Climate change and what we should do about it

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 606
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1221
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by JLBB » 1 year ago

pjhair wrote:
1 year ago
Yes, I find it really problematic when some conservatives in the US claim that universal healthcare automatically means communism. Healthcare and education should be either free or so cheap that everyone can afford it. I am also annoyed by conservatives dogmatic denial of global warming and their passion for guns.
"I am also annoyed by conservatives dogmatic denial of global warming"

The reality is it doesn't help anyone to acknowledge it because in reality it just becomes a lever the the government to yank more taxes from and in many circumstances create policies which damage business and the poor. My state in Australia has among the highest power prices in the world and saw them virtually double in a decade due to moving greatly to renewable energy, particularly wind farms. We now have to import energy from interstate (who use fossil fuel generation of course), have regular giant price spikes and supply issues + have destroyed any potential for a manufacturing industry here. Resources companies also have made clear it makes investment in the state virtually impossible because of a lack of both energy security and stable, cheap prices.

With rollout of modern fossil fuel generation plants the country could have more substantially cut emissions than they have through further renewables penetration in the grid which has been their approach to date. At substantially cheaper prices, without subsidies and and without the same supply constraints. Instead the government subsidises renewables which make fossil fuel generation less compelling as it has higher marginal costs and lacks the same subsidies, making investment in baseload fossil fuels energy impossible. We've ended up with lower supply, higher costs and emissions have actually increased nationally. But of course its not about cutting emissions to them or providing cheap energy for the poor, its about simply presenting themselves to appear virtuous to their army of RClarks. Its more religion.

If it's an issue, then the focus should be on mitigation of negative effects as they arise. The fight specifically on C02 emissions has been an abysmal failure, cost trillions of dollars, increased costs of energy for business and the poor and ultimately failed to cut emissions to begin with despite the vast government intervention.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1478
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3655
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 year ago

JeanLucBB wrote:
1 year ago
"I am also annoyed by conservatives dogmatic denial of global warming"

The reality is it doesn't help anyone to acknowledge it because in reality it just becomes a lever the the government to yank more taxes from and in many circumstances create policies which damage business and the poor. My state in Australia has among the highest power prices in the world and saw them virtually double in a decade due to moving greatly to renewable energy, particularly wind farms. We now have to import energy from interstate (who use fossil fuel generation of course), have regular giant price spikes and supply issues + have destroyed any potential for a manufacturing industry here. Resources companies also have made clear it makes investment in the state virtually impossible because of a lack of both energy security and stable, cheap prices.

With rollout of modern fossil fuel generation plants the country could have more substantially cut emissions than they have through further renewables penetration in the grid which has been their approach to date. At substantially cheaper prices, without subsidies and and without the same supply constraints. Instead the government subsidises renewables which make fossil fuel generation less compelling as it has higher marginal costs and lacks the same subsidies, making investment in baseload fossil fuels energy impossible. We've ended up with lower supply, higher costs and emissions have actually increased nationally. But of course its not about cutting emissions to them or providing cheap energy for the poor, its about simply presenting themselves to appear virtuous to their army of RClarks. Its more religion.

If it's an issue, then the focus should be on mitigation of negative effects as they arise. The fight specifically on C02 emissions has been an abysmal failure, cost trillions of dollars, increased costs of energy for business and the poor and ultimately failed to cut emissions to begin with despite the vast government intervention.
Your calculation is incomplete. What you're doing is tabulating the costs of reducing climate change and ignoring the costs of ignoring climate change. Naturally, since you're adding up the costs on one side and not on the other, you get that the first side is the more expensive option. But it's not an impressive argument and you should know better.

