Greta Thunberg's Groupie

[Gibsonfender2323]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Don't anarchists want to abolish the state itself?

What I learned in my world politics class is that it’s supposed to go.

 

Socialism

Communism

Anarchy

Lennin apparently believed that Communism was the final step into abolishing the state and then everything would be peace and love on earth.

 

Paraphrasing but that’s the jist of it 

[DieselDaisy]

 

[soon]

16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Don't anarchists want to abolish the state itself?

Taking on the responsibilities therein is the opposite of nilhism. As is the desire to take those steps. 

You REALLY need to do some reading on this. Try Chomsky.

[soon]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

*Its bad that Greta eats food* 

[action]

4 hours ago, soon said:

Also science isnt a left or right issue!

And if you want to say that only the left embraces science, then that just means that all sane people will lean left.

scientists disagree with each other all the time

[action]

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You'll wake up one day, think ''what a knobhead'', stick all of your lefty tomes in a charity bag, then purchase a ''William & Kate royal marriage'' porcelain tea set. It happens to us all. In ten years' time I'll probably be listening to Cliff Richard. 

or other dad rock acts like fleetwood mack, the shadows, the bee gees, percy sledge, ben e king, barry white and abba

[SoulMonster]

12 hours ago, action said:

what would you call someone who still drives a car / flies planes / eats meat / buys luxury products like smartphones and laptops? Don't these people "deny" that their actions have any influence on the climate? because their actions certainly are contributing to it.

None of these actions in themselves cause global warming. They do cause emission of CO₂, though. Unfortunately, almost everything we do result in the release of CO₂, from heating our houses, using any form of transportation (even electric cars), to just plain existing (since CO₂ is released as part of any animal's perspiration). So carbon emission is the most natural thing and an important part of the carbon cycle, and an intrinsic part of human existence. Without CO₂ emission the earth would be an inhospitable icy planet. What causes global warming, though, is the increase in emission of CO₂ in recent history. The tremendous growth of the human population on earth combined with our ever-more industrious ways results in excessive emission of CO₂ which saturates the carbon cycle resulting in increasing concentrations of CO₂ in the atmosphere. The system is simply overloaded and CO₂ keeps accumulating in the sky trapping heat and warming the earth as a consequence. So it is not one single thing that is the problem, not driving old cars, or owning pets, or having three children and not one, or using planes or trains, etc. It is the sum of all that we do and all we are. So the solution cannot be to stop CO₂ emission altogether. It is entirely impractical and just as entirely impossible. What we need to do is to start reducing the total emission of CO₂ through practical means. It doesn't really matter how we reduce the emissions as long as we get down below that threshold where CO₂ in the atmosphere starts accumulating. It could be that we should all stop owning pets, stop flying, stop developing drugs, stop having more than one children, stop living anywhere where your house neede heating or cooling, etc. Fortunately, experts have identified more reasonable ways this can be done, and mostly it is about reducing emissions from the industry. We need an industrial green shift. This is taking place now with new technologies being developed and new policies being enacted that stimulate and coerce industries into becoming more green. A similar shift takes places in the private economy with governments incentivizing electric transportation, more green forms of heating houses, etc. Hopefully this should be sufficient. Likewise, it is important that we on an individual level elect politicians who think green and that we raise our children to care for the environment.

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, action said:

everyone who drives a car is either a climate denier or a hypocrite

No, since "stop driving cars" is not considered a crucial mitigating factor to climate change. What is important is reducing CO₂ emissions, not necessarily how it is done. Fortunately, experts have identified the most reasonable and effecting ways and it doesn't involving a total end to driving cars

Edited January 9, 2020 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am reasonably confident as to the presence of synonymy between the two terms. You are in full flown Guardianist outrage mode tonight, aren't you? Has Trump triggered this in you? 

They aren't synonymous terms. Weather is what is happening outside your window now (do you even have windows down in the basement?), climate is weather over time.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/weather-vs-climate

You should be grateful when people correct your English, considering you live off language.

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

 Time Magazine put  this girl as their cover  person of the ye instead of people fighting for freedom and democracy in hong kong against the repressive Chinese government

Yes, funny how the earth is more important than Hong Kong, right?

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

They aren't synonymous terms. Weather is what is happening outside your window now (do you even have windows down in the basement?), climate is weather over time.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/weather-vs-climate

You should be grateful when people correct your English, considering you live off language.

I think it you whose interpretative skills of the English language are lacking.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

scientists disagree with each other all the time

Only on things where little data exists. For instance, very few scientists disagree on the fundamentals of atomic theory, or the synthetic model for evolution, or anthropomorphic climate change. It is on the outskirts of scientific research, where theories and models are being postulated and where we have little data, that scientists are more free to speculate and disagree.

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I think it you whose interpretative skills of the English language are lacking.

I will never brag about my English but I do know a bit about science and from that I know that "climate" and "weather" are different things. 

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_vs_weather.html#difference

Shouldn't you be grateful for learning new stuff? 

Edited January 9, 2020 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I will never brag about my English but I do know a bit about science and from that I know that "climate" and "weather" are different things. 

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_vs_weather.html#difference

Shouldn't you be grateful for learning new stuff? 

These linguistic exercises of yours - why do you bother? I said,

Quote

as to the presence of synonymy between the two terms.

I didn't say they were synonymous, but that there was a presence of similitude.

Edited January 9, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

These linguistic exercises of yours - why do you bother? I said,

I didn't say they were synonymous, but that there was a presence of similitude.

Haha

[SoulMonster]

It's funny that you now try to make it seem like you knew that "climate" "weather" are different things considering that you posted the following quip in a discussion about "climate change" a few pages back: ''I don't believe weather exists. Weather is just a figment of our imagination''!

[DieselDaisy]

23 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It's funny that you now try to make it seem like you knew that "climate" "weather" are different things considering that you posted the following quip in a discussion about "climate change" a few pages back: ''I don't believe weather exists. Weather is just a figment of our imagination''!

In your very description you said that climate is, 

43 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

weather over time

 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

In your very description you said that climate is, 

Yes, you can refer to it as "weather over time" or "climate". But if you just say "weather", like you did in your reply to Dazey when discussing climate deniers, then it means whatever is happening right now. Is this hard to understand?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, you can refer to it as "weather over time" or "climate". But if you just say "weather", like you did in your reply to Dazey when discussing climate deniers, then it means whatever is happening right now. Is this hard to understand?

What a depressing little man you are.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What a depressing little man you are.

I don't get this petulance. Say you had to translate something (because that's how you try to make a living, right?) and it contained the word "climate" and you mistakenly translated it to "weather", then you would have made a mistake that could possible have bearing on the meaning of the text you are translating. Which is kind of the worse thing a translator can do, right? Surely if you have any pride in your work or professional integrity, you would be grateful for learning that these two things are not the same? Are you so obsessed with tribalism here at this forum that you cannot see when you benefit from being corrected?

[soon]

8 hours ago, action said:

scientists disagree with each other all the time

I posted that science isn’t a left or right issue, so your reply doesn’t make sense unless you believe that scientists are dishonest in their work across left and right political lines, which would be hilarious.

but since we are here. Time for your thrice daily reminder that 97% of Earths scientists agree on the climate science that indicates we are in a climate crisis.  

[action]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

I posted that science isn’t a left or right issue, so your reply doesn’t make sense unless you believe that scientists are dishonest in their work across left and right political lines, which would be hilarious.

but since we are here. Time for your thrice daily reminder that 97% of Earths scientists agree on the climate science that indicates we are in a climate crisis.  

there was never any doubt we are in a climate crisis. I'm sure 97% of scientists agree on that, and the 3% disagreeing aren't worth the title.

the part I disagree with, and which is NOT backed by 97% of scientists, is that mankind is the (sole) cause for this crisis.

[action]

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

No, since "stop driving cars" is not considered a crucial mitigating factor to climate change. What is important is reducing CO₂ emissions, not necessarily how it is done. Fortunately, experts have identified the most reasonable and effecting ways and it doesn't involving a total end to driving cars

you are in the camp that claims that "humans are responsible for the climate crisis".

how can you then argue that driving a car / flying a plane does not contribute to the climate crisis? don't humans drive cars / fly planes? Are you not human?

the two are incompatible. Either your argument is that mankind is responsible for global warning, and that includes CO2 emissions from cars / planes, or you argue that driving a car / flying a plane does not contribute to global warming, but then you also effectively disagree that mankind is responsible for global warming, period! 

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by action

[soon]

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do not consider anything much of Noam Chomsky, but you are displaying all the collective symptoms of: twentysomething, has a bunch of Lennon albums, reads some lefty nihilistic gibberish. Trust me, you'll wake up one morning when you are 28 or 31 and say, ''what an absolute knobber''. 

At 33 Jesus smashed up a bank and then disobeyed the empires command to be dead. He’s now like 2000 years old and still has designs to bring down ever power on Earth.

So, yeah 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

you are in the camp that claims that "humans are responsible for the climate crisis".

how can you then argue that driving a car / flying a plane does not contribute to the climate crisis? don't humans drive cars / fly planes? Are you not human?

the two are incompatible. Either your argument is that mankind is responsible for global warning, and that includes CO2 emissions from cars / planes, or you argue that driving a car / flying a plane does not contribute to global warming, but then you also effectively disagree that mankind is responsible for global warming, period! 

Of course I know that there is a large anthropomorphic component to the climate changes we are observing. I am being told so by the entire community of climate scientists. It would be really weird if I was to reject thousands upon thousands of scientists and instead believe in my own non-expert opinion on the matter. People who reject science are sad.

I haven't said that driving a car or flying a plane doesn't contribute to the climate change, have I? I have pointed out that any emission of CO₂, like owning a pet, heating your house, eating a snack, taking a breath- and yes, driving a car and taking a plane flight, causes carbon emission. I have also pointed out that individually none of this is any problem. It is the gross carbon emission that is the problem. So not sure you read or understood my post above?

Edited January 9, 2020 by SoulMonster

[soon]

9 minutes ago, action said:

there was never any doubt we are in a climate crisis. I'm sure 97% of scientists agree on that, and the 3% disagreeing aren't worth the title.

the part I disagree with, and which is NOT backed by 97% of scientists, is that mankind is the (sole) cause for this crisis.

I wish you well in your one man quest against science. I guess?