Jump to content
Axl's Agony Aunt

Greta Thunberg's Groupie

Recommended Posts

Far be it from apathy, I actually welcome climate change. Global warming has produced hotter summers for cricket. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, action said:

I think it has been argued enough on here, that 97 % of scientists agree that mankind is the cause for global warming (each time I disagree with that theory, I'm receiving huge opposition from you guys).

Mankind is the cause for the abnormal global warming we are observing now. 

 

1 hour ago, action said:

But as it stands, curiously, this is a fluctuating argument (like in quantum theory, elements can pop in and out of existence, seemingly spontaneous), since at other times these findings magically disappear when we're talking about CO2 emissions from planes and cars :lol:

Huh? No one is denying that any excess carbon emission, whether that is driving a car, having a pet, heating your house, or exercising, add on to the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere. The idiocy here is arguing that we have to stop all activities that result in CO2 emission otherwise we can't reduce the total emission to below the threshold for climate change. That is a grotesque misrepresentation of what the experts say, and frankly an argument only seen from people who don't understand climate change and want to shame people who do because they are confused and feel threatened by what is happening. We don't have to stop driving, we don't have to stop flying, we don't have to become vegetarians., we don't have to forego our pets (although small dogs are an abomination to the creator (=mankind) and nothing but genetic debris and should be phased out), we don't have to only have one child, we don't have to stop eating candy. What we have to do is support systemic change that causes a green shift in the industry and phases out fossil fuels. Anyone saying anything else has either not got it or are lying.

 

1 hour ago, action said:

frankly, and I think it's about time I told you, you're insulting my intelligence the