Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity over health of planet

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humanity/index.html

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170413165536-miami-beach-flood-exlarge-169.jpg

This is bad folks

I hope this global warming happens faster than it already is. Really want to end this Ice Age we are currently in, even faster.

But I don't want to pollute the environment while getting there.

Bring on the End of Humanity. The planet will be better off.

That whole story is such a Pile of Lefty Lies and BULLSHIT!

Tbh, I don't give a shit. We have a massive overpopulation problem. I have embraced the darkness. Might as well go out with a bang.


Peace is a lie. There is only Passion.
Through Passion I gain Strength.
Through Strength I gain Power.
Through Power I gain Victory.
Through Victory my chains are Broken.
The Force shall free me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I hope this global warming happens faster than it already is. Really want to end this Ice Age we are currently in, even faster.

But I don't want to pollute the environment while getting there.


I think we need to be clear about which environmental issues we talk about.

TBH the boggst one by far is environmental pollution and devastation. I hear China, for instance, is in terrible environmental shape.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Bring on the End of Humanity. The planet will be better off. Wow, for once we actually agree. Maybe it really is the end of the world

Originally posted by dadudemon
I hope this global warming happens faster than it already is. Really want to end this Ice Age we are currently in, even faster.

But I don't want to pollute the environment while getting there.


Exactly, the sad reality is that it seems as though focusing on global warming has pushed pollution to a back seat. We have the great pacific garbage patch, the atlantic garbage patch, islands covered in plastics/trash, that is a today problem.......except that its not.

"What door?" - Bernard Lowe

Originally posted by Stigma


I think we need to be clear about which environmental issues we talk about.

TBH the boggst one by far is environmental pollution and devastation. I hear China, for instance, is in terrible environmental shape.


Right. We talk about leaving a better world for our children and many of us are going apeshit over the carbon and green house gas issues. That's not the real issue. We will go through the warming, anyway. Just faster. Nothing we can do about that at this point, actually. Not sure why we focus so hard on that.

We need to focus more on making the world cleaner for all life to live in, at this point. As a secondary benefit, green house gas emissions would also be reduced.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Exactly, the sad reality is that it seems as though focusing on global warming has pushed pollution to a back seat. We have the great pacific garbage patch, the atlantic garbage patch, islands covered in plastics/trash, that is a today problem.......except that its not.

Yes, these are some of the things I had in mind.

Oh, so now all the deniers are on board and are just saying, "Oh, well, too late anyway. Just bring it on."

Well good job, morons. If you hadn't been morons maybe it wouldn't be too late.

Originally posted by Scribble
Wow, for once we actually agree. Maybe it really is the end of the world

I will enjoy seeing the Suffering and Fear! Now if only we could get a COOL Apocalypse....not something Boring like Zombies, but GIANT MONSTERS Like Pacific Rim, or even Better ...GODZILLA!!!!!!

Boring old Climate Change is to FuHHIN SLOW!!!!

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Oh, so now all the deniers are on board and are just saying, "Oh, well, too late anyway. Just bring it on."

Well good job, morons. If you hadn't been morons maybe it wouldn't be too late.

Maybe if we kept our eye on the ball and didn't let pollution get so out of control in turn we would have been more mindful of greenhouse gasses as well.

Planned obsolescence will never coincide with saving the earth through conservatism of energy/things. The companies are too greedy.

Take cars. More and more components are being made of cheap plastics and less metals. They claim it's to save weight, but aluminum is similar in weight but far stronger as a material.

It's certainly possible for a well-maintained older vehicle to out-live any modern car. It's also cheaper.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Oh, so now all the deniers are on board and are just saying, "Oh, well, too late anyway. Just bring it on."

Is anyone in this thread a denier?

We can go back to 2008, on KMC, and see evidence that I'm not a denier.

And, according to the scientific community, it has been too late for many years, now.

This video really brings it up (it's dramatized, but actually sought to capture the real situation as part of the show):

09rAkh5JRVQ

Originally posted by Kurk
Tbh, I don't give a shit. We have a massive overpopulation problem. I have embraced the darkness. Might as well go out with a bang.

That's a really irresponsible and f#cked up thing to say, to want millions of people to die from horrible storms, drought, and famine. It's not gonna be just a few tides rising. It will lead to some really f#cked up shit for the less fortunate.

And we wouldn't have so much of an overpopulation problem if we'd use our resources more wisely.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Maybe if we kept our eye on the ball and didn't let pollution get so out of control in turn we would have been more mindful of greenhouse gasses as well.

Pollution has always been on the table as a problem/not a problem though, well, at least since the late 50's/early 60's. People have argued "pollution is becoming a problem" and "nope, no pollution problems, keep on keeping on" since then,

It's also hard to separate man-made climate change from pollution, they're intermixed. The reason we're heating up faster than normal/natural, is because of pollution.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
That's a really irresponsible and f#cked up thing to say, to want millions of people to die from horrible storms, drought, and famine. It's not gonna be just a few tides rising. It will lead to some really f#cked up shit for the less fortunate.

