What's Your Opinion On Climate Change

[Nekoborg]

What's your opinion on climate change?

[Ulfrinn]

Postat inițial de kingjames488:

Postat inițial de Triple G:

You said we can´t do anything to stop it. So why delay it?

And i just said that there is knowledge how this happens and in which pace - and what can be done against it. You said it doesn´t matter, because climate will change anyways, while You then said something about dark ages, which could be prevented by collective suicide. *inconvenient truth video*

I honestly don't understand this view young folks have about climate change... but I have heard that it's the top concern among young people these days so wow are they ever workin you over with the propaganda...

kinda speaks to how they could convince everyone to give up their rights and turn into soviet russia at the mere prospect of catching a disease with a 1% mortality rate...

everyone is so scart of these "maybe" scenarios these days because you never learned how to independently evaluate risks for youself... because you were raised in an age of using fears like "terrorist" or "predator" to give up your rights and freedoms...

all you want is to be protected, but the people you've trusted to do so have been putting their own interests above yours.

It's more prevalent with younger people because at a point, as you get older you begin to realize the story is on repeat, and you've heard the claims, the same predictions, the same fear mongering before, and it didn't pan out as you were told the last 4 or 5 times the prediction was updated.

[Triple G]

Postat inițial de Ulfrinn:

Gee, why would anyone want to control the world's energy supply through regulations. There must only be benevolent reasons behind "make certain emissions more climate neutral" which entails control and regulations.

Because without regulations it´s anarchy, which means the strongest wins, by any means necessary - no matter the effect on others.

Do You prefer that? Probably not. And if yes You shouldn´t complain about people committing crimes or ignoring certain borders, as anything goes as people see fit.

[Pizmo]

Postat inițial de Pizmo:

Postat inițial de Triple G:

Yes, and the oil companies make 219 billions. Profits, not revenue. So i´m unsure how "making money" can even be an argument, when everything is about money anyway. And of course if there are two competing approaches to reach the same thing, one will make more, and one will make less.

I think you missed the basis of my argument.

I'm going to make a few assumption. Please let me know if my assumptions are completely wrong.

I am going to assume that you believe the following to be true to some degree. You think that those who outright deny climate change, and maybe even those of us who are merely skeptical of climate change, are a bunch of gullible fools who have been duped by a political party, and media propaganda machine that has all been bought and paid for by big energy, correct?

Do you not believe it possible that on one level or another the same might by be true for your side as well?

^ I am going to ask this question one more time, because I didn't get an answer

[Ulfrinn]

Postat inițial de Triple G:

Postat inițial de Ulfrinn:

Gee, why would anyone want to control the world's energy supply through regulations. There must only be benevolent reasons behind "make certain emissions more climate neutral" which entails control and regulations.

Because without regulations it´s anarchy, which means the strongest wins, by any means necessary - no matter the effect on others.

Do You prefer that? Probably not. And if yes You shouldn´t complain about people committing crimes or ignoring certain borders, as anything goes as people see fit.

What in the hell are you talking about? Anarchy? Strongest wins? We're talking about very corrupt people trying to control energy, and industry, and using climate as a piss poor excuse to get you on board. Is that your solution to "anarchy?" A very, very small group of people control literally the things that make the world function?

[Triple G]

Postat inițial de Pizmo:

I am going to assume that you believe the following to be true to some degree. You think that those who outright deny climate change, and maybe even those of us who are merely skeptical of climate change, are a bunch of gullible fools who have been duped by a political party, and media propaganda machine that has all been bought and paid for by big energy, correct?

More or less: Yes.

Postat inițial de Pizmo:

Do you not believe it possible that on one level or another the same might by be true for your side as well?

I´m not on a side - but if 97% of all scientists agree, and it´s the scientific consensus - and they have all kinds of reasonable explanations and actual evidence, then i tend to believe that. While even if i wouldn´t believe that, it´s probably clear that less pollution is better than more or the same pollution - even without any data. While pollution could also be replaced by consumption, or production, or energy consumption.

Postat inițial de Ulfrinn:

What in the hell are you talking about?

Regulations? Or is it different if it´s about regulations for energy production and consumption, which has negative effects on others - or if it´s about any other law which prevents negative effects on others? I see no difference.

And we also had this discussion before, so i didn´t want to write much and get to the point, as i already know how this discussion would end - and i don´t like to have the same conversation with the same person twice.

[Pizmo]

Postat inițial de Triple G:

I´m not on a side - but if 97% of all scientists agree, and it´s the scientific consensus - and they have all kinds of reasonable explanations and actual evidence, then i tend to believe that. While even if i wouldn´t believe that, it´s probably clear that less pollution is better than more or the same pollution - even without any data. While pollution could also be replaced by consumption, or production, or energy consumption.

By "your side" I merely meant that you agree with the argument that human activity is causing climate change.

