Page 1060 of 1095 FirstFirst ... 6056096010101050105810591060106110621070 ... LastLast
Results 10,591 to 10,600 of 10948

Thread: Little rants that don't deserve their own thread

  1. #10591
    Senior Member Senseye's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,386
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    There, fixed it for you.
    Wrong again. I'm not arguing with the folks that say it will get a little warmer. I'm skeptical of the folks who will say that will mean TEOTWAWKI. You better hope I'm right, as I am certain China et. al. have little interest in reducing emissions any time soon. And Greta and her fellow liberals are only interested in haranguing Western nations.

  2. #10592
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Senseye View Post
    Wrong again. I'm not arguing with the folks that say it will get a little warmer. I'm skeptical of the folks who will say that will mean TEOTWAWKI. You better hope I'm right, as I am certain China et. al. have little interest in reducing emissions any time soon. And Greta and her fellow liberals are only interested in haranguing Western nations.
    How much is a "little" warmer? Worst case scenario for our current emissions is 6C by the end of the century. Even Goldman Sachs are saying 60% of wheat crops are at risk by the end of the century.

    The people who are saying just a "little" warming are expecting us to reduce emissions.

  3. #10593
    Senior Member Thoth's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    AHJ 2006
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    How much is a "little" warmer? Worst case scenario for our current emissions is 6C by the end of the century. Even Goldman Sachs are saying 60% of wheat crops are at risk by the end of the century.

    The people who are saying just a "little" warming are expecting us to reduce emissions.
    You ignored the relevant point about China.

  4. #10594
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    You ignored the relevant point about China.
    Number 10 on the denialist staircase...

    Why do you want me to engage on your excuse for doing nothing?

  5. #10595
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    eNTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    14,603
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    Not necessarily. Depends what you call raising their standard of living. Bio-digesters supplying fuel and fertiliser, composting toilets and zero emission electric lighting would substantially increase a few billion peoples standard of living and have very little effect on carbon footprint.

    Providing them all with a RAM 3500 and a four lane concrete highway on the other hand...
    Roads and hospitals were on her list too--though it is interesting to note sanitation systems were not, save perhaps as part of a means to clean drinking water.

    Quote Originally Posted by jigglypuff View Post
    that’s fine, you don’t have to talk about your ideas.

    i wasn’t assuming anything. i asked a question cuz i can’t read your mind.

    you’re putting words in my mouth but i didn’t say any of that stuff. *shrug*
    I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm making predictions about what would have happened had I not unasked your question, based on decades of observing conversational patterns. It doesn't even have to be you, because anyone can jump in at any time.

    it may not have crossed your mind
    Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said Greta didn't use the word. I said nothing about my own thoughts, and now you're making assumptions about what my thoughts on the issue are when I've already said they aren't up for discussion.

    but it’s not “being precious about bullshit.” when people speak of “sustainable development” they’re usually following that vague UN definition of sustainability that’s been in place since the 80s that considers “the needs of the present” along with needs of the future. i don’t have it word for word but you can look it up.

    it’s not far-fetched to think she might be following that definition, but her words are so vague.
    You can't rebut a claim of being precious about bullshit by saying it's just using vague terminology. That's a distinction without a difference. You're just defining the conditions under which people are precious about bullshit.


    i don’t recall ever talking to you about this before, but ok cool.
    It's what you responded to when you made the response I called a loaded premise and a loaded question.
    People think they understand their own mortality, even when that understanding has just changed.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  6. #10596
    chaotic neutral shitpost jigglypuff's Avatar
    Type
    xxxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    shrubland
    Posts
    8,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    You ignored the relevant point about China.
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    Number 10 on the denialist staircase...

    Why do you want me to engage on your excuse for doing nothing?
    why should the US stop anything? look at china. why should china stop anything? look at the US.

    i think it's ignored cuz everyone knows it's just an excuse, as jyng1 says, and the back and forth never ends.

    the idea of measuring a country's emissions by how much is emitted within its borders is also incomplete and misleading considering that richer countries tend to outsource production (and therefore emissions) to poorer countries. for a long time china was/is that place for richer countries* but as china's become richer they've started doing the same thing with poorer countries, and this dynamic plays out even within its own borders.

    (keep in mind that china and the entirety of europe are roughly the same size.)

    * overseas companies were responsible for about 1/3 of china's emissions in 2008. this was 10 years ago, though. my point is that without considering imports/exports you can't have a clear picture of what any country is truly emitting, and anyway this is really hard to measure.
    Last edited by jigglypuff; 09-30-2019 at 12:56 AM.
    FUCK SHIT

  7. #10597
    Senior Member Sir Caveat's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jigglypuff View Post
    why should the US stop anything?
    It the anticipated benefit of stopping exceeds the cost of stopping and there's not a less costly means of achieving that benefit.
    You hide behind caveats and modifiers. - Lurker

  8. #10598
    Senior Member Senseye's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,386
    One of the alarmist tactics is to make predictions for 10, 20, 30+ years out so it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the prognostications. And then, of course, demand money now to address their fears.

    They've been doing this since 2000 however, and most of what "could" happen by 2020 didn't. So they've kicked the can down the road another 20 years or so.

    PS> What do the alarmists say about China and other growing 3rd world economies doing little or nothing? Do they claim if the west "do something" that alone will fix the problem? I know the mantra about virtue signalling, but the Eurozone countries are doing a pretty good job on at least holding their emissions in line (even US emissions have grown fairly modestly as of late) and China does not seem to be getting the signal.

    I mean if the alarmists are correct and the carbon budget is gone in 12 years (or less if China keeps ramping up their emissions) then why bother? Number #10 makes a good point - we might as well do nothing. What's the point of buying the human race a meager 20 extra years or so by the West flailing away with great sacrifice to their standard of living? Sure the social justice warriors would love it for a few years, but they'll starve all the same.

    The "denialist staircase" does itself an injustice by confusing common sense with denial.

  9. #10599
    chaotic neutral shitpost jigglypuff's Avatar
    Type
    xxxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    shrubland
    Posts
    8,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Senseye View Post
    One of the alarmist tactics is to make predictions for 10, 20, 30+ years out so it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the prognostications. And then, of course, demand money now to address their fears.

    They've been doing this since 2000 however, and most of what "could" happen by 2020 didn't. So they've kicked the can down the road another 20 years or so.

    PS> What do the alarmists say about China and other growing 3rd world economies doing little or nothing? Do they claim if the west "do something" that alone will fix the problem? I know the mantra about virtue signalling, but the Eurozone countries are doing a pretty good job on at least holding their emissions in line (even US emissions have grown fairly modestly as of late) and China does not seem to be getting the signal.

    I mean if the alarmists are correct and the carbon budget is gone in 12 years (or less if China keeps ramping up their emissions) then why bother? Number #10 makes a good point - we might as well do nothing. What's the point of buying the human race a meager 20 extra years or so by the West flailing away with great sacrifice to their standard of living? Sure the social justice warriors would love it for a few years, but they'll starve all the same.

    The "denialist staircase" does itself an injustice by confusing common sense with denial.
    this isn't about some "east VS west" shit. the wealthy don't care about whether they're exploiting in the "east" or "west."

    and if you're going to say there's no point, what's the point of saying anything? unless you mean to virtue signal about how much you don't virtue signal.
    FUCK SHIT

  10. #10600
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Senseye View Post
    One of the alarmist tactics is to make predictions for 10, 20, 30+ years out so it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the prognostications.
    The wankers will say anything to maintain their current emissions.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ing-prediction

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •