Reminder: hold onto your butts

[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, climate change religiosity is a notion I've advanced on my own and displayed by you here in your dismissal of valid criticism as rightwing propaganda. I clearly stated that it is a reality. The problems however a numerous. We have a very poor grasp on many aspects of climate change including, but most certainly not limited to:

1. The magnitude of our contribution, despite broad agreement that it exists.
2. The efficacy of any countermeasures we might employ, complicated not the least by varying it states of economic development and urbanization of major players.
3. The actual effects we can anticipate despite a robust collection of climate models due to the amplification of error across time.

Closing the door to discussion is precisely the sort of religious zealotry im talking about. it's unscientific.

#2 and #3 have nothing to do with the existence of climate change which is the topic at hand and where the skepticism is undue. I agree with #2 and #3. Rightwing propaganda purports that the entire thing, climate change as a whole, is a hoax, which is the most retarded position one can have. We know:

1. The climate is becoming hotter.
2. Humans are responsible for this abrupt and sizable change.
3. It's too late to quickly reverse.

We do not know: All the effects of this change going forward.

Every major economic stakeholder in the United States except renewable energy companies, which are poor and sparse, stands to benefit from muddying the waters on this. Your Republican representatives don't care what the truth is or what the evidence says, they only care about what the people who are paying their bribes want. And the people paying their bribes want to pollute.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

#2 and #3 have nothing to do with the existence of climate change which is the topic at hand and where the skepticism is undue. I agree with #2 and #3. Rightwing propaganda purports that the entire thing, climate change as a whole, is a hoax, which is the most retarded position one can have. We know:

1. The climate is becoming hotter.
2. Humans are responsible for this abrupt and sizable change.
3. It's too late to quickly reverse.

We do not know: All the effects of this change going forward.

Every major economic stakeholder in the United States except renewable energy companies, which are poor and sparse, stands to benefit from muddying the waters on this. Your Republican representatives don't care what the truth is or what the evidence says, they only care about what the people who are paying their bribes want. And the people paying their bribes want to pollute.

this is a reasonable position and i agree with most of it. i think your second assertion is a bit off though. we are very confident humans have contributed to the change, but we do not know the magnitude of the contribution. the problem with advancing absolutes is that any grain of contrary evidence shatters the argument.

I've a question though. Given that it cannot be reversed quickly and despite broad agreement that we should do what we can to avoid exacerbating the condition (ignoring that there are benefits to warmer climates such as increased crop yields and an overall greener planet) do you think adaptation ought to be prioritized more, especially given that the west's ability to throttle any changes diminishes as rapidly as the third world industrializes?

[Throndor]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this is a reasonable position and i agree with most of it. i think your second assertion is a bit off though. we are very confident humans have contributed to the change, but we do not know the magnitude of the contribution. the problem with advancing absolutes is that any grain of contrary evidence shatters the argument.

I've a question though. Given that it cannot be reversed quickly and despite broad agreement that we should do what we can to avoid exacerbating the condition (ignoring that there are benefits to warmer climates such as increased crop yields and an overall greener planet) do you think adaptation ought to be prioritized more, especially given that the west's ability to throttle any changes diminishes as rapidly as the third world industrializes?

Also, how does a world without borders and open migration into the first world help to alleviate concerns over Climate Change considering that the carbon footprint per capita is much higher in the first world than the third world.

Also, how does the globalized distribution of wares produced in distant lands with cheaper communist labor pools help to alleviate the effects of Climate Change.


Both of these abovementioned points, are included in the leftist platform. How do we reconcile the leftist platform of Globalization/Migration without borders with Environmentalism IF this is true?

[Irulan]

Originally Posted by Throndor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, how does a world without borders and open migration into the first world help to alleviate concerns over Climate Change considering that the carbon footprint per capita is much higher in the first world than the third world.

Also, how does the globalized distribution of wares produced in distant lands with cheaper communist labor pools help to alleviate the effects of Climate Change.


Both of these abovementioned points, are included in the leftist platform. How do we reconcile the leftist platform of Globalization/Migration without borders with Environmentalism IF this is true?