And we wouldn't have so much of an overpopulation problem if we'd use our resources more wisely. I'm not giving up my resources. More people = more sharing. I'd rather die driving my Mercury Marauder than in a Prius. Humans are sh1t. Idgaf.

https://rlv.zcache.com/giant_meteor_2020_just_end_it_already_card-r97a663b76a8b47abaa322ea5a5b72400_zk9gb_324.jpg

^ Alright, you are really fu#ked up and irresponsible. Fair enough. Good job with that.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ Alright, you are really fu#ked up and irresponsible. Fair enough. Good job with that. I'm going to dental school

Originally posted by Kurk
I'm going to dental school

I hope you do really well and become a kickass dentist. I'll come visit your business in a few years, when you've been practicing for 1 or 2 years.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I hope you do really well and become a kickass dentist. I'll come visit your business in a few years, when you've been practicing for 1 or 2 years. Oh no , I'll be a slave working for Aspen Dental until I'm forty paying off my half-a-million in student loans at 7% APY. Only then can I take the risk of opening up a practice which may not be a feasible option at that time if dentistry become corporatized, or worse yet, a single-payer "medicaid for all" system is implemented (significantly lower compensation for procedures).

So while Robtard wanks off to universal health-care 20 years from now, I'll either have killed myself (dentists have the #1 suicide rate for a reason) or will have been lucky enough to have paid off all my loans so I can switch to another career.

TBF, I wank every day, more than once, doesn't even matter if I had sex that day. I'm just a wanker I guess.

Originally posted by Robtard
TBF, I wank every day, more than once, doesn't even matter if I had sex that day. I'm just a wanker I guess.

We've talked about this before but...

Okay, I'll write a poem to make this easier:


How can you stand
to finish in your hand?

I really like to keep,
My dick super deep.

Inside a p*ssy,
but not a tushie.

Perhaps north of south?
Finish in a mouth?

Get inside good boating,
Of yogurt deep throating.

Anyway, I hope your day is super great.
Use your wife's vagina: don't masturbate.

Why not both?

Also, poem is 5/7

Originally posted by Robtard
Why not both?

Also, poem is 5/7

Honestly, all 3 options in the poem are better than the hand or anything else done by myself.


Some people say that they get super tired or their partner gets super tired and it's just easier to fap. Others say their partner never wants to do it.

etc. etc.


But I don't buy into that. If I had 0 sex drive, I'd still put out, every day, multiple times a day, if my partner wanted it and needed it. Pretend I become a paraplegic or even a quad: I'd do everything necessary, every day, to make my partner happy.

If you're really getting off 3 times a day, that seem too often.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're really getting off 3 times a day, that seem too often.

If you've ever seen The Wolf of Wallstreet you wouldn't be saying that.

Originally posted by snowdragon
If you've ever seen The Wolf of Wallstreet you wouldn't be saying that.

If you can finish in a couple of minutes each time, that makes sense. If not, that's too often and you may damage yourself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you can finish in a couple of minutes each time, that makes sense. If not, that's too often and you may damage yourself. Yeah when I was a horny tween I would do it quite a bit to the point where I developed blisters. Tbf, I did it dry, only relying on precum, but yeah. Now-a-days no more than once a day 5-6 times a week.

Originally posted by Kurk
Now-a-days no more than once a day 5-6 times a week.

That's more normal and not dangerous at all as long as you're not doing stupid shit like humping couches (people actually do this) or floors.

Ummm. Masturbation isn't dangerous unless you're doing dangerous things like jerking off with sandpaper, cracking your dick over with a wooden ladle, jerking off every hour on the hours for hours on end etc. Even if it takes you 15+ mins to break one out, it's not dangerous in of itself.

So can we please end the spread of nonsense?

I saw this Christopher Hitchens clip a long time back, in it he offers the only argument worth considering on Global Warming

BDj6WechLhw

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing something about Climate Change. The only reason Climate Change denial exists is because of the strength and sway of Big Oil.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ummm. Masturbation isn't dangerous unless you're doing dangerous things like jerking off with sandpaper, cracking your dick over with a wooden ladle, jerking off every hour on the hours for hours on end etc. Even if it takes you 15+ mins to break one out, it's not dangerous in of itself.

So can we please end the spread of nonsense?

Who are you arguing against? Because you just shook your fist and railed against literally no one in this thread.


Usually, when someone says, "three times a day", 1 of 2 things is usually true:

1. They are lying.
2. They are harming themselves and have a problem.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I saw this Christopher Hitchens clip a long time back, in it he offers the only argument worth considering on Global Warming

BDj6WechLhw

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing something about Climate Change. The only reason Climate Change denial exists is because of the strength and sway of Big Oil.

I can agree with his "nothing to lose" argument. A lot of his views tend to be spot on.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I saw this Christopher Hitchens clip a long time back, in it he offers the only argument worth considering on Global Warming

BDj6WechLhw

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing something about Climate Change. The only reason Climate Change denial exists is because of the strength and sway of Big Oil.

He also mentions my stance in that it probably is too late and it's the outcome no matter what we do.

I think we should focus on pollution and adapting to a warming planet. Focus on renewable, sustainable energies. But not necessarily CO2 emissions if at all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I hope you do really well and become a kickass dentist. I'll come visit your business in a few years, when you've been practicing for 1 or 2 years.

Why would you hope this? Dentistry won't matter once the Climatocalypse begins.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Who are you arguing against? Because you just shook your fist and railed against literally no one in this thread.


Usually, when someone says, "three times a day", 1 of 2 things is usually true:

1. They are lying.
2. They are harming themselves and have a problem.


You.

"harming themselves and have a problem", okay, i laughed out lout. Not very loud, more of a chuckle, but it was still audible. Thanks for that.

Originally posted by Surtur
Why would you hope this? Dentistry won't matter once the Climatocalypse begins.

I'll be fit shamed and forced to commit sudoku before I can live that long.

Originally posted by Robtard
You.

"harming themselves and have a problem", okay, i laughed out lout. Not very loud, more of a chuckle, but it was still audible. Thanks for that.

Dude just responded to confirm my caution. Probably not okay to wack it like that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
like humping couches (people actually do this) or floors.

Lmao, what? People hump couches and floors?

How would a couch not be extremely painful to hump?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude just responded to confirm my caution. Probably not okay to wack it like that.

I'm going to up it to four times today while thinking of you

Originally posted by Surtur
Lmao, what? People hump couches and floors?

How would a couch not be extremely painful to hump? You put either a glove, ziploc bag with lube, etc between the cushion and base.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lmao, what? People hump couches and floors?

How would a couch not be extremely painful to hump?

^

Like Surtur isn't just the type of pervert who would **** a couch.

#exposed

Originally posted by Robtard
^

Like Surtur isn't just the type of pervert who would **** a couch.

#exposed

#Projection

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm going to up it to four times today while thinking of you

How do you have time to do that while working?

Do you work from home?

Or do you go to the bathroom for a bit?

Originally posted by Kurk
You put either a glove, ziploc bag with lube, etc between the cushion and base.

Well, that sounds safer than the rawdogging that I read about.

If you know an ER doc, ask them about the cases they've had to do deal with when humans are in pursuit of jollies.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, that sounds safer than the rawdogging that I read about.

If you know an ER doc, ask them about the cases they've had to do deal with when humans are in pursuit of jollies.

Yeah I just immediately thought of rugburn.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah I just immediately thought of rugburn.

And if not on the floor, couchburn. grouchoawe

Originally posted by Robtard
"What door?" - Bernard Lowe

Biggest "Holy SHIT'' moment of the TV decade.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, that sounds safer than the rawdogging that I read about.

If you know an ER doc, ask them about the cases they've had to do deal with when humans are in pursuit of jollies. I think of 1man1jar guy. Ouch. Believe me you don't want to watch it.

Originally posted by jaden101
Biggest "Holy SHIT'' moment of the TV decade.

Probably, I defo had a holy shitting moment

Originally posted by Firefly218
16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity over health of planet

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humanity/index.html

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170413165536-miami-beach-flood-exlarge-169.jpg

This is bad folks

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/30900000/Let-them-eat-cake-marie-antoinette-30973137-500-269.gif

Originally posted by Firefly218
16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity over health of planet Fake and gay. How can there be 16,000 scientists when there's only 250 sciences in the world? Checkmate, liberals.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
That's a really irresponsible and f#cked up thing to say, to want millions of people to die from horrible storms, drought, and famine. It's not gonna be just a few tides rising. It will lead to some really f#cked up shit for the less fortunate.

And we wouldn't have so much of an overpopulation problem if we'd use our resources more wisely.

Kurk is just a troll though, dadoodoo however seems actually serious.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is anyone in this thread a denier?

We can go back to 2008, on KMC, and see evidence that I'm not a denier.Nah, you're worse. Accepting the science (and the catastrophic impact) of climate change yet still saying we should do nothing about it is like a chain smoker accepting that cigarettes are killing him but hey, he's already been diagnosed with lung cancer, so why stop now?

The word stupid doesn't even cut it dadoodoo. Not even close.

Originally posted by Beniboybling


Kurk is just a troll though, dadoodoo however seems actually serious. Kiss my ass and suck my choad, Beni.

Well this thread developed in a weird way, huh.

On topic.To paraphrase Einstein: One scientist would be enough.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Nah, you're worse. Accepting the science (and the catastrophic impact) of climate change

Oh, really? Have you been paying attention at all in this thread or are you just trolling? Or perhaps you're an idiot? Maybe a bit of it all?

