5 ms·

> Right now? No. But I also expect to live at least 30 more years and I want a nice world for my descendants, so yes. Everyone wants a nice world. But this mi

> Right now? No. But I also expect to live at least 30 more years and I want a nice world for my descendants, so yes. Everyone wants a nice world. But this misses the point of what I'm saying. If you give up lots of your money and resources to politicians and corporations, do you think you will get a nicer world? Even if that's what they promise? The climate change idea has been promoted since the seventies. For an example of broken promises, you should re-watch Al gore's first movie. People loved the film at the time. Count the number of failed predictions. Is it ok to shout fire in a crowded cinema? Is it ok if you are a politician, the fire is fake, and you have fire retardant blankets to sell? Or is that just business?

defrost 2y ago
Why would anyone watch a film with a second rate USofA VP when they could read the IPCC report in full or even just start with something basic like Syukuro Manabe's 1967 Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity ? It's 57 years old but still an absolute stonker of a paper, rightly considered the single most influential paper in climate research. (and only 19 pages). https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04... Heat equations aren't that hard and the changes made by humans to the atmosphere are on record in gas libraries dating back to the Cold War and available in real time high resolution by dedicated satellites today. There is no doubt in the matter of AGW anymore save in the minds of those challenged by math and susceptable to the FUD spread by denialists. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
oblio 2y ago
> Everyone wants a nice world. But this misses the point of what I'm saying. No, it doesn't. > If you give up lots of your money and resources to politicians and corporations, do you think you will get a nicer world? Even if that's what they promise? Ummm.. we're already doing that. The status quo is corporations, look at this: https://companiesmarketcap.com/largest-companies-by-revenue/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/largest-companies-by-revenue/ About 20% of those primarily work on fossil fuel extraction and distribution. On top of those there are about 15 ICE vehicle manufacturers that directly rely on fossil fuels for now, then a bunch of pharma companies that do the same (they would obviously get an exemption until we find a better solution). This premise that somehow combating climate change is a corporate plot while not combating climate change is a grassroots initiative is false. You're acting like we're a bunch of hippy libertarian hunter-scavengers doing our own things. We aren't. We live in societies quite tightly controlled by corporations. We should make them invest that money we already hand over into things which are SUSTAINABLE long term. > The climate change idea has been promoted since the seventies. It's not an "idea", it's a scientific theory with lots of data backing it. An "idea" is what Uncle Joe had last night when he decided to spend thousands of bucks on his huge truck to be able to roll coal. > For an example of broken promises, you should re-watch Al gore's first movie. People loved the film at the time. Count the number of failed predictions. Is it ok to shout fire in a crowded cinema? Is it ok if you are a politician, the fire is fake, and you have fire retardant blankets to sell? Or is that just business? You know what, I've decided that I not only HATE climate change, I also HATE: * micro plastics * Great Pacific Garbage patch and all the plastics thrown randomly into nature * particulate emissions from vehicles * including tire and road wear particulate emissions * loud vehicles everywhere in cities, taking up to 25% of ALL space in cities * heat islands due to said vehicles needing flat concrete/asphalt surfaces EVERYWHERE * etc. I don't want to return to the Stone Age, I love tech. But this current generation of tech is long overdue for getting trimmed around the edges. Walkability, bikeability, general liveability, electric bikes, electric mopeds, electric cars, induction hobs, electric ovens, heat pumps, good insulation for homes, higher density where there is demand for more housing, work from home, etc., etc., are ALL just good ideas for improving quality of life. Even if climate change doesn't happen. https://imgur.com/up6yu https://imgur.com/up6yu
- verisimi 2y ago
  > We live in societies quite tightly controlled by corporations. That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion? You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it. You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity? Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more?
  - oblio 2y ago
    I'll prefix this to say that I'm currently reading a book that's having quite an impact on me, it's about American psychology, it's called Fantasyland. Its main point is that Americans, due to their founding myths of extreme individualism ("rugged individualism"), freedom above everything and religiosity, are more prone to conspiracy theories. That said... > That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion? It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and urgency. > You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it. Ok, and this argument is utterly useless and nihilistic. The status quo is anti-climate change. As I said above, a lot of money (and power) in our societies is tied into fossil fuel companies, ICE vehicle manufacturers, etc. Who would be these massive and nebulous "climate change science buyers" and how are they outfoxing and outspending the proven massive "anti climate change science buyers" (companies totaling maybe at least a a third of the global economy!) ? > You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity? I expect poor people to be grandfathered in (they will be able to use their old stuff until it breaks down) and middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it. > Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more? Just like, for example, ICE vehicle manufacturers have been doing at least since COVID? How much more does a comparable ICE vehicle cost compared to 10 years ago? If anything, almost all the techs I listed in my previous comment have a much lower potential floor, i.e. they can be much cheaper than current tech. Electricity produced from renewables can be extremely cheap, especially solar in sunny places. Heat pumps are basic tech we've had for almost a century. EVs should drop in price like a rock once we have the manufacturing ecosystems built out and batteries continue getting cheaper. The main issue is the current price gouging, especially by middle men. A cheap solar panel or cheap-ish heat pump has humongous installation costs, frequently costing more than the equipment itself, which is insane. Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short. I have read and heard arguments from the other side, and I do understand the pain felt by many, but it's a pain that's generally going remain if we keep mass using fossil fuels PLUS we risk burning our future, completely. The risk just isn't worth it.