Here's a partial rundown of the costs of carbon-based energy:
- The eventual refugee crisis from rising sea levels. I remind you that the world could not even deal with 1,000,000 Syrians. Try 200,000,000 southeast Asians and let me know how that goes.
- The eventual cost of having oil reserves be an input in foreign policy. To quote the former chairman of the US federal reserve, Alan Greenspan, "everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil". That is a war that killed ~1 million dollars and has cost ~3 trillion dollars in damages and counting (conservative estimate).
- The eventual cost of letting China take control of solar and wind power technology. Within the long-term, solar and wind have greater potential and that can be understood by an elementary school students. There is simply far more energy in solar than there is in carbon, the net differential offset is a factor of ~100,000. The costs are dropping as an exponential decay, they're at approximate price parity now, and whoever owns this technology should own energy in the 21st century. It would be silly for the Western countries to abandon their lead as you are advocating.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1733
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3778
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by Admin » 1 year ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 year ago
Your calculation is incomplete. What you're doing is tabulating the costs of reducing climate change and ignoring the costs of ignoring climate change. Naturally, since you're adding up the costs on one side and not on the other, you get that the first side is the more expensive option. But it's not an impressive argument and you should know better.

Here's a partial rundown of the costs of carbon-based energy:
- The eventual refugee crisis from rising sea levels. I remind you that the world could not even deal with 1,000,000 Syrians. Try 200,000,000 southeast Asians and let me know how that goes.
- The eventual cost of having oil reserves be an input in foreign policy. To quote the former chairman of the US federal reserve, Alan Greenspan, "everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil". That is a war that killed ~1 million dollars and has cost ~3 trillion dollars in damages and counting (conservative estimate).
- The eventual cost of letting China take control of solar and wind power technology. Within the long-term, solar and wind have greater potential and that can be understood by an elementary school students. There is simply far more energy in solar than there is in carbon, the net differential offset is a factor of ~100,000. The costs are dropping as an exponential decay, they're at approximate price parity now, and whoever owns this technology should own energy in the 21st century. It would be silly for the Western countries to abandon their lead as you are advocating.
Those are wild predictions and I believe the data is insufficient to say that the sea levels are going to rise so critically. So yeah, even if it happens, which I don't think it will, they can just, you know, move away from the coasts?

I believe the jig's been up for some time now when it comes to those apocalyptic climate change predictions. It's just not happening, and I remember that when I was a kid, 20 years ago, you had the same alarmist environmentalists being like "oh you'll see, Flanders will be underwater by 2020! Then Wallonia will have to welcome Flemish people, and Brussels will be underwater! Oh you'll see!"

That's the problem with those wild doomsday theories based on very incomplete data and science, time passes, and the people who made the wild predictions always double down and refuse to admit that they were flat-out wrong: "well let's forget about global warming, it's climate change now! Oh and by the way, Belgium will be half underwater by 2040... Oh you'll see! Pay that carbon tax now! If you don't you're a climate change denier nazi!"

The rest of your post is more analysis based on an exclusively materialistic and economic view of the world. I don't want to say the word... ;)

Image

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1478
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3655
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 year ago

Admin wrote:
1 year ago
Those are wild predictions and I believe the data is insufficient to say that the sea levels are going to rise so critically. So yeah, even if it happens, which I don't think it will, they can just, you know, move away from the coasts?
The first-order physics and chemistry of global warming and emerges entirely from a simple observable -- carbon dioxide is opaque to mid-infrared radiation. The rest follows quite simply: increased CO2 -> Increased temperatures. Indeed, we're seeing increasing temperatures nearly every year, exactly as predicted.

PS Alan Greenspan was not a Marxist. You should look up who he was. His ideology was actually more closely aligned with the anti-Marxist "Chicago school" of economics (Milton Friedman, Eugene Fama, etc).

Karl Marx did not and could not have known about global warming. The concept of it was discovered was Svante Arrhenius:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 606
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1221
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by JLBB » 1 year ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 year ago
Your calculation is incomplete. What you're doing is tabulating the costs of reducing climate change and ignoring the costs of ignoring climate change. Naturally, since you're adding up the costs on one side and not on the other, you get that the first side is the more expensive option. But it's not an impressive argument and you should know better.