You do know it's TOO LATE, right? If we wanted to do something about this, we needed to do it 20 years ago.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
yet still saying we should do nothing about it is like a chain smoker accepting that cigarettes are killing him but hey, he's already been diagnosed with lung cancer, so why stop now?

Oh really? I said that, eh? Quote it.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
The word stupid doesn't even cut it dadoodoo. Not even close.

Okay, Benibuttplug.

You're rather dumb for having 20+ year old arguments and concerns and then trying to shit-shame people who actually care about the environment.

Great, you want to stop our greenhouse gas problems. Wonderful! So where's your global CO2 recapturing machine? Oh, right, technology doesn't exist and we are 20 years too late to stop this shittrain. You do know that the Earth was going to warm, anyway, right? We've just greatly sped up the timeline a few hundreds to a few thousand years.

So why you stick to your petty virtue signaling and pretend righteous indignation, the rest of us are going to be in reality, accepting that we've ****ed up and then trying to influence policy that saves the most lives.

"Derpy derpy, you don't care about hoomans! Derpy dooooo!"

We need to accept that:

1.) It's pretty much irreversible or close to it. Do all the renewable energy you want but you're only buying some time. Titanic was going to sink even if they tried to pump out the water to buy minutes.

2.) You cannot force developing countries to embrace renewable energy. Many don't have the infrastructure, the money, the compatibility in general. It would hurt their economies and no government will accept that.

Cept Kurk, your little story would have been more accurate if some sciencer on board kept telling Captain Smith that the Titanic was on a disastrous course and needed correction and the Capt'n kept saying "nope, that's a Chinese hoax, we're fine, we're in god's hands!"

Deniers turned "oh well, too late now" are the worst.

Originally posted by Robtard
Cept Kurk, your little story would have been more accurate if some sciencer on board kept telling Captain Smith that the Titanic was on a disastrous course and needed correction and the Capt'n kept saying "nope, that's a Chinese hoax, we're fine, we're in god's hands!"

Deniers turned "oh well, too late now" are the worst.

Nah, that's not happening. I think you and others are confusing deniers with people that are on an even further path.


So I would organize it like this:


1. Climate Change Deniers:
Climate change is not humanity's fault or it is not happening.

2. The Apathetics:
Climate Change doesn't affect us in a meaningful way, it doesn't matter, or there's nothing we can do about it.

3. Climate Change Supporters:
We need to do things before it becomes a disaster to prevent huge problems in the future.

4. Disaster Recovery:
We've already passed the point of no return and we need to deal with this fact and figure out what we can do to mitigate the damage/loss of life.




The deniers didn't jump from slot 1 all the way to slot 4. It's people in slot 3 realizing (scientists and some progressive pundits) we f***ed up for far too long.


The mistake you're making is similar to the mistake deniers have been making: insulting and throwing on ad hominems to ignore group 4. You're trying to dilute or even discard their message because it's an uncomfortable thought that it's too late. This is exactly what the deniers did to group 3 for years.


Also, the Titanic example:


This is how it really would be by the 4 groups I made, above:

Scenario:
The Titanic has already hit the iceberg, is sinking, has already broken in half, and the last half is 90% sunk.

1. Climate Change Deniers: There is no iceberg. The ship is fine. You're just trying to scare the rest of us.
2. The Apathetics: I don't care if we hit an iceberg. It doesn't affect me.
3. Climate Change Supporters: We are about to hit an iceberg and if we don't turn this ship around, we will have a catastrophy.
4. Disaster Recovery: WTF is wrong with all of you! This f***ing boat is sinking! We need to figure out how to save the most lives before all of us die!



In general, people only move from one strata to another: rarely jumping a strata. Meaning, someone in 1 will move to 2 or someone from 3 may be convinced to move to 2. What you suggest, that people are jumping from 1 all the way to 4, is completely absurd. There's probably at least 1 person who has done that, sure. But the amount of whiplash a person who have to undergo is absurd. I've seen no one like that, anywhere.

BTW how can one even deny the climate is changing, given that it is observable? I mean, it is always changing.

The questions that should be asked, however, are as follows: In what ways it is changing? Why? And can we do something about it?

IMHO It's past the point of no return, I say make sure dealing with pollution is number one priority.

There are huge countries like China that already experience devastating results of pollution. Also, **** off from the Amazon.

They're intertwining. The Climate Change that is the issue to humanity is caused due to pollution, so the same people denying Climate Change are in turn denying measure that would reduce pollution.

edit: There's at least one Climate Change thread in here and we had outright deniers, in regards to man causing it/pollution and negative impacts

Right.

What I meant is this, if we are past the point of no return (as DDM pointed out ealier), then we should focus on (for the lack of the better term) damage control.

Well yes, but damage control is what the "we need to act now" people have been saying all along...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, really? Have you been paying attention at all in this thread or are you just trolling? Or perhaps you're an idiot? Maybe a bit of it all?

