Climate change and what we should do about it

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Grasshopper
Hair Loss Newbie
Hair Loss Newbie
Posts: 41
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 149
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: finasteride 0.5mg, RU58841 2x40mg, Dermarolling bleeding weekly, Microdose minoxidil

Climate change and what we should do about it

#12547

Post by Grasshopper » 1 year ago

Admin wrote: 1 year ago There's a big difference between spending a trillion dollars foe preventive measures that are almost certain not to do anything due to the extremely limited capacity we have to predict the future in any reliable manner and effecticely spend that money to move people when and if the sea levels ever rise to the point that the coasts get flooded.
There is a misconception, because scientists work in probability. They will say there is a high probability of modest sea rise and low probability of dramatic sea rise, but we are not sure.

But apart from accessing risk that is projected so far into the future, for me there is a completely different scenario.


At the beginning of the nuclear age we had to start huge investments and we gained tremendously. That every single household machine is running on electricity is only possible because of the huge price drop through nuclear power.

Now we stand at the same point again. Once we have done the investment in electric cars, power lines, wind turbines and gas powerplants, energy will be much cheaper.

Right now renewable is expensive because of the cost of transition. Already today nobody invests into nuclear in America, because they most likely won't keep up with wind and solar.

Only China and Japan are building nuclear reactors, but at the same time China went up to 36% renewables in installed electric power, overtaking Germany.

And the main reason is not to save the planet but for strategic energy security reasons.
It's simple to block oil and uranium supply but virtually impossible to damage a decentralised wind power network.


China will leave the US behind, having a mature wind and solar market with huge economy of scale savings before the US even wakes up. And once you have economy of scale in wind turbine installation, we can burn energy like hell, because it's nearly free and won't impact the planet anyway.
And in case you really have no wind for a week, you power up expensive gas plants, it won't matter in the big picture.

User avatar
Guest-4
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 2073
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 5859
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Climate change and what we should do about it

#12568

Post by Guest-4 » 1 year ago

Admin wrote: 1 year ago There's a big difference between spending a trillion dollars foe preventive measures that are almost certain not to do anything due to the extremely limited capacity we have to predict the future in any reliable manner and effecticely spend that money to move people when and if the sea levels ever rise to the point that the coasts get flooded.
In this case an ounce of prevention is likely worth a pound of cure. It would be much better to simply not have to relocate those other people, that would cost untold trillions of dollars. It costs a huge amount of money to build cities -- they are in fact built over centuries or millennia.

To the best of my knowledge, a significant sea level rise is the worst case scenario for global warming. The socio-economic and cultural damage of relocating all of those people would be on par with a sub-armageddon scale limited nuclear war. Let us hope that it does not get that.

Added in 58 seconds:
Grasshopper wrote: 1 year ago There is a misconception, because scientists work in probability. They will say there is a high probability of modest sea rise and low probability of dramatic sea rise, but we are not sure.

But apart from accessing risk that is projected so far into the future, for me there is a completely different scenario.


At the beginning of the nuclear age we had to start huge investments and we gained tremendously. That every single household machine is running on electricity is only possible because of the huge price drop through nuclear power.

Now we stand at the same point again. Once we have done the investment in electric cars, power lines, wind turbines and gas powerplants, energy will be much cheaper.

Right now renewable is expensive because of the cost of transition. Already today nobody invests into nuclear in America, because they most likely won't keep up with wind and solar.

Only China and Japan are building nuclear reactors, but at the same time China went up to 36% renewables in installed electric power, overtaking Germany.

And the main reason is not to save the planet but for strategic energy security reasons.
It's simple to block oil and uranium supply but virtually impossible to damage a decentralised wind power network.


China will leave the US behind, having a mature wind and solar market with huge economy of scale savings before the US even wakes up. And once you have economy of scale in wind turbine installation, we can burn energy like hell, because it's nearly free and won't impact the planet anyway.
And in case you really have no wind for a week, you power up expensive gas plants, it won't matter in the big picture.
The west's fears of nuclear power are largely irrational in my opinion.

User avatar
blackg
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2408
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 4457
Norwood: NW3.5
Regimen: Alcohol coping mechanism
Location: NSW, Australia

Climate change and what we should do about it

#12585

Post by blackg » 1 year ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote: 1 year ago In this case an ounce of prevention is likely worth a pound of cure. It would be much better to simply not have to relocate those other people, that would cost untold trillions of dollars. It costs a huge amount of money to build cities -- they are in fact built over centuries or millennia.