Here's a partial rundown of the costs of carbon-based energy:
- The eventual refugee crisis from rising sea levels. I remind you that the world could not even deal with 1,000,000 Syrians. Try 200,000,000 southeast Asians and let me know how that goes.
- The eventual cost of having oil reserves be an input in foreign policy. To quote the former chairman of the US federal reserve, Alan Greenspan, "everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil". That is a war that killed ~1 million dollars and has cost ~3 trillion dollars in damages and counting (conservative estimate).
- The eventual cost of letting China take control of solar and wind power technology. Within the long-term, solar and wind have greater potential and that can be understood by an elementary school students. There is simply far more energy in solar than there is in carbon, the net differential offset is a factor of ~100,000. The costs are dropping as an exponential decay, they're at approximate price parity now, and whoever owns this technology should own energy in the 21st century. It would be silly for the Western countries to abandon their lead as you are advocating.

Research into renewables is subsidised, creating renewable inputs into the grid are subsidised, the energy that they bid into the grid is subsidised. I'm yet to see a single example of a major Western country lower prices without gigantic subsidies in the industry, effectively looting the taxpayer pocket and pretending they've cut costs at the other end. This isn't the same in any sense for the fossil fuels industry, at least in Australia who can't even get financing for minerals exploration and under no circumstances financing for a new coal plant. Despite the brainwashed and and illegitimate points about China you constantly mention on this issue, CHINA ARE PLANNING OR CONSTRUCTING 700 NEW COAL PLANTS.

The other MAJOR point which you and every single person on this issue avoids is how an energy market actually operates. In Australia energy is bid in at 30 minute intervals, renewables have minimal or zero marginal costs and are paid an amount to output zero emissions energy into the grid also. Coal absolutely cannot compete as it has fixed marginal costs and will in all circumstances fail to provide energy at the same low rate as renewables at peak output, effectively meaning less of their output can be utilised during peak renewables hours and making it significantly less profitable. In turn they ultimately have to increase costs, but it also means there is zero incentive to create new fossil fuels generation in the country which creates the supply/demand problem which raised prices to begin with. Who would invest in a coal plant with zero subsidies as opposed to wind farms, 10x more difficult regulatory issues to overcome and create costs, and a spot market system that lends itself to renewables that have low marginal costs? This is what creates the main pricing problem due to supply, which no one has managed to address yet.

Well the fucking problem that you and others don't understand is that renewables have absolutely no means of running consistently in output at all times of the day, which is what a first world nation requires. It's not a simplistic idea of renewables being cheaper because of fucking course they will be cheaper due to lack of marginal costs, the question is whether it is useful in running a society and economy on through a full transition as a replacement to fossil fuels baseload energy, and supply individuals and entities on an individual basis at a lower cost (spoiler, it isn't even close). SA has the largest battery system IN THE WORLD and can ultimately only provide power to 50000 homes for about 30 minutes. The technology to run baseload energy to an economy through purely renewables DOES.NOT. EXIST. PERIOD. A system where it makes sense to utilise both baseload fossil fuels and renewables also doesn't exist due to the nature of energy spot markets, made worse by the subsidies. I'm not against innovation like you suggest, nor that Western nations should abandon their lead, but taxpayers shouldn't be forking out money to experiment on frankenstein approaches that they, and you clearly have absolutely no understanding of by quoting figures without understanding context and skewing others like in regards to China.

The kicker is that despite the massive subsidies in Australia, the giant increase in renewables penetration and an energy market that is fundamentally not set up to benefit fossil fuels, we have failed to cut emissions AT ALL, decreased supply with many fossil fuel plants at the end of their lifespan, and virtually doubled prices in a decade. That is with all the gigantic force of government to support the transition and billions of dollars they spent, on top of creating a less stable grid without required supply and with higher prices. If we had canned every last renewables investment in this country including the subsidies and regulatory boundaries to coal and nuclear and simply built a modern fleet of coal plants, we would have cut prices instead of doubling them, and actually succeeded in cutting emissions, rather than succeeding in virtue signalling like you're more interested in.