You do know it's TOO LATE, right? If we wanted to do something about this, we needed to do it 20 years ago.No it's not too late, global warming is an on-going process directly resultant of our own activities, should we fail to act now or in the future, the situation will only get worse, less manageable, and more expensive. It is therefore in our direct interests to "do something about this", in fact it's an imperative.

This is a very simply thing to understand.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nothing we can do about that at this point, actually. Not sure why we focus so hard on that.Sorry if I misinterpreted, but this statement seemed to encourage inaction.

Sorry for calling a spade a spade dadungdrops, but you are an egit.

In development, should it only receive proper funding.

Nonetheless, try to understand that an inability to reverse the damage isn't an argument for doing nothing to prevent it getting worse.

But yes, we have the technology.

I'll let Lord Lucien speak for me on this one, because it's f*cking funny:
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The 6th mass extinction is underway, we may as well go hard now and kill as much of the diversity of life as possible. We should also finish off what we started in the rainforests--cut all of them down and replace them with strip mines and farms.


And those polar ice caps aren't going to melt themselves. They need our help so that they can raise sea levels and force hundreds of millions of people to flee diminishing coastlines. Then we can look back on the comparatively insignificant refugee crisis of the early 21st century with whimsical nostalgia.



But don't take our jawbs. Point out to me where I virtue signalled darling, or demonstrated "pretend righteous indignation", I simply called you an idiot, because that is how you are behaving.

Nonetheless it just so happens that policies aimed at global warming happen to fit that life saving formula. So what's your strategy?

Originally posted by Kurk
2.) You cannot force developing countries to embrace renewable energy. Many don't have the infrastructure, the money, the compatibility in general. It would hurt their economies and no government will accept that. This is funny because its the opposite of the truth.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_developing_countries

And isn't it interesting that besides the country in the middle of a civil war, the only one that failed to sign the Paris Accords (which was supported by developing countries around the world) was the one with the most wealth and infrastructure on the planet. mmm

Originally posted by Robtard
They're intertwining. The Climate Change that is the issue to humanity is caused due to pollution, so the same people denying Climate Change are in turn denying measure that would reduce pollution.

1. The term you're looking for is anthropogenic climate change.
2. Your statement is non sequitur and, in fact, I would posit that not a single climate change denier would, in turn, deny measures to reduce pollution.

Originally posted by Stigma
Right.

What I meant is this, if we are past the point of no return (as DDM pointed out ealier), then we should focus on (for the lack of the better term) damage control.


Right, which is why I've termed it "Disaster Recovery" because the disaster has already started, we cannot turn it back, we need to figure out how to deal with it.

Why doesn't Beni empty his bank account on converting his home's power-grid to solar or whatever? I'm sure he's running his house off of coal-powered energy right now. Or should the government do it for him?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No it's not too late, global warming is an on-going process directly resultant of our own activities, should we fail to act now or in the future, the situation will only get worse, less manageable, and more expensive. It is therefore in our direct interests to "do something about this", in fact it's an imperative.

This is a very simply thing to understand.

You just don't understand.

It's too late. Reducing or even eliminating every last bit of our green house gas emissions won't prevent the already forward marching progress of anthropogenic climate change. Why don't you understand this? There WAS a threshold. Was. But we passed that a long time ago.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Sorry if I misinterpreted, but this statement seemed to encourage inaction.

You didn't quote it. You took a statement out of context, on purpose. You have an agenda and you're on a troll-tirade.

Read this from the same post:

Originally posted by dadudemon
We need to focus more on making the world cleaner for all life to live in, at this point. As a secondary benefit, green house gas emissions would also be reduced.

Hmm, seems you glossed over this from the same damn post. lol Trolltit

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Sorry for calling a spade a spade dadungdrops, but you are an egit.

Sorry you mislabel things and are butthurt.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
In development, should it only receive proper funding.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So where's your global CO2 recapturing machine? Oh, right, technology doesn't exist


Originally posted by Beniboybling
Nonetheless, try to understand that an inability to reverse the damage isn't an argument for doing nothing to prevent it getting worse.

It's too late. Reducing or even eliminating every last bit of our green house gas emissions won't prevent the already forward marching progress of anthropogenic climate change. Why don't you understand this? There WAS a threshold. Was. But we passed that a long time ago.


Originally posted by Beniboybling
But yes, we have the technology.

No we don't.

Now you're resorting to lying, eh?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'll let Lord Lucien speak for me on this one, because it's f*cking funny:
Point out to me where I virtue signalled darling, or demonstrated "pretend righteous indignation", I simply called you an idiot, because that is how you are behaving.

Every last post you've made on this topic. Go back and read your posts.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Nonetheless it just so happens that policies aimed at global warming happen to fit that life saving formula. So what's your strategy?

Oh? Policies targeting green house gas emissions are going to stop and reverse global warming? And you called me an idiot?

Poor troll. Your games are so dumb you can't even keep your game straight.

