Gender: Male Location: The Darkest Corner of your Mind
Account Restricted
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.
__________________ "Technology equals might!" "Evolve or perish"
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.
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
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.
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.
Sorry if I misinterpreted, but this statement seemed to encourage inaction.
Sorry for calling a spade a spade dadungdrops, but you are an egit.
Indevelopment, 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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
Gender: Male Location: The Darkest Corner of your Mind
Account Restricted
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?
__________________ "Technology equals might!" "Evolve or perish"
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.
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:
Hmm, seems you glossed over this from the same damn post. lol Trolltit
Sorry you mislabel things and are butthurt.
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.
No we don't.
Now you're resorting to lying, eh?
Every last post you've made on this topic. Go back and read your posts.
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.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Nov 16th, 2017 at 07:59 PM
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?
(please log in to view the image)
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.
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."
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.
More strawman attempts? You sad pathetic person.
You're very upset.
Still waiting on that global green house gas reduction technology.
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.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 16th, 2017 05:38 PM
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f95/t402312.html