To the best of my knowledge, a significant sea level rise is the worst case scenario for global warming. The socio-economic and cultural damage of relocating all of those people would be on par with a sub-armageddon scale limited nuclear war. Let us hope that it does not get that.
Except hundreds of thousands wouldn't be dying from nuclear fallout.

Also, I agree with you about the West's nuclear power fears. We have sufficient safety checks in the Western countries that use nuclear power.
Me and my friends are like, double-whiskey-coke-no-ice.

Grasshopper
Hair Loss Newbie
Hair Loss Newbie
Posts: 41
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 149
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: finasteride 0.5mg, RU58841 2x40mg, Dermarolling bleeding weekly, Microdose minoxidil

Climate change and what we should do about it

#12588

Post by Grasshopper » 1 year ago

I just saw that I had already written the same stuff some time ago and was corrected.
JLBB wrote: 1 year ago You're an idiot that doesn't understand opportunity cost or a basic cost/benefit analysis then. Its indisputable that we could invest in renovating an entire energy grid with modern fossil fuel plants and cut more emissions and save more money than the maximum amount of viable wind/solar power.
..
Except there has been virtually no improvement in renewable energy production in a decade regarding viable pricing and stability for a viable economy with successful mass emissions cuts.
The improvement is that we finally have intelligent grid technology to actually support large scale (fluctuating) renewable energy. Energy sinks like fridges, washing machines and car batteries will draw more power when power is available, correcting for fluctuations.

Wind turbine blades are still hand made, this will be automated in the next few years. Also huge technology change.

JLBB wrote: 1 year ago This is despite the fact that in most Western countries relatively and literally renewables get significantly more subsidies than fossil fuels
Total subsidies in fossil fuels is still higher. You underestimate how much subsidies go into any kind of energy generation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

JLBB wrote: 1 year ago "In the long run, renewables will be almost free, because they actually don't need any fuel to generate electricity."

Not even a basic fucking understanding of how renewable energy works. Renewable refers to the source, not the means of production. We aren't talking about a magical pizza, sunshine, rainbows and free energy tree here, this is the real world.
Renewables will reach grid parity in China in 2022. Meaning that without subsidies they are as cheap as fossil/coal.

Producing wind turbines and solar panels gets cheaper with scale and we are just at the beginning of mass producing them.
Once the economy of scale hits the is no way for fossil to keep up in the long run.

As with any technology it pays to be first. So I suggest investing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab ... y_in_China (search parity)

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2478
Norwood: NW2.5

Climate change and what we should do about it

#14178

Post by That Guy » 1 year ago

The sinister undercurrent of climate protests:

To paraphrase "Unremitting peace and love do not await us beyond our borders and we cannot trade existential threats"




User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 751
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 888
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Dutasteride 0.5 mg everyday

Oral minoxidil 5 mg everyday (10 mg soon)
Age: 20

Climate change and what we should do about it

#14179

Post by Xexos » 1 year ago

Extinction ? I know it's not my business, but out of curiosity, why do you care so much about something that would happen at least hundreds of years after you die, that if it even happened ?

Life is short, and you believe that this life is all you have, so try to enjoy your time and stop caring about things that 99.99999% won't happen in your lifetime or affect you.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2478
Norwood: NW2.5

Climate change and what we should do about it

#14180

Post by That Guy » 1 year ago

Xexos wrote: 1 year ago Extinction ? I know it's not my business, but out of curiosity, why do you care so much about something that would happen at least hundreds of years after you die, that if it even happened ?

Life is short, and you believe that this life is all you have, so try to enjoy your time and stop caring about things that 99.99999% won't happen in your lifetime or affect you.
Well, for one: Extinction Rebellion is the name of the climate protest...

For two: This is the most boomer post I've seen from a non-boomer.

Image

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 751
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 888
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Dutasteride 0.5 mg everyday

Oral minoxidil 5 mg everyday (10 mg soon)
Age: 20

Climate change and what we should do about it

#14181

Post by Xexos » 1 year ago

That Guy wrote: 1 year ago Well, for one: Extinction Rebellion is the name of the climate protest...

For two: This is the most boomer post I've seen from a non-boomer.

Image
Ah sorry then, i just saw the word extinction and quickly ran into conclusions which i shouldn't have done.