The idea "renewables are cheaper" that you claim is simply moronic and shows you don't actually understand how the system works. On top of this "The costs are dropping as an exponential decay, " is just an outright lie and you're not stupid enough to not know what exponential means, your constant mention of China in relationship to this issue is braindead considering they're planning 700 new coal plants and even under Paris targets are expected to triple emissions potentially by 2030. The claims about China taking control of the renewables industry is completely absurd, no one is saying that investing in technology or science should be banned, simply that if its such a fruitful area of investment you don't need to pickpocket citizens and force this on them through regulation and subsidies. It's not just some moral issue either like whether or not every person should be entitled to healthcare, objectively costs have soared and emissions have increased despite the massive input of government, because ultimately failing at fixing problems through intervention and increased taxes on their citizens is what government does best.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1478
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3655
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 year ago

JeanLucBB wrote:
1 year ago
Research into renewables is subsidised, creating renewable inputs into the grid are subsidised, the energy that they bid into the grid is subsidised. I'm yet to see a single example of a major Western country lower prices without gigantic subsidies in the industry, effectively looting the taxpayer pocket and pretending they've cut costs at the other end. This isn't the same in any sense for the fossil fuels industry, at least in Australia who can't even get financing for minerals exploration and under no circumstances financing for a new coal plant. Despite the brainwashed and and illegitimate points about China you constantly mention on this issue, CHINA ARE PLANNING OR CONSTRUCTING 700 NEW COAL PLANTS.
Yes, both carbon and renewable energy sources are subsidized. That said the subsidies for solar power are far lower than the amount of money spent on the Iraq war, etc.
JeanLucBB wrote:
1 year ago
Well the fucking problem that you and others don't understand is that renewables have absolutely no means of running consistently in output at all times of the day, which is what a first world nation requires.
A non-issue. They don't need to run 24/7 as the energy grid can be spread over a large surface area (reducing weather risk), and battery technology is improving rapidly. I'm not discussing yesterday's energy market, I'm discussing planning for the next ten, twenty, or thirty years.
JeanLucBB wrote:
1 year ago
The idea "renewables are cheaper" that you claim is simply moronic and shows you don't actually understand how the system works. On top of this "The costs are dropping as an exponential decay, " is just an outright lie and you're not stupid enough to not know what exponential means,
It means that the curve associating energy prices to time is log-linear.
Image
That's close enough to log-linear for me to be intellectually satisfied with the statement that I made.
JeanLucBB wrote:
1 year ago
your constant mention of China in relationship to this issue is braindead considering they're planning 700 new coal plants and even under Paris targets are expected to triple emissions potentially by 2030. The claims about China taking control of the renewables industry is completely absurd, no one is saying that investing in technology or science should be banned, simply that if its such a fruitful area of investment you don't need to pickpocket citizens and force this on them through regulation and subsidies. It's not just some moral issue either like whether or not every person should be entitled to healthcare, objectively costs have soared and emissions have increased despite the massive input of government, because ultimately failing at fixing problems through intervention and increased taxes on their citizens is what government does best.
China is the world leader in wind power, they're the number one country in the world for wind power use. Their wind capacity is growing by over ~10%/year. They're also the number one market in the world for photovoltaic, their solar capacity nearly doubled in 2017. They're also doing well in nuclear power:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

China is investing in multiple energy sources.They have 7% annual GDP growth and are building the world's number one economic superpower, it makes sense for them to hedge their bets.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 606
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1221
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by JLBB » 1 year ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 year ago
That is rich, as you are on record as rejecting science as basic as global warming. Anyway, making leaps of faith is your right.

I'm well aware of Trump's interviews and his stated dreams from way back when. They came true. However, the part that you missed, is that a lot of Trump's electability arose from the country itself changing. It is now much more receptive to a non-expert, to explicit racism, to incoherence, and to social media than it once was. No, it wasn't obvious nor guaranteed that this was going to happen.

I recently finished watching Ken Burns' Vietnam documentary. It had a lot of footage of speeches from Kennedy, from Nixon, and so on. One thing that stood out was how eloquently and purposefully politicians spoke to them. Every word and every sentence had its place. They were spoken in genuine prose. Even Reagan (who came twenty years later) often spoke very eloquently. Nobody could have predicted the era of the covfeve.
'That is rich, as you are on record as rejecting science as basic as global warming."

