3 ms·

Hurting people is precisely the point of all of this alarmism. The goal is not to solve the "climate crisis", but to subvert the guilt of the people for self-se

Hurting people is precisely the point of all of this alarmism. The goal is not to solve the "climate crisis", but to subvert the guilt of the people for self-serving needs of the few that stand to gain for society taking up measures deemed by them to "solve" the crisis.

smt88 7y ago
OK, I'll bite. How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide who have studied the environment professionally for, collectively, millions of person-years? What is their self-serving motive? Surely a biologist would still have funding and things to study either way. The same is true for physicians, geologists, physicists, and many of the other specialties who have confirmed the finding that there is a climate crisis. The same is not true of 100% of the climate-crisis denial, where you can see multi-trillion-dollar businesses actively astroturfing their side of the conversation.
- draklor40 7y ago
  There is no question that the climate is changing. But what is the crisis here ? Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality? And lets look at the proposed solutions: - Going meatless. There is more and more evidence that the methane/CO2 emissions of meat industry is not very significant, atleast when you compare it to construction, cement and other industrial pollutants. The more important question is, what is the alternative ? Insects protein ? GMO crop fueled veganism? Jurassic park is all about how unintended consequences can arise out of stupid interventions ? Meatless burgers etc are full of junk nutrition and full of stuff like sunflower and vegetable oils, oils a century ago were considered industrial oils and used as paint thinners. - Green energy. Germany reversed their decision on Nuclear reactors to go green and the energy costs are 2x that of France. How do you expect to be competitive with other industries then ? It was the freeing up of stored chemical energy by James Watt that powered the greatest poverty lifting experiment in the history of Manking. There is no way Germany would get to 100% green energy by 2050 unless fusion, or everyone lives like they did in th 18th century or you kill off half the population. - People consume less ? Pray why is that virtue-signaling dipshits like Lenardo Di Fraudio, Attenborough fly around in private jets whereas we plebs have to give up on our tiny cars and electronics ? A single virtue signaling Hollywood nincompoop consumes 100x more than any average person would in an entire lifetime. - More taxes so people consume less ? Aren't we taxed enough ? - Tax the rich ? Gates and Bezos dont have a 100 billion sitting around in cash. Most of it is locked up as assets in Stock or another form. Besides, whatever millions they have paid so far is more than what 100,000 people would pay in a lifetime.
  - smt88 7y ago
    > There is no question that the climate is changing. But what is the crisis here ? The core problem is that humans (and most other living things on earth) evolved to live in a certain climate. For each organism, the tolerance for change differs. If we lose an intolerant, important organism (let's say plankton, for example) and it goes extinct, then there's a chain reaction that ends up making the planet uninhabitable for us. > Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality? It depends on the warning. Will human life on earth end in 10 or 50 years? Probably not. But will we have a mass migration crisis that will threaten every wealthy country? Yes, and it will happen in less than 50 years as natural disasters and poor crop output drive people from their birth countries. Climate models from Exxon and public-sector scientists have been pretty accurate at describing the current state of our climate, so predictions from sober, professional scientists are worth paying attention to. The rest of your arguments fall into a few categories: A) Attacking a straw man. No one seriously things that going meatless would instantly solve the problem. There is no single solution. It requires many large changes to small aspects of our lifestyles. Eating less meat (not zero meat) for people who can afford it is helpful. There is a helpful list and rank of different approaches[1]. B) "Green energy (excluding nuclear) is too expensive and can't compete with fossil fuels in an open market." This is not true[2]. C) "Nuclear must be part of the answer." I think this might be true or might not. It's another huge prediction, isn't it? Why are you skeptical of some predictions about 2050, but not others? D) "Celebrities are hypocrites." Yes, they are. But it has nothing to do with the argument environmentalists are making. I find them irritating too, but it doesn't make environmental concerns any less reasonable. Celebrities are a tiny fraction of environmentalists. E) "Taxes are bad." Taxes in the US have rapidly gone down in the last few decades, but increasing them is a separate argument from the environment. Taxing carbon producers is a serious proposal, but that's not taxing Gates or Bezos -- it's forcing companies to pay for the damage they do to the air and environment the rest of us need to survive. 1. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewa...
    - draklor40 7y ago