And for the second part, do you even have kids to care about their future after you die ? If you do have, then i don't think i can blame you for caring about the next generations, but i don't think you have any kids that's why i found it a bit weird that you care about the far future so much.

nameless
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1123
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 914
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Climate change and what we should do about it

#17102

Post by nameless » 1 year ago

Extremists are even seen as extreme within their own party:

Hey @That Guy, the younger and more recently educated conservatives are saying more and more that guys like you are wrong on climate change. So when it comes to climate change your argument isn't just with me. Your argument is also with younger, smarter, and more recently educated CONSERVATIVES, of all people. Older conservatives with older educations still say that climate change is a hoax or it isn't man-made, but new conservatives who are more recently educated with updated facts, are taking issue with that uninformed and illogical thinking.

And the hits just keep coming:

This hit is brought to you by That Guy and it's called, "A Giant Antarctic Shelf Will Soon Split In Two".

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/science ... ailsignout

One last hit before I call it a day:

Here's another That Guy Special.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/weather/ ... ailsignout
Last edited by nameless 1 year ago, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
blackg
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2408
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 4457
Norwood: NW3.5
Regimen: Alcohol coping mechanism
Location: NSW, Australia

Climate change and what we should do about it

#17122

Post by blackg » 1 year ago

I believe in man made climate change. I just don't believe in the catastrophic predictions made by the screaming banshees of global warming.
Me and my friends are like, double-whiskey-coke-no-ice.

nameless
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1123
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 914
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Climate change and what we should do about it

#17144

Post by nameless » 1 year ago

blackg wrote: 1 year ago I believe in man made climate change. I just don't believe in the catastrophic predictions made by the screaming banshees of global warming.
You will believe in it in the not too distant future. And it's a sign that you're not as intelligent as you think you are since there is already sufficient evidence out there establishing that the catastrophic predictions are starting to show up in reality. Read about rising seas in Southern Florida. Here read this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-f ... ons-2018-4

Added in 46 minutes 50 seconds:
The thing about global warming and rising seas is that a lot of the damage is already locked in. In other words, future sea level rise will happen no matter what we do. The reason for this is that the atmosphere is loaded with enough green-house gasses to keep the process going for another 25 years even if we went 100% green today. And last I heard there is no way to get those gasses out of the atmosphere. And in the not-too-distant-future when a chunk of South Florida is literally underwater and sea levels are still rising, That Guy and blackg will be blaming democrats or *other republicans* for the mess we'll be in. The'll swear it was other people, not them, who were calling global warming and rising seas a hoax. They'll tell the world (especially women) they always supported measures to prevent global warming and sea level rise because they'll think that will make them sound cool and smart, especially with the women. The last estimate I heard is that there's 25 years of Greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere to keep warming the planet for another 25 years or so. So at the point when That Guy and Blackg see South Florida partially under water and they start screaming, "Hey, we told you all so. You all should have listened to us. Now we're in a real pickle and everyone better listen to That Guy and me (blackg) so we can fix this mess that the democrats and a couple bad republicans created.

And there's some evidence that the rising seas aren't just rising, the rate at which the're rising may also be increasing.

What this means is that by the time blackg and That Guy figure out that they're wrong we will be locked into considerable damage to Florida and perhaps other states.

Ignorance is dangerous.

User avatar
Admin
Forum Administrator
Forum Administrator
Posts: 2051
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 5281
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: 3 FUE hair transplants (5124 grafts), 5% minoxidil, hope.
Age: 30
Contact:

Climate change and what we should do about it

#18111

Post by Admin » 1 year ago

So our media is publishing articles calling for violence. Because what sacrifice would be too great to save our Great Mother the Planet, right?

https://translate.google.be/translate?h ... 5f6433dac7

And at the same time, some of the climate protesters themselves are resorting to violence:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... s-movement

Image

As if it was not the next logical step for the climate activists.
:christian-cross: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

User avatar
Admin
Forum Administrator
Forum Administrator
Posts: 2051
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 5281
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: 3 FUE hair transplants (5124 grafts), 5% minoxidil, hope.
Age: 30
Contact:

Climate change and what we should do about it

#20747

Post by Admin » 9 months ago

@Afro_Vacancy

Since the science about climate change is so accurate, why are scientists' predictions almost always wrong?

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-yea ... redictions

I can see the main argument being something like: "Well it was not accurate science at the time, but now, the models we have, they're the real deal!" Except that's what they thought when they made those predictions that turned out to be wrong. You'll also say that those articles are cherry-picked and that the website has an agenda... contrary to the scientists pushing climate alarmism.

It's not that I don't believe in climate change, or that man played a part in it. Science seems to point in this direction. And for me, that's as far as it should go, how can science be elevated into this ultimate tool that can have fail-proof and definitive answers?