defrost 2y ago

Why would anyone watch a film with a second rate USofA VP when they could read the IPCC report in full or even just start with something basic like Syukuro Manabe's 1967 Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity ? It's 57 years old but still an absolute stonker of a paper, rightly considered the single most influential paper in climate research. (and only 19 pages). https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04... Heat equations aren't that hard and the changes made by humans to the atmosphere are on record in gas libraries dating back to the Cold War and available in real time high resolution by dedicated satellites today. There is no doubt in the matter of AGW anymore save in the minds of those challenged by math and susceptable to the FUD spread by denialists. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

oblio 2y ago

> Everyone wants a nice world. But this misses the point of what I'm saying. No, it doesn't. > If you give up lots of your money and resources to politicians and corporations, do you think you will get a nicer world? Even if that's what they promise? Ummm.. we're already doing that. The status quo is corporations, look at this: https://companiesmarketcap.com/largest-companies-by-revenue/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/largest-companies-by-revenue/ About 20% of those primarily work on fossil fuel extraction and distribution. On top of those there are about 15 ICE vehicle manufacturers that directly rely on fossil fuels for now, then a bunch of pharma companies that do the same (they would obviously get an exemption until we find a better solution). This premise that somehow combating climate change is a corporate plot while not combating climate change is a grassroots initiative is false. You're acting like we're a bunch of hippy libertarian hunter-scavengers doing our own things. We aren't. We live in societies quite tightly controlled by corporations. We should make them invest that money we already hand over into things which are SUSTAINABLE long term. > The climate change idea has been promoted since the seventies. It's not an "idea", it's a scientific theory with lots of data backing it. An "idea" is what Uncle Joe had last night when he decided to spend thousands of bucks on his huge truck to be able to roll coal. > For an example of broken promises, you should re-watch Al gore's first movie. People loved the film at the time. Count the number of failed predictions. Is it ok to shout fire in a crowded cinema? Is it ok if you are a politician, the fire is fake, and you have fire retardant blankets to sell? Or is that just business? You know what, I've decided that I not only HATE climate change, I also HATE: * micro plastics * Great Pacific Garbage patch and all the plastics thrown randomly into nature * particulate emissions from vehicles * including tire and road wear particulate emissions * loud vehicles everywhere in cities, taking up to 25% of ALL space in cities * heat islands due to said vehicles needing flat concrete/asphalt surfaces EVERYWHERE * etc. I don't want to return to the Stone Age, I love tech. But this current generation of tech is long overdue for getting trimmed around the edges. Walkability, bikeability, general liveability, electric bikes, electric mopeds, electric cars, induction hobs, electric ovens, heat pumps, good insulation for homes, higher density where there is demand for more housing, work from home, etc., etc., are ALL just good ideas for improving quality of life. Even if climate change doesn't happen. https://imgur.com/up6yu https://imgur.com/up6yu

verisimi 2y ago
> We live in societies quite tightly controlled by corporations. That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion? You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it. You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity? Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more?
- oblio 2y ago
  I'll prefix this to say that I'm currently reading a book that's having quite an impact on me, it's about American psychology, it's called Fantasyland. Its main point is that Americans, due to their founding myths of extreme individualism ("rugged individualism"), freedom above everything and religiosity, are more prone to conspiracy theories. That said... > That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion? It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and urgency. > You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it. Ok, and this argument is utterly useless and nihilistic. The status quo is anti-climate change. As I said above, a lot of money (and power) in our societies is tied into fossil fuel companies, ICE vehicle manufacturers, etc. Who would be these massive and nebulous "climate change science buyers" and how are they outfoxing and outspending the proven massive "anti climate change science buyers" (companies totaling maybe at least a a third of the global economy!) ? > You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity? I expect poor people to be grandfathered in (they will be able to use their old stuff until it breaks down) and middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it. > Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more? Just like, for example, ICE vehicle manufacturers have been doing at least since COVID? How much more does a comparable ICE vehicle cost compared to 10 years ago? If anything, almost all the techs I listed in my previous comment have a much lower potential floor, i.e. they can be much cheaper than current tech. Electricity produced from renewables can be extremely cheap, especially solar in sunny places. Heat pumps are basic tech we've had for almost a century. EVs should drop in price like a rock once we have the manufacturing ecosystems built out and batteries continue getting cheaper. The main issue is the current price gouging, especially by middle men. A cheap solar panel or cheap-ish heat pump has humongous installation costs, frequently costing more than the equipment itself, which is insane. Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short. I have read and heard arguments from the other side, and I do understand the pain felt by many, but it's a pain that's generally going remain if we keep mass using fossil fuels PLUS we risk burning our future, completely. The risk just isn't worth it.