smt88 7y ago

OK, I'll bite. How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide who have studied the environment professionally for, collectively, millions of person-years? What is their self-serving motive? Surely a biologist would still have funding and things to study either way. The same is true for physicians, geologists, physicists, and many of the other specialties who have confirmed the finding that there is a climate crisis. The same is not true of 100% of the climate-crisis denial, where you can see multi-trillion-dollar businesses actively astroturfing their side of the conversation.

draklor40 7y ago
There is no question that the climate is changing. But what is the crisis here ? Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality? And lets look at the proposed solutions: - Going meatless. There is more and more evidence that the methane/CO2 emissions of meat industry is not very significant, atleast when you compare it to construction, cement and other industrial pollutants. The more important question is, what is the alternative ? Insects protein ? GMO crop fueled veganism? Jurassic park is all about how unintended consequences can arise out of stupid interventions ? Meatless burgers etc are full of junk nutrition and full of stuff like sunflower and vegetable oils, oils a century ago were considered industrial oils and used as paint thinners. - Green energy. Germany reversed their decision on Nuclear reactors to go green and the energy costs are 2x that of France. How do you expect to be competitive with other industries then ? It was the freeing up of stored chemical energy by James Watt that powered the greatest poverty lifting experiment in the history of Manking. There is no way Germany would get to 100% green energy by 2050 unless fusion, or everyone lives like they did in th 18th century or you kill off half the population. - People consume less ? Pray why is that virtue-signaling dipshits like Lenardo Di Fraudio, Attenborough fly around in private jets whereas we plebs have to give up on our tiny cars and electronics ? A single virtue signaling Hollywood nincompoop consumes 100x more than any average person would in an entire lifetime. - More taxes so people consume less ? Aren't we taxed enough ? - Tax the rich ? Gates and Bezos dont have a 100 billion sitting around in cash. Most of it is locked up as assets in Stock or another form. Besides, whatever millions they have paid so far is more than what 100,000 people would pay in a lifetime.
- smt88 7y ago
  > There is no question that the climate is changing. But what is the crisis here ? The core problem is that humans (and most other living things on earth) evolved to live in a certain climate. For each organism, the tolerance for change differs. If we lose an intolerant, important organism (let's say plankton, for example) and it goes extinct, then there's a chain reaction that ends up making the planet uninhabitable for us. > Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality? It depends on the warning. Will human life on earth end in 10 or 50 years? Probably not. But will we have a mass migration crisis that will threaten every wealthy country? Yes, and it will happen in less than 50 years as natural disasters and poor crop output drive people from their birth countries. Climate models from Exxon and public-sector scientists have been pretty accurate at describing the current state of our climate, so predictions from sober, professional scientists are worth paying attention to. The rest of your arguments fall into a few categories: A) Attacking a straw man. No one seriously things that going meatless would instantly solve the problem. There is no single solution. It requires many large changes to small aspects of our lifestyles. Eating less meat (not zero meat) for people who can afford it is helpful. There is a helpful list and rank of different approaches[1]. B) "Green energy (excluding nuclear) is too expensive and can't compete with fossil fuels in an open market." This is not true[2]. C) "Nuclear must be part of the answer." I think this might be true or might not. It's another huge prediction, isn't it? Why are you skeptical of some predictions about 2050, but not others? D) "Celebrities are hypocrites." Yes, they are. But it has nothing to do with the argument environmentalists are making. I find them irritating too, but it doesn't make environmental concerns any less reasonable. Celebrities are a tiny fraction of environmentalists. E) "Taxes are bad." Taxes in the US have rapidly gone down in the last few decades, but increasing them is a separate argument from the environment. Taxing carbon producers is a serious proposal, but that's not taxing Gates or Bezos -- it's forcing companies to pay for the damage they do to the air and environment the rest of us need to survive. 1. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewa...
  - draklor40 7y ago