Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Are they actively taking steps to not be fat or are they taking a motorcade to various McDonalds around the world eating big macs while telling everyone that the world will end if you eat big macs? I would talk to my doctor about the dangers of obesity not some fat celebrity... but if the celebrity wanted to influence me, it would help a lot if they weren't on that motorcade eating big macs.
Why is Elon acting smug? I never said that. I just said I personally would not be smug about my vehicle choice (even if it is electric) given how overpowered and frivolous it is. I also said that I'm sure we could all cut back (including Elon) in some ways if it we really wanted to.
Swampgator
Active Member
Well, since Elon is doing something much bigger than buying carbon offsets, no.
You know my feelings on this. Even if I concede that
#1 Human CO2 emissions are warming the earth
#2 This warming, if continued, will be a major problem.
It still does not matter. The problem is solved.
Elon and Tesla have accelerated the switch to sustainable energy all by themselves. If not for Tesla, this switch would happen 25 years from now. Because of Tesla, it is happening now. Market forces have taken hold and there is no stopping something once the economics win.
All the Al Gores speeches in the world only serve to accelerate governments to talk about taking action to solve this problem.
Tesla, a private company, has already solved it.
Peak oil and emissions have already arrived. It only gets better from here. And even though I am a "denier" I am still happy this is happening. I hate nasty diesel trucks spewing toxic fumes in the air I breath. I hate all of the efforts we expend kissing @ss of the Saudis. I look forward to a day when I can power my home, car, even boat with electricity that is generated by my own solar. That day is coming soon.
Then this climate emergency will be switched to some other emergency that helps the sheeple justify the power of their magnificent overlords.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Your doctor is fat and the movie star is thin.Are they actively taking steps to not be fat or are they taking a motorcade to various McDonalds around the world eating big macs while telling everyone that the world will end if you eat big macs? I would talk to my doctor about the dangers of obesity not some fat celebrity... but if the celebrity wanted to influence me, it would help a lot if they weren't on that motorcade eating big macs.
Try listening to the message.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Far from it, which goes to show you don't really understand the problem, probably because you don't even understand that there is a problem.
Swampgator
Active Member
another meaningless response. nice try though.
initially I wasn’t sure if you were the same SageBrush from the Leaf forum but the condescending way you handle discussions makes it obvious you are. Nice to see you again lol
Last edited:
Norbert
TSLA will win
I don't think I use it much at all (exceptions possible), but I understand if some do, and don't "deny" (or counter-deny) them being a serious person.
I do use the term "denial". I think it is important to understand what it is.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Swampgator
Active Member
I saw this post on Twitter and it made me think of this thread.
If you're not familiar with her, Katharine Hayhoe is a climate scientist and evangelical Christian who has spent a lot of time thinking about communicating about climate change. And also when you're wasting your breath.
Interesting interview of her in Rolling Stone: How to Talk to a Climate-Change Denier
If you're not familiar with her, Katharine Hayhoe is a climate scientist and evangelical Christian who has spent a lot of time thinking about communicating about climate change. And also when you're wasting your breath.
Interesting interview of her in Rolling Stone: How to Talk to a Climate-Change Denier
Last edited:
Swampgator
Active Member
Swampgator
Active Member
Where's the "thumbs up" emoji??
This would be a wonderful way to close this thread. I completely agree! Daryl Davis is amazing. Get to know people. Link for his Ted talk is below for people who would like to view.
While I completely disagree with the analysis from @Swampgator about the assessment of the urgency of the climate, and how to address it, I have learned many things from him. (e.g. Nuclear Power and it's potential to help the climate crisis)
Character assassination does neither side any good. It's perhaps hard to keep civil when many of us feel so passionately. But we are, indeed, all in this together.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Yes, please stop arguing with the deniers. It just wastes everyone's time and energy!
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The government must abandon its fossil fuel power projects. If not, we’ll sue
The government must abandon its fossil fuel power projects. If not, we’ll sue | George Monbiot
No longer should our survival be an afterthought. If we are to withstand the climate crisis, every decision should begin with the question of what the planet can endure. This means that any discussion about new infrastructure should begin with ecological constraints. The figures are stark. A paper published in Nature last year showed that existing energy infrastructure, if it is allowed to run to the end of its natural life, will produce around 660 gigatonnes of CO2. Yet, to stand a reasonable chance of preventing more than 1.5°C of global heating, we can afford to release, in total, no more than 580 gigatonnes.
This is what destroys civilisations: a mismatch between the greed of economic elites and the needs of society.
The government must abandon its fossil fuel power projects. If not, we’ll sue | George Monbiot
No longer should our survival be an afterthought. If we are to withstand the climate crisis, every decision should begin with the question of what the planet can endure. This means that any discussion about new infrastructure should begin with ecological constraints. The figures are stark. A paper published in Nature last year showed that existing energy infrastructure, if it is allowed to run to the end of its natural life, will produce around 660 gigatonnes of CO2. Yet, to stand a reasonable chance of preventing more than 1.5°C of global heating, we can afford to release, in total, no more than 580 gigatonnes.
This is what destroys civilisations: a mismatch between the greed of economic elites and the needs of society.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Our House Is on Fire by Greta Thunberg et al review – a family and planet in crisis
Our House Is on Fire by Greta Thunberg et al review – a family and planet in crisis
A movement born without a face tends to acquire one. Since August 2018, when 15-year-old Greta Thunberg began a solo “school strike for the climate”, the teenager has become the unlikely face of climate activism. Our House Is On Fire is, among many other things, the story of how and why Greta came to be sitting on the pavement outside the Swedish parliament with a home-made placard. The book is co-authored by Greta, her mother Malena Ernman (the primary narrator), her father Svante and her sister Beata. It is an urgent, lucid, courageous account.
Our House Is on Fire by Greta Thunberg et al review – a family and planet in crisis
A movement born without a face tends to acquire one. Since August 2018, when 15-year-old Greta Thunberg began a solo “school strike for the climate”, the teenager has become the unlikely face of climate activism. Our House Is On Fire is, among many other things, the story of how and why Greta came to be sitting on the pavement outside the Swedish parliament with a home-made placard. The book is co-authored by Greta, her mother Malena Ernman (the primary narrator), her father Svante and her sister Beata. It is an urgent, lucid, courageous account.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
More...
“Our future ecological state has been reduced to a political game where it’s word against word, and the most popular wins. And guess which climate and sustainability story sells the best? The one that demands changes or the one that says we can continue shopping and flying for all eternity?”
The message that business as usual is the enemy is not a welcome one for those of us conducting business as usual. Far comfier to dismiss the messenger as a mentally ill brat, or the stooge of eco-fascist lizard people hellbent on establishing their own World State, than to admit culpability in ecocide. Far easier to dismiss the science as biased, as false, as “not settled”. The problem is that with every swath of Australia or California burned, every never-before flooded city flooded, every hurricane of record-breaking destruction, and every Florida‑sized ice-shelf splitting off from Antarctica, the same message gets affirmed: that business as usual will roast us, drown us or starve us
ggies07
Supporting Member
What I don't like is that we have better ways of producing and using our energy needs now...it's not like renewables are trying to compete with fossil fuels to see which one is better - it's obvious. We now have the chemistry know-how of creating a million mile battery that can cycle so many times that it won't hurt the battery and can be used on the grid.
I hate to be so blunt, but it's ****ing stupid to continue to use fossil fuels and I look at anyone who claims otherwise to be intellectually below the threshold of the conversation.
Similar threads