Except I never said I rejected global warming and if its "basic science" as you say long term temperature trend predictions wouldn't be so wildly inaccurate. I honestly feel sorry for you, its impossible to have a political discussion with someone who can't read what people actually write and attack a straw-man. Not to mention 95% of your arguments on climate science or renewables technology for example are based on a lack of understanding of how energy prices are set and appeal to authority fallacies. It's ugly and there's nothing worthwhile talking to you about it.

"It is now much more receptive to a non-expert, to explicit racism, to incoherence, and to social media than it once was. No, it wasn't obvious nor guaranteed that this was going to happen."

It wasn't obvious this would happen but again this is nothing to do with what I said, what I said was that he was waiting for an opportunity under circumstances where he could win, and he indeed found it.

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1257
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1 mg daily, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by rclark » 1 year ago

JeanLucBB wrote:
1 year ago
'That is rich, as you are on record as rejecting science as basic as global warming."

Except I never said I rejected global warming and if its "basic science" as you say long term temperature trend predictions wouldn't be so wildly inaccurate. I honestly feel sorry for you, its impossible to have a political discussion with someone who can't read what people actually write and attack a straw-man. Not to mention 95% of your arguments on climate science or renewables technology for example are based on a lack of understanding of how energy prices are set and appeal to authority fallacies. It's ugly and there's nothing worthwhile talking to you about it.

"It is now much more receptive to a non-expert, to explicit racism, to incoherence, and to social media than it once was. No, it wasn't obvious nor guaranteed that this was going to happen."

It wasn't obvious this would happen but again this is nothing to do with what I said, what I said was that he was waiting for an opportunity under circumstances where he could win, and he indeed found it.
Global warming is actually worse than scientists have predicted.

To be honest, I think you just enjoy trolling people.

I really can't take you seriously any more.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018 ... 760748002/

Just curious, where do you hear the 'N' word used a lot?

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1478
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3655
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 year ago

JeanLucBB wrote:
1 year ago
Except I never said I rejected global warming and if its "basic science" as you say long term temperature trend predictions wouldn't be so wildly inaccurate.
It is, for example, more basic and more firmly established than most of economics. The fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to long-wavelength infrared radiation (you don't know what any of those words mean) is as established as ... anything. The long-term temperature trends have increased continuously, as they should have given the model predictions:
Image

But you choose to reject settled science and that's your prerogative. It's a common issue on the right. I used to have right-wingers tell me that the Earth was 6,000 years old, or that the link between smoking and lung cancer was exaggerated. I simply have no patience for it at this point. If it feels like I'm mocking, it's because I am.
JeanLucBB wrote:
1 year ago
It wasn't obvious this would happen but again this is nothing to do with what I said, what I said was that he was waiting for an opportunity under circumstances where he could win, and he indeed found it.
It has to do with what I said. There was no guarantee and no good way to predict that such an opportunity would emerge in his lifetime. If he were determined to become President in 1988, he would have focused on normalizing his image.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 262
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 730
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by yettee » 10 months ago

JeanLucBB wrote:
11 months ago
I'd compare it to the guy that doesn't support gay marriage for example but ends his argument with "but I have gay friends". The basic idea of climate change isn't in dispute by ANYONE of any political persuasion either, the question is anthropogenic climate change and interaction of human influence on variables.
That isn't a question to the vast majority of climate scientists.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1733
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3778
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by Admin » 10 months ago

It's about time we had a thread dedicated to this subject, as it was about to derail another thread again :p. I tried to move as many relevant posts from other threads to here.

I also changed the title so that hopefully, the focus will at a point move to what should be done about climate change. Because as I'll explain in my post below, it's always about pointing it out and saying that "something should be done!" but I never see people on the left expand on what they mean by that exactly.

So on one hand, the title at least acknowledges that it's a reality (which I believe too) and on the other hand, it asks for solutions. I'm really curious as whether practical solutions are ever going to be suggested in this thread, or anywhere.

Here's my current take on this: yes the temperatures are rising and it's very likely due to human activities. Can we do anything about it? Unless we take drastic measures, no, there is also a consensus that it's already too late.

