Problems can be solved if you take effective measures against them :O
What a shocker.
Seriously, that example was badly chosen.
General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
Problems can be solved if you take effective measures against them :O
What a shocker.
Seriously, that example was badly chosen.
No, it was a perfect example.
At the time, the world was also going to end, realistic steps were taken to alleviate the problem, the (political) activists screeched it was not enough and the world was coming to an end, but low and behold, the issue was indeed solved and we're all still here! Now that's a shocker!
Fast-forward to 2019, there are again issues to be solved, realistic steps are being taken to address the issue, the (political) activists are screeching it's not enough and the world is coming to an end... I suspect we're all still going to be here in 15/30/45 years...
Last edited:
What does being anti-LGBT have to do with the environment one way or the other? And the fact that they have a right wing bias when every post you lot link to has a radical left wing bias, yet the right wing publication gets taken down. Uh huh, nice to know which side the mods are on.Maybe this helps:
a summary:
Church Militant - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or nomediabiasfactcheck.com
Overall, we rate the Church Militant Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as being labeled an anti-LGBT hate group by other sources.
Now we slowly see where our friends are coming from...
No, it's a bad example for a couple of reasons.
Climate change and ozone depletion are miles apart when it comes to severity and size of the issue. When you compare them ozone depletion is a minor inconvenience at best and that is exactly how it was treated.
It didn't take much to counter the issue, several major nations, with the US actually leading the effort, banned most ozone depleting substances after discussion because they were able to substitute in most cases. Following that other nations followed suit, until all 193 countries banned ODSs. What's even more different is that action was taken before a scientific consensus was achieved.
We're now at least one and a half decades after a scientific consensus about the effects of GHG emissions (by that I mean mostly Carbon Dioxide emissions, it's not the only greenhouse gas but by far the biggest contributor due to its sheer quantity) on atmosphere and climate, and realistic steps are only beginning to appear in some countries, while major nations still decide that it's easier to bury their heads in the sand like they did in the last 100 years (I'm serious here, the first theories and studies on the effects of GHG emissions were written almost 100 years ago). GHG emissions are a fundamental problem of our way to generate energy, unlike ozone depletion it is not a problem that can be solved by superficial measures like banning the production of a set of chemicals. The scientific, technical and societal progress needed to phase out GHG to even a quarter of the extent in which we phased out ODSs are so disproportionate that it's simply not comparable.
In the midst of the 90s ozone depletion slowed down, due to the introduced measures. If we'd immediately stop emitting all GHGs, then maybe the grandchildren of your grandchildren would be able to observe a "slow down" of climate change, provided that we renaturalize a lot of natural carbon sinks in the mean time. The emissions itself are not even the problem. I'm certain that it was already mentioned in here that there have been times where the proportion of carbon dioxide and the average temperature was much higher, yet life still found a way. The main problem is the ridiculous speed at which we emitt these gases, we're going through changes in temperature that would usually take the natural processes millions of years to complete in less than two or three hundred years. If a large part of the ecosphere can not adapt, that large part will die. And as we are dependend on the ecosphere a large part of us will die, too. Technology can only mitigate so much of that.
The only thing GHG emissions and ozone depletion have in common when you observe them from a abstract point of view is that they're both symptoms of how unsustainable the current global society is.
You guys would probably get a seizure if you meet someone who's actually left and not center-right.
Last edited:
Oh, by US standards I'm probably a far-left radical.
By european standards I'm center-right, sometimes center-left depending on the issue.
Ok, that's what I was thinking. For the record, I've spent a lot of time around the far left, both on forums and in the world; I married into a family that thinks San Francisco is the Mecca of civilization and Berkeley is the greatest center of higher learning in the known world. Trust me, I know the left quite intimately
It looks to me as if you're cherry picking and derailing the debate, (as always). If you read any description of a source and see that they have a religious or political agenda, you must raise an eyebrow and be skeptical. That goes for any religion and any part of the political spectrum. What you read isn't necessarily false, but you can bet your life that it's not the whole truth, which is kind of why it goes "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Sometimes it can even be informing to read arguments from both sides. As long as they're both based on facts and truth, you can often spot which side is wrong, and it's not always the same side.
Science can be political in it's conclusions, and even when you read scientific articles, it is always a good idea to check out the author(s). But, and that is a very important point, in science the law says you have to be honest. You're allowed to be wrong, but if you deliberately lie, you risk going to jail, literally. You can create any "institute" and throw a bunch of videos @ Youtube without having to obey to the same laws. Youtube contains a lot of very high quality information, but it's not all true, and there's a lot of conspiracies floating around. Not all conspiracies are necessarily false either, but most of them have been seriously debunked (using science).
If you want to argue against science, you must accept a few rules. One is that we still believe in logic. If anything goes against the philosophical rules of logic, then you could have some exceptionally strong arguments, but you'd still be wrong. Secondly you must accept that if anything contradicts the accepted basics of math, then it's wrong. Finally you have to tell the truth. You could argue against climate change using science, but it always ends up with someone looking at the numbers and the diverging calculations, and points to the error in one set of calculations. That's good. That's progress
Last edited:
Because 80% of the "climate activism" is actually politically motivated, and the climate changes is just a new excuse to push left ideologies forward. Why do you think "capitalism" and overall "the right" are the nominated guilty parties of the climate changes (even the Communist Party of China, the world greatest polluter, is deemed "right wing" by the lefty activists)? Because all this has little todo with actual climate changes, and much more to do with using climate changes as excuse to push left wing agendas.