So, I'm strongly considering ignoring your troll posts from now on. You're definitely a troll. I've seen your posts to others. You're worse that PVS.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, which is why I've termed it "Disaster Recovery" because the disaster has already started, we cannot turn it back, we need to figure out how to deal with it.

INB4 "carbon pollution"

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And isn't it interesting that besides the country in the middle of a civil war, the only one that failed to sign the Paris Accords (which was supported by developing countries around the world) was the one with the most wealth and infrastructure on the planet. mmm

Right, indeed.

Everyone aboard the "shame to participate", train.

Will reducing our green house gas emissions stop where we are, right now? We can talk about the Paris Agreement, for sure. Maybe a new thread?


What does it actually DO besides provide feel goods? Does it stop the Disaster of extreme climate change that's currently taking place?

Originally posted by Kurk
Why doesn't Beni empty his bank account on converting his home's power-grid to solar or whatever? I'm sure he's running his house off of coal-powered energy right now. Or should the government do it for him? In which the smart baby man resorts to strawman because he knows he's wrong. baby

Originally posted by dadudemon
You just don't understand.

It's too late.You're beginning to sound like one of those Christian doomsdayers you see holding signs on the streets, suffice so say your intellect is probably similar as well.

No it won't stop the planet from warming, but yes it would mitigate it, this is fact.

Sorry, but I believe I was indeed using the quote function. But get madder.

I'm sorry, but what is your point? You still advocated inaction in regards to global warming, did you not?



https://i.imgur.com/hDZ5JlZ.jpg

Regardless, any thoughts on that technology, aside from apathetic declarations of do nothingness? Does the real prospect removing all CO2 from the atmosphere really mean nothing to you?

U got me Dadoodoo. I am dead.

In other words, you resorted to lying.

A shitty attempt at strawman, I never once claimed we could stop or reverse global warming, but that indeed a "do nothing" approach is stupid and moronic.

I remember reading Collapse by Jared Diamond, so much is coming true.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No it won't stop the planet from warming, but yes it would mitigate it, this is fact.

You're using the word "mitigate" incorrectly. It would, as fact, not mitigate it.

You're looking for "slightly reduce the speed at which it occurs."

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm sorry, but what is your point? You still advocated inaction in regards to global warming, did you not?

Did you read my quote? You did. So why do you continue along this line of trolling?

Directly tackling greenhouse gas emissions is a lost cause. That's not "inaction" as you like to strawman.


Originally posted by Beniboybling
Regardless, any thoughts on that technology, aside from apathetic declarations of do nothingness? Does the real prospect removing all CO2 from the atmosphere really mean nothing to you?

More strawman attempts? You sad pathetic person.

You're very upset.

Still waiting on that global green house gas reduction technology.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
A shitty attempt at strawman, I never once claimed we could stop or reverse global warming, but that indeed a "do nothing" approach is stupid and moronic.

So your solution is to slow climate change, eh?



Perfect. Wonderful.

Tell me how and to what extent.

Will you delay the current climate change forward progress by 1 year? What about 5? 100? And how do you plan to do that?


Now go back to pretending like I'm saying the sky is falling and that the end is nigh. Those petty strawman tactics are entertaining. Hint: it's too late. Sky has already fallen. It's time to pick the pieces up.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
In which the smart baby man resorts to strawman because he knows he's wrong. baby I'm not arguing anything with you. It's a simple question. The doctor has to follow what they preach; why don't you?

Originally posted by Kurk
I'm not arguing anything with you. It's a simple question. The doctor has to follow what they preach; why don't you?

Well, often, these types of discussions end up being, "We have to do this. But not me."


"We have to take refugees in."
"Okay, so I can sign you up for next Tuesday to let 5 move into your home?"
"No, not me."


"We have to stop global warming and reverse the damage we've done."
"Okay, so you're going to pay for $100 trillion reclamation machine project?"
"No, sorry, not me. That much liquid money does not exist. Perhaps this was a woefully naive idea."



Less "not me"s and more "I volunteer"s, please.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. The term you're looking for is anthropogenic climate change.
2. Your statement is non sequitur and, in fact, I would posit that not a single climate change denier would, in turn, deny measures to reduce pollution.

1) Gesundheit

2) So all the talk about changing nothing much because it will stagnate the economy and such from those people I imagined?

I want to see a list of the names of all these "Scientists" and their Credentials before I can take their OPINIONS seriously.

Originally posted by Robtard
1) Gesundheit

2) So all the talk about changing nothing much because it will stagnate the economy and such from those people I imagined?

carbon pollution vs. all other types of pollution

They definitely do not consider them the same. As I said, not a single person would be pro-pollution that denies climate change. In fact, some of the climate change deniers are the same people shitting themselves over environmental pollution such as chemtrails.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're using the word "mitigate" incorrectly. It would, as fact, not mitigate it.

You're looking for "slightly reduce the speed at which it occurs."Even if I were to agree to your arbitrary definition, that would be mitigation yes, is this a joke?

