications.

https://medium.com/@stuartcapstick/a-letter-to-my-kids-4011845ff98b

A letter to my kids

What can I say, now that it’s too late?

I can tell you the obvious: that I’m sorry, that I tried.

I can tell you how sorry I am, that it ate me up. That even as we sat in bed with the nightlight on, reading together about coral reefs and finding Dory, I knew there was not much time left for those bright and beautiful places.

I can tell you that I tried, that even though it felt hopeless, still if there was any chance left then I wasn’t going to quit. I can tell you that this is why we always took the train, why I pestered politicians, why we changed what we ate, why I got myself arrested that time.

But what I really want you to know: that the hardest thing was living through a time when we could have turned this around, but that most people just carried on as if it didn’t matter.

There will be a thousand explanations for this. You’ll hear that people were selfish, that we were trapped in a consumer culture, that our politicians were craven servants of fossil fuels, that the media didn’t keep us informed, too preoccupied with dance contests, fashions and trivia.

There is something in all of this, but I want you to know what it felt like at the time. It felt like a dream, where everything seemed so normal, but where under the surface there was a horrible and brutal truth we all pretended didn’t exist. Hardly anyone even spoke about climate change and the destruction of the natural world. If you did, more often than not the conversation would be shut down, familiar devices pulled out of nowhere to dismiss, sidetrack, and silence your concerns.

And outside, the world — the thoughtless, concrete and metal, fume-choked, all-consuming human world — rumbled on, deaf to the warnings and unwilling to lift a finger.

I want to tell you that I am sorry, and that I tried.

Your dad,

Stuart

Do you feel a weight on your shoulders for how your children would feel in the future? Do you believe they will feel ‘disappointed’ with you? 

Even though I get the letter's meaning, I believe there will be a common understanding that the ineptitude of politicians and the greed of some businessmen should be held accountable rather than any specific people.

Greenland ice takes up what would otherwise contribute markedly to sea levels. These folk examined interim deglaciation during the Pleistocene, from when the temperature was ≈ 2-3°C above pre-industrial.

Plant, insect, and fungi fossils under the center of Greenland’s ice sheet are evidence of ice-free times
^{— Bierman, Mastro, Peteet, Corbett, Steig, Halsted, Caffee, Hidy, Balco, Bennike, Rock · PNAS · Aug 5, 2024}

Greenland was ≈ 1-10°C in July, largely ice-free tundra. Anyway, anthropogenic climate change could end up seeing some wicked rises in sea levels.

Interesting take, thank you.

I do feel a weight, yes. I believe in politics of responsibility, which I've set out before here: Politics of Responsibility

It gets a lot of conservative and laissez faire panties in a twist, which is always a good indicator it's a very good idea.

The real thing boomers should be feeling sorry for is the fact that their children will have to carry their economically unsustainable social security systems (which will probably be completely scrapped by the time their kids would get to enjoy them), and that the reason their kids are infertile and getting cancer and Parkinsons at the age of 30 is because they followed the ethereal 'climate change' narrative while blind to the real poisoning of the environment that have clearly discernible causes.

PS: I realize now that the melodramatic letter was probably not written by a boomer, because this type of virtue-signaling self-flagelation is not in their nature.

PS: I realize now that the melodramatic letter was probably not written by a boomer, because this type of virtue-signaling self-flagelation is not in their nature. — Tzeentch

The letter was written by Stuart Capstick. He seems to be pretty 'boomer', actually. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/stuart-capstick-81584260

ethereal 'climate change' — Tzeentch

clearly discernible causes — Tzeentch

It’s not ethereal— it’s overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and also happening all around us. The effects are at least as obvious (if not more so) than toxicity (which is also not ethereal).

The causes are also very clearly discernible: greenhouse gases. This is pretty basic stuff. To imply the causes aren’t discernible, the effects aren’t seen, etc — is pure climate denial. Why don’t you grow up on this subject already?

The causes are also very clearly discernible: greenhouse gases. This is pretty basic stuff. To imply the causes aren’t discernible, the effects aren’t seen, etc — is pure climate denial. Why don’t you grow up on this subject already? — Mikie

I will "grow up" on this subject once it stops being a lightning rod that obfuscates the very real, short-term health risks that everybody ignores.

I know that's not your intention, but it's the intention of many who keep flooding the media with climate alarmism.

Both have as their root cause profit seeking. For instance, it would be sufficient if the Netherlands would produce what we needed. Instead we produce 10x as much, which under normal circumstances would exhaust the earth (with monoculture), so we add fertiliser, which deteriorates the quality is the earth and water (you can't replicate natural efficiencies). Then we want to maximise yields, so we start killing everything that touches our food using poison, but we prefer to call them "crop protection means". Further destroying the soil and water. Marketing creates a perfect image of a tomato, zucchini and apple, so now only "perfect" looking but generally tasteless products reach our table. We mechanize as much as possible and export most of it.

Making fertiliser = extra co2
Poison = extra Co2
Mechanization = extra Co2
Export = extra Co2

Knock on effects:
Cleaning soil = extra Co2
Cleaning water = extra Co2

obfuscates the very real, short-term health risks that everybody ignores. — Tzeentch

Who’s ignoring it? I hear about things like PFAS and microplastics and pesticides, etc., all the time. So I suppose that’s “alarmism” as well.

But of course there’s real, short-term health risks of climate change too. Like dying in a wildfire or starving from draught’s impact on food — or flooding, or heat stroke. And so forth. I don’t see how one can ignore these things and claim ii’s ethereal. It’s at least as real and important as toxicity.

It’s at least as real and important as toxicity. — Mikie

Middle class white males might be being emasculated by synthetic oestrogen pollution.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028202043893

This is far more important than a few million Bangladeshis and Chinese drowning and a few million African's starving, etc.

I get your point, but toxicity in general is important. As @Benkei pointed out, the cause is mostly the same: profits over people. So the rate at which we’re killing insects alone is alarming. Fertility rates are down too— there’s not overwhelming evidence that this is due to pesticides and the like, but there’s some that points in that direction.

Anyway— yeah, also important. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The framing of climate change being “ethereal,” or somehow far away and less real, in contrast to pollution and toxins, is ridiculous. We should be alarmed about both.

yeah, also important — Mikie

Sure, Global warming is simply one aspect of the degradation of the environment caused by human overshoot that results by from myopia of self-centred, shortsighted thinking. But a drop in human fertility is rather an ameliorating factor to the problem.

If we all would still be living the tribal life, we wouldn't be in overshoot. It's not too many people, it's too many people doing the wrong things. Profit over everything else because money has become the necessity to survive. Instead of actual skills that help you survive: building, fishing, farming, cooking etc., most people learn a job only existing within the system that demands money for toy to survive. So you cannot get out, unless you have a lot of money.

In the past, there were very few lawyers and mostly concerned with arguing cases instead of writing contracts. Today consumer terms and conditions are more complex than peace treaties. Do we really need it? Probably not but it pays the bills (quite well I must add because avoiding liability fits well in profit maximisation through externalising costs).