I had a whole science journalism course at university constantly insisting that all science was provisional and we should always remain critical and skeptical of it.

Yet that's now the attitude I see a lot of scientists have nowadays, their trust in science is elevated to the rank of dogma, and they keep getting their hubris thrown back in their faces every time they make those bold predictions, insisting that "it's science bruh!", only to be proven wrong a few decades later.
:christian-cross: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Grasshopper
Hair Loss Newbie
Hair Loss Newbie
Posts: 41
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 149
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: finasteride 0.5mg, RU58841 2x40mg, Dermarolling bleeding weekly, Microdose minoxidil

Climate change and what we should do about it

#20864

Post by Grasshopper » 9 months ago

I was depressed about climate change until a conservative friend set my head straight by pointing out how many doomsdays we survived. Or in the words of Jordan Peterson: The world may end but our predictions about it will still certainly be wrong.

However in the face of a possible catastrophic outcome it's not a bad idea to try to mitigate some risks. Eg I'm not travelling into Narco territory in Mexico even though I'll probably be good.


The us army's opinion:

From the executive summary (and you don't need to read more than those two pages):

The study did not look to ascribe causation to climate
change (man-made or natural), as causation is distinct
from effects and not pertinent to the approximately 50-
year horizon considered for the study. The study does,
however, assume that human behavior can mitigate
both the size and consequences of negative impacts
that result from climate change.

Sea level rise, changes in water and food security, and
more frequent extreme weather events are likely to re-
sult in the migration of large segments of the popula-
tion. Rising seas will displace tens (if not hundreds) of
millions of people, creating massive, enduring insta-
bility. This migration will be most pronounced in those
regions where climate vulnerability is exacerbated by
weak institutions and governance and underdeveloped
civil society.
Attachments
implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf
Us ay on climate change
(2.86 MiB) Downloaded 36 times

User avatar
Admin
Forum Administrator
Forum Administrator
Posts: 2051
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 5281
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: 3 FUE hair transplants (5124 grafts), 5% minoxidil, hope.
Age: 30
Contact:

Climate change and what we should do about it

#20868

Post by Admin » 9 months ago

Grasshopper wrote: 9 months ago Or in the words of Jordan Peterson
:pepe-happy:

The media is now talking about the "eco-anxiety" that young people are experiencing, anxiety that they helped creating. Like Jordan Peterson also said about the (far) left and its corrupting of the youth: "You really need to hate the youth if you want to make them feel like that!"

You always see the same criticism of that: "Well at least they're being realistic about it, reality is harsh, while you're living in a fantasy world, oh you'll see when doomsday comes!" And those people think they have banned all religion from their lives. You simply can't do that as humans are inherently religious. Any aspect of reality, of your psyche that you try to suppress will come back in other forms.

And here you can clearly see that those climate doomers or any secular political ideologues are often worse than the most dogmatic religious people. Even in Christianity, you'll rarely find those guys who harshly judge you and tell you to repent for your own sake because "hey there's scripture that says so!" just like there is scientific literature about climate change. And it's always those authoritarians who will tell you that without any further explanation, you just have to believe!

They seem to have this literal belief in science, as if the words written in the pages of scientific studies were an end in themselves, not connected to anything else. One of the problems with science is that as I've alluded in my post above, it's that many people seem to have lost sight of how the early scientists of the West used to ground science, how it was always provisional, how you should always be skeptical of it. That's where we lose the parallel with religion obviously. But this current merging between science and religious thinking (some call it scientism) is not good for our societies.

Religion is connected to a tradition, to a proper hierarchy of interpretation, to values that prevents us from saying: "Well this text says that, that means we should really feel bad, curl up in a ball and cry at others for not believing like us!" With scientism, those safeguards do not exist, which is why you see the climate activists appear unhinged, and advocate for insane policies that will never be viable. You can clearly see that they don't have a proper hierarchy of values when they make the following claim:

"We shouldn't have kids anymore. In the end, maybe it would be better if there were no human beings on the planet!"

And here you see their misanthropy, and how much they hate the human race, especially its youth. Besides, and without going deeper into that, if there are no human beings, there is no one to experience reality and give meaning to it. They want out? Fine, eject yourself, but stop telling the rest of the world what they do should it, but I guess the media will keep pushing this toxic anti-human narrative, thinking it's still oh so edgy to advocate for the death of the human race. The 1970's are over guys, the edgy is on the side of the people you're attacking: conservatives.
:christian-cross: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post