In regards to directly tackling greenhouse gas emissions? Erm, yes it is.

I'll take that as a no, just put the blinkers back on then.

Slowing the process of climate of change if not putting a stop to its run away rise in recent years would indeed save a lot of money, resources, livelihoods, if not lives yes, while bringing us towards a greener, less polluted environment that you have at least shown an interest in. In regards to what extent? As far as we can bloody manage, and with a global climate accord.

I'm glad you're entertained dadoodoo, my only intent is to provide some lighthearted banter, but you keep getting all bitter about it.

Nice, catchy, care to develop?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I want to see a list of the names of all these "Scientists" and their Credentials before I can take their OPINIONS seriously.

Probably a bunch of Bill Nye's

Originally posted by dadudemon
carbon pollution vs. all other types of pollution

They definitely do not consider them the same. As I said, not a single person would be pro-pollution that denies climate change. In fact, some of the climate change deniers are the same people shitting themselves over environmental pollution such as chemtrails.

Yes. The world will be much better off when we get rid of ALL The Carbon Dioxide in the atmoshphere...

@ Beni, just wait until the 'climate change is a Leftist lie' politicians and talking head start doing the pivot, will be fun to watch

Originally posted by Kurk
I'm not arguing anything with you. It's a simple question. The doctor has to follow what they preach; why don't you? No its strawman rubbish. The idea that in order to support climate change you need to abandon all fossil fuels at once and go live in a cave or whatever extreme equivalent is not an argument. It's the grasping attempts of somebody who doesn't have one.

On the other hand yes, I am perfectly happy to take measures to mitigate my carbon footprint, vote for green policies and green supporting politicians, and if the option became viable, buy an electric car.

Anything more to add babyman?

TBF, Kurk, I ripped your ass open in the past before for the same thing, no one is arguing we need to abandon all fossil fuels today, that's a BS argument made by the denier side.

38 GtCO2 produced by humans, right?




1m MT = 1,102,311.31 tons.


So we need to scale this effort.

$200,000,000 = 1102311.31

That's probably a very optimistic number put out there for investors but let's just be optimistic.

So assuming, very optimistically, that it will be running year round at 365.25 days a year, that's:

1102311.31 * 365.25 ~ 402619206 removed a year.

39,000,000,000/402619206 ~ 96.85

So we need to build 97 of these to just target what we are releasing, now. That doesn't include scaling costs to meet increasing needs.

The cost of this would be ~$19,373,144,360.

But the damage is already done. We need to not only reclaim what we produce, we need to drastically reclaim what is already out there.

If we want to be fair and bring the rate back to something normal, then we'd need to reclaim extremely quickly.

Let's be fair: probably 200 of these plants would be needed. So we are looking at $40 trillion.

The $100 trillion figure comes from upkeep, maintenance, localization, etc. Total costs to build these plants and maintain them for years.

Likely, that number is much higher than $100 trillion. However, it is a fair cost and easy to digest.


This should be a 10 year project.




Listen to this Ted Talk:

https://player.fm/series/tedtalks-audio/can-we-stop-climate-change-by-removing-co2-from-the-air-tim-kruger


Is it worth spending $100 trillion to make this happen? Some people believe the economic costs will realize a huge RoI by the end of the 21st Century. That we should invest the $100 trillion.


"All of these ideas come with tradoffs..."

Originally posted by dadudemon
carbon pollution vs. all other types of pollution

They definitely do not consider them the same. As I said, not a single person would be pro-pollution that denies climate change. In fact, some of the climate change deniers are the same people shitting themselves over environmental pollution such as chemtrails.

We could reasonably tackle both problems at once, that said our first priority should be pollution. It's something that can be handled today, show results today and in our culture thats what is fron and center, now.

We are on the same page here, there is ZERO need for two sides just prioritize one today and manage the other for tomorrow.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Slowing the process of climate of change if not putting a stop to its run away rise in recent years would indeed save a lot of money, resources, livelihoods, if not lives yes, while bringing us towards a greener, less polluted environment that you have at least shown an interest in. In regards to what extent? As far as we can bloody manage, and with a global climate accord.

So that's it?

You've provided me literally nothing but hot air (pun). You've taken such a strong position but have nothing to offer for it. Why take such a strong position on this topic when you have idea any specifics about it?

Give me something better than "it's gewd, mang."

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Nice, catchy, care to develop?

Sure! How many times have I said it? Too much greenhouse gases have been put into the environment by this point. Even if we stopped every last bit of greenhouse gas pollution, right now, at this very moment, the damage has been done and severe anthropogenic climate change will continue to march on. Perhaps some of it may be reduced by eliminating ALL of our greenhouse gas emissions since 1750 (how much, though? Still waiting on that from you). But it's too late: damage has been done.

Unless the entire world is willing to come together and spend tens of trillions, right now, to reverse the damage we've done to actually mitigate (it will still be warmer than it would have been and the Earth will continue to warm because we are exiting an ice age but we will have jumped ahead hundreds of thousands of years in that process, but, perhaps, we will revert back to the levels of warming pre-1750 if we remove all the greenhouse gas emissions that we've produced) anthropogenic global warming, it will still remain putting a bandaid on a massive laceration.

As I've said, we are not about to be slashed with a sharp sword: we've already been slashed and we now have a huge laceration. Reducing the amount of bleeding we are doing doesn't actually solve the problem. We need to not just stop the bleeding. We need to close the laceration and return it back to the point before the slash. We will still have a scar.



But since that does not seem possible, at the moment, we need to see what we can do to live with the slash, right now. That's where my laceration analogy fails: we can save as many lives as possible WHILE this anthropogenic global warming happens and refocus our efforts on renewable energies and reducing or eliminating pollution.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No its strawman rubbish. The idea that in order to support climate change you need to abandon all fossil fuels at once and go live in a cave or whatever extreme equivalent is not an argument. It's the grasping attempts of somebody who doesn't have one.

On the other hand yes, I am perfectly happy to take measures to mitigate my carbon footprint, vote for green policies and green supporting politicians, and if the option became viable, buy an electric car.

Anything more to add babyman? Where will you get the energy to charge the electric car?

Originally posted by snowdragon
We could reasonably tackle both problems at once, that said our first priority should be pollution. It's something that can be handled today, show results today and in our culture thats what is fron and center, now.

We are on the same page here, there is ZERO need for two sides just prioritize one today and manage the other for tomorrow.

I think all of this time, effort, and money we are putting into reducing carbon emissions should be put into carbon reclamation efforts. And as new energy production sources are created, they should be renewable, clean sources. A passive, indirect stance on CO2 emissions and an active stance on reclamation.



But that's on top of dealing with global warming as it is happening, now. Right now. Not later. Now. It's already too late. We need to accept that and then start spending money on saving lives. Focusing all efforts on reducing carbon emissions in 40 years is simply asinine. Damage has been done, the fallout of that damage is already happening, so let's focus on that and reclaiming carbon.


Who the hell knows? Maybe we can find clean power sources that produce carbon and we just reclaim the carbon?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
On the other hand yes, I am perfectly happy to take measures to mitigate* my carbon footprint, vote for green policies and green supporting politicians, and if the option became viable, buy an electric car.

*You mean create a net-negative carbon footprint, right? Because the average human needs to have a net negative carbon footprint if we want to fix the problem.


"Guys, I've reduced my carbon footprint from 57 tons a year to 40 tons a year!"

That's still 40 tons of shit, dude.



Here, use this carbon footprint calculator:


https://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No its strawman rubbish. The idea that in order to support climate change you need to abandon all fossil fuels at once and go live in a cave or whatever extreme equivalent is not an argument. It's the grasping attempts of somebody who doesn't have one.

On the other hand yes, I am perfectly happy to take measures to mitigate my carbon footprint, vote for green policies and green supporting politicians, and if the option became viable, buy an electric car.



Why fight with people that generally agree with you in principle just not in exactly what you want?

Dudeman has said there are enviromental issues that should be handled and would make a difference. If we wait for green policies and green politicians thats waiting for another election which might not net what you want which would take time for policies to be enacted........what can we do today to make a change, not the dream of tomorrow.

Originally posted by snowdragon
If we wait for green policies and green politicians thats waiting for another election which might not net what you want which would take time for policies to be enacted

Right, as I and others (scientists) have pointed out, this is a discussion we needed to have over 20 years ago. How we are, now, with these policy discussions is

1. how we needed to be talking and considering the situation 30-25 years ago

and

2. For these policies to start making a difference around 25 years ago

and

3. for damage to start to be reversed 15-10 years ago.

Originally posted by dadudemon
*You mean create a net-negative carbon footprint, right? Because the average human needs to have a net negative carbon footprint if we want to fix the problem.


"Guys, I've reduced my carbon footprint from 57 tons a year to 40 tons a year!"

That's still 40 tons of shit, dude.



Here, use this carbon footprint calculator:


https://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm

Since when was needing to do a lot a justification for not doing anything?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Since when was needing to do a lot a justification for not doing anything?


Where have I ever advocated to do nothing? Didn't I just post a lot about the things we should be doing n'stuff? Didn't I post about that on the first page?

Edit - I just saw the post of mine you quoted. That's the post you quoted? Where did I say to do nothing? Didn't I just indirectly say to not pat yourself on the back for still having 40 tons of shit? It needs to be negative -100 tons of shit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Where have I ever advocated to do nothing? Didn't I just post a lot about the things we should be doing n'stuff? Didn't I post about that on the first page?

Edit - I just saw the post of mine you quoted. That's the post you quoted? Where did I say to do nothing? Didn't I just indirectly say to not pat yourself on the back for still having 40 tons of shit? It needs to be negative -100 tons of shit.
I misread an earlier post of yours. :>