Well I for one believe it to be entirely plausible that both sides of this debate have been manipulated by power, money, and influence. I believe the Greta Thunberg's of this world to be as dumb, as gullible, and every bit as insufferable as any right wing QAnon wack job!

Just for clarification I do think there is some truth to the argument of man made climate change. We can't pump million of metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere decade after decade and not expect there to be some sort effect on our atmosphere. I just don't buy into the whole "existential threat" nonsense, and certainly do not trust government to solve the issue

[Triple G]

Postat inițial de Pizmo:

Well I for one believe it to be entirely plausible that both sides of this debate have been manipulated by power, money, and influence. I believe the Greta Thunberg's of this world to be as dumb, as gullible, and every bit as insufferable as any right wing QAnon wack job!

Nah - those Greta Thunbergs are the result of talking for decades, but instead of doing something against it - it´s more and more pollution. And even if certain countries do more - it´s done that way that they just sell their industry into other countries, and then demand that they reduce their emissions. While i don´t think that it matters for the world climate - if the trash is burned here, or in Africa or South East Asia. Or if the industry stands here - or in China.

Also one would need to look at the whole processes of production, and not only on certain parts of it, so it looks better. Which doesn´t happen either. And there´s little transparency or possibilities to compare two products and alternatives, while this would be very easy to do, and would actually require very little regulations, as any costumer could decide on his own what to support and what not. But even this doesn´t happen.

[Citrinitas]

This is the same as asking for my opinion on Earth's rotation.

[Ulfrinn]

Postat inițial de Pizmo:

Postat inițial de Triple G:

I´m not on a side - but if 97% of all scientists agree, and it´s the scientific consensus - and they have all kinds of reasonable explanations and actual evidence, then i tend to believe that. While even if i wouldn´t believe that, it´s probably clear that less pollution is better than more or the same pollution - even without any data. While pollution could also be replaced by consumption, or production, or energy consumption.

By "your side" I merely meant that you agree with the argument that human activity is causing climate change.

Well I for one believe it to be entirely plausible that both sides of this debate have been manipulated by power, money, and influence. I believe the Greta Thunberg's of this world to be as dumb, as gullible, and every bit as insufferable as any right wing QAnon wack job!

Just for clarification I do think there is some truth to the argument of man made climate change. We can't pump million of metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere decade after decade and not expect there to be some sort effect on our atmosphere. I just don't buy into the whole "existential threat" nonsense, and certainly do not trust government to solve the issue

That's the whole problem with the narrative though. It hinges on the idea that CO2 is some kind of toxic waste, yet, it's plant food, readily absorbed by them in any quantity we are capable of delivering. The more you put out, the more they consume. atmospheric CO2 levels are a factor of temperature, not a cause of it. As temperatures go up, gasses become less soluble, so they're not absorbed by liquids or soils as much. As temperatures go down, it becomes more soluble, more gets absorbed into soil, rocks, water, etc leaving less of it to remain residual in the atmosphere, and how much remains in the atmosphere depends on how soluble the environment is to it.

That's why millions of years of ice core samples show temperatures changing first, CO2 levels later.

Anybody who knows chemistry can tell the stories being taught about CO2 are nonsense only someone with virtually no education in any kind of field of science would believe, which is why the people who defend the narrative the most rabidly are the "but scientists said!" types.

It's like if you did not know that days get shorter as we head into winter, never paid attention to this fact, and were fairly new to the world around you, I might be able to convince you that days were getting shorter because the sun was dying. That's pretty much the climate argument in a nutshell.

[Haruspex]

Postat inițial de Nekoborg:

Greed and personal gain are not what Marxism is about. Marxism is supposed to destroy selfish, egocentric and corrupt ideologies.

A real Marxist feels that personal ownership is akin to theft from society.

See, this is how I know I'm not a Marxist, though I do lean left. I like personally owning things.

However I acknowledge that there are people now who own way, WAY more than their fair share, to the point of utter absurdity. It's not possible to work to become that rich, therefore I don't think that kind of obscene wealth is earned. They had to lie, cheat, and steal to get that kind of wealth, and they wielded their wealth as a weapon to further entrench their position and become even richer.

I don't think it's possible for a good and honest person to become so insanely wealthy except through inheritance.

[Apteryx]

Only brainless primordial sludge would deny climate change nowadays

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

[Pizmo]

Postat inițial de Apteryx:

Only brainless primordial sludge would deny climate change nowadays

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

How do you know that you yourself aren't as equally brainwashed, but by the opposite team?

[40000Aggro]

I believe it exists, but I never saw one myself. I had a friend of a friend that did once, but I think they were having a bad year.

[TWPanda77]

Scam

[Stranger]

fork, things get worse and vamps finish turning it into a winter hell nobody can go above-ground in.

or things get better and they totally fix it, and we don't all ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ die in a won session. again. from this exact problem. because the ironmen are literally robots whose skinsuit is still alive.