That's why you can't take these people seriously, and it's a shame that pretty much all public discussion nowadays is infected with political bias, and overall in every noteworthy topic of public discussion there's far too much emotion involved and far too little reason.
Yeah...all you did here was explain to me that scientific articles that don't line up with your bias should be sunk to the bottom whilst one's with a bias you agree with are good to go and have the mods seal of approval.It looks to me as if you're cherry picking and derailing the debate, (as always). If you read any description of a source and see that they have a religious or political agenda, you must raise an eyebrow and be skeptical. That goes for any religion and any part of the political spectrum. What you read isn't necessarily false, but you can bet your life that it's not the whole truth, which is kind of why it goes "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Sometimes it can even be informing to read arguments from both sides. As long as they're both based on facts and truth, you can often spot which side is wrong, and it's not always the same side.
Science can be political in it's conclusions, and even when you read scientific articles, it is always a good idea to check out the author(s). But, and that is a very important point, in science the law says you have to be honest. You're allowed to be wrong, but if you deliberately lie, you risk going to jail, literally. You can create any "institute" and throw a bunch of videos @ Youtube without having to obey to the same laws. Youtube contains a lot of very high quality information, but it's not all true, and there's a lot of conspiracies floating around. Not all conspiracies are necessarily false either, but most of them have been seriously debunked (using science).
If you want to argue against science, you must accept a few rules. One is that we still believe in logic. If anything goes against the philosophical rules of logic, then you could have some exceptionally strong arguments, but you'd still be wrong. Secondly you must accept that if anything contradicts the accepted basics of math, then it's wrong. Finally you have to tell the truth. You could argue against climate change using science, but it always ends up with someone looking at the numbers and the diverging calculations, and points to the error in one set of calculations. That's good. That's progress
See askavir's post a few above; as far as I'm concerned he just smashed the entire conversation like it was made out of glass.
Or you could chose to trust that the closest you'll ever get to the truth is science. That way you don't have to worry about whether to trust the "dangerous lefties", or whatever it is that scares you. What does science say?
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities
climate.nasa.gov
Here's an article I found right at the top of the Google search:
Zimbabwe's worst drought for 100 years slows Victoria Falls to a trickle
For decades Victoria Falls, where southern Africa's Zambezi river cascade down 100 metres into a gash in the earth, have drawn millions of holidaymakers to Zimbabwe and Zambia for their stunning views.
www.telegraph.co.uk
Please note that in the article it never really cites the drought that was worse a 100 years before, despite the headline. In fact, it actually does make very brief note of one that was more severe in 1995, but only grudgingly. Got to have them nearly hysterical headlines, though, right? I mean, fake news is actually good if it serves the correct purpose...right?
Or you could chose to trust that the closest you'll ever get to the truth is science. That way you don't have to worry about whether to trust the "dangerous lefties", or whatever it is that scares you. What does science say?
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities
I do believe in science, but unfortunately there are many layers of people between the actual science and the reported "conclusions". Anyway I do firmly believe there is a climate change issue, and I also do believe a part of it is man-made (how much exactly is still up for debate, even among scientists).
I do believe things need to change. But the thing is, things are already changing. We have the bulk of the industry (those damn evil capitalists) researching cleaner alternatives all around, the auto industry, the airplane industry, we're replacing plastics for other materials, we have electric vehicles, hydrogen prototypes, we have increasing power generation from renewable sources... Things are being done to address the issues at hand. And those changes will accelerate as we research and create more and more cleaner alternatives as the research turns into results and technology.
Where I stop believing "the science" and jump off the merry bandwagon, is at the end of the world paranoia and doomsday fear-mongering, that is being used for pushing ideologic propaganda rather than addressing the real issues in a serious manner.
As always, they somehow manage to make something not pertinent to politics political and the recipie is simple, you don't like what Joe said? Call him a (insert negative adjective) (insert the side you dislike) wing. Add the communist or socialist cherry on top and you've got an USA approved political deflection.
That's actually a nice illustration for a thread full of end of the world loonies.
Um, you're the one who quoted and emboldened the "anti lgtq community" phrase, drawing attention to and linking it the environmental discussion. I simply asked what the connection was. Don't worry, I get that you don't have an answer that wouldn't make you look bad, and askavir already covered it anyway.
I only completely trust the scientific work that follows the rules, where the math is solid and the conclusion follows logic in a very strict manner, like physics and parts of biology. Using that part of science, it is pretty obvious that the subject of this thread is to be taken literally. A few important factual data:
85% of the energy we use globally comes from fossil sources. Burning them causes climate change.
30% of the energy we use globally, is used for feeding the global population. We don't have unused land or a lot of water for irrigation. Without fossil energy we either need an alternative source or we starve.
We need to act, and we need to act now. How we'll do that is not my concern. My concern is that we don't. Everybody think electricity is the new black, but we simply don't have enough of the needed atoms to "electrify" the planet. We are quickly running out of cobber, cobalt, neodymium, phosphorus and lithium to mention some of the important ones. This means that mining of those elements is predicted to drop, while we readjust the mess we're in. That is where I find "electrification" conflicts with logic. The most realistic global solution I've seen is Organic Photovoltaics to harvest sunlight, and hydrogen to store energy, but the challenges with hydrogen are enormous. Just the global amount of hydrogen released due to spills and leakages in such a scenario would cause major problems with the ozone layer, which reacts with hydrogen.
We're pretty much up the creek, and we still have no paddle.
That's actually a nice illustration for a thread full of end of the world loonies.
And that's a great strawman.
- Status