I agree Throndor. Climate change is indeed mostly a 1st. World problem. A lot of it is driven by our consumerism and inefficieny geared towards production quantity and time to market also

Naturally increasing costs will counter this in a free market. Say as less people can continue to afford an unsustainable number of vehicles throughout their lives

[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've a question though. Given that it cannot be reversed quickly and despite broad agreement that we should do what we can to avoid exacerbating the condition (ignoring that there are benefits to warmer climates such as increased crop yields and an overall greener planet) do you think adaptation ought to be prioritized more, especially given that the west's ability to throttle any changes diminishes as rapidly as the third world industrializes?

Yes, which is why I'm so opposed to "green new deal" as a waste of money. I think we should be focusing more on toxic emissions, you know the kind that give everyone cancer and lung disease, instead of greenhouse gases.

The US and Europe are uniquely situated to deal with any destabilizing effects of climate change due to our wealth and comparatively low population.

Over the next 50 years Africa will undergo a population boom and subsequent refugee crisis that will threaten the entire planet, and their inability to adapt to climate change could be a mitigating factor. In effect we're pyrogens giving the planet a fever.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, which is why I'm so opposed to "green new deal" as a waste of money. I think we should be focusing more on toxic emissions, you know the kind that give everyone cancer and lung disease, instead of greenhouse gases.

The US and Europe are uniquely situated to deal with any destabilizing effects of climate change due to our wealth and comparatively low population.

Over the next 50 years Africa will undergo a population boom and subsequent refugee crisis that will threaten the entire planet, and their inability to adapt to climate change could be a mitigating factor. In effect we're pyrogens giving the planet a fever.

We should be investing in functional nations in Africa to redirect that flow within the continent. Also, west Africa delenda est. if you have 3+ children per women as a national average, a one child policy should be imposed via drone. Nigeria at 900 million people in 2100 is absurd. WW3 from water battles in west Africa

PS: everyone should do some reading on the dude running Ethiopia today. Despite rampant ethnic conflict, maybe Ethiopia can be an example.

[Irulan]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We should be investing in functional nations in Africa to redirect that flow within the continent. Also, west Africa delenda est. if you have 3+ children per women as a national average, a one child policy should be imposed via drone. Nigeria at 900 million people in 2100 is absurd. WW3 from water battles in west Africa

Yes.

[Throndor]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, which is why I'm so opposed to "green new deal" as a waste of money. I think we should be focusing more on toxic emissions, you know the kind that give everyone cancer and lung disease, instead of greenhouse gases.

The US and Europe are uniquely situated to deal with any destabilizing effects of climate change due to our wealth and comparatively low population.

Over the next 50 years Africa will undergo a population boom and subsequent refugee crisis that will threaten the entire planet, and their inability to adapt to climate change could be a mitigating factor. In effect we're pyrogens giving the planet a fever.

Yeah i spoke to the malthusian reality awaiting in africa and how the current "refugee crisis" is only one wave of a countless wave of migrants that will undoubtedly need to flood into europe if their 2.5% growth rate isnt stopped. (0.025/.693 = 27 year doubling rate on 9ver 1.5billion people)

The left thinks open borders is the answer (europe has a growth rate of 0%)

Your comrades in arms attacked me for mentioning that, and insist on open borders to "solve" the rampant population growth equation, even thoigh that approach is absolute nonsense.

[Irulan]

Originally Posted by Throndor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah i spoke to the malthusian reality awaiting in africa and how the current "refugee crisis" is only one wave of a countless wave of migrants that will undoubtedly need to flood into europe if their 2.5% growth rate isnt stopped. (0.025/.693 = 27 year doubling rate on 9ver 1.5billion people)

The left thinks open borders is the answer (europe has a growth rate of 0%)

Your comrades in arms attacked me for mentioning that, and insist on open borders to "solve" the rampant population growth equation, even thoigh that approach is absolute nonsense.

Again. I ranted in this in the past. We basically need to automate killing "undesirables" if we want to maintain a 1990s era quality of life.

[Irulan]

Originally Posted by Irulan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again. I ranted in this in the past. We basically need to automate killing "undesirables" if we want to maintain a 1990s era quality of life.

If I remember correctly project bluebeam? Was it? Was to stage an alien invasion on a massive scale with high tech WMDs and mechanical or engineered infantry to shock the fuck out of the populace and cement these technologies in the mainstream.

Let's fuckin do it. * lizard eye shifts towards bill gates and Xi Jinping *.. Or is that extension... png for the ultimate photoshop memeage.

Wonder what the delay is. If I ruled this would have happened by 2010 just in time for the mayan "rebirth"

Hold on to your mutha'fuck'n butts indeed