Will the effects be as bad as the scientists like to predict? I don't think so, I think they're overplaying their hands here and it's going to be fun to watch them dance around the fact that what they predicted didn't happen in 20-30 years. It's already the case now, many respected scientific sources said that doomsday would have already arrived in the 1980's and 1990's, and every time what they predicted doesn't happen, they just move the goalpost 20, 30, 50 years into the future thinking it's safe.

And why do they do that? Beyond the fact that climate change is a reality, that man has a big part to play in it, what the leftist and other environmentalist authoritarians see here is a manner to control other people, to tell them to change their behavior otherwise God is going to take their revenge on them, oh sorry it's mother nature here. What I noticed is that the climate change activists sounds like evangelists, "Judgement Day is coming", probably the same people who would laugh at the Christian right-wingers for claiming that the end is near.

This is what worries me the most here, how the anticapistalist left-wingers are using this as a tool to shame and bend people to their will, it's always the same scheme.:

- You have that position on this issue? Well your beliefs are going to bring about a fascist government!
- You're not alarmed about climate change and don't want to spend 100 billion dollars on it? Well you're going to destroy the planet!

I mean can't they slow down for a second? To me it's obvious that they get high on all this global warming drama, on the feeling that they must be right, that at least they care. I'm sorry my resentful authoritarian friends, I'll still be taking two planes to go to Australia next month, and I'm still going to use a car every now and then, and I'll be having as many children as I want. And most importantly, I'll keep my faith in humanity and the future, you're not taking that away from me.

For God's sake, we've been ecologically-minded for how many years now? 50 years at most?! We're doing what we can, most of us, most businesses and most politicians are doing what they can. You're not going to solve this by scaring us into adopting drastic changes and reducing our quality of life just in case, just because "oh you'll see, in 50 years!", that's not good enough to convince me, sorry.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1478
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3655
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 10 months ago

@Admin , thank you for keeping the forum's threads on-topic.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1733
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3778
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by Admin » 8 months ago

Huge "Claim the Climate" march in Brussels this Sunday:

http://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels/1 ... on-climate

I saw the imagery they were using on their Facebook group and couldn't help but see some semi-unvoluntary or unconscious symbolism on it:

claim-the-climate-zombie-commies.jpg
claim-the-climate-zombie-commies.jpg (135.3 KiB) Viewed 1366 times

Many of my (Facebook) friends are attending, they have no idea of what they're demanding and why they will be marching exactly, but one thing they're sure about is that they are pissed a both the elites and people who don't want to think like them. They're going to march to save the planet!

A lot of people around the world love an occasion to virtue signal and fill their social networks with hashtags they think woke and revolutionary. Young people even think it's more important than going to school:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-30/ ... n/10571168

Yep, it's not obvious what's going on here, not at all.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1122
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2132
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by That Guy » 8 months ago

I don't doubt that climate change is a real thing, but it's absolutely a tool of globalism. I've lived through how many doomsday scenarios now? I remember in the late 90s, when I was in like grade 1 - 3 they were screeching at us kids about how by 2005 X would happen! It didn't. Then, in 2005 I remember my grade 7 teacher was forced to make an apology to his classes because of all his climate change doomsday shit. He showed us some apocalyptic movie from the 80s about how climate change would ruin the world by 2020. I can't remember what the movie was, but it's about this couple outrunning a mad max sort of society that has come about from climate change. They eventually make it to Canada (lol) in the end of the movie, but it ends on a somber note as they watch the setting sun, meaning "they can't outrun it forever" as our teacher put it.

Anyway, he scared the shit out of all those kids for nothing, because it's almost 2020 and the world isn't going Mad Max because of climate change.

It is going mad max because of the globalist nonsense he drilled into our skulls, though.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1347
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1854

Re: Climate change and what we should do about it

Post by blackg » 8 months ago

Admin wrote:
8 months ago


A lot of people around the world love an occasion to virtue signal and fill their social networks with hashtags they think woke and revolutionary. Young people even think it's more important than going to school:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-30/ ... n/10571168

Yep, it's not obvious what's going on here, not at all.
I was so proud of those young Australian school children for giving up a day of education and putting themselves on the front line of the climate change debate.
These kids have the future of our planet in their hands.

God bless 'em.
Ringo, said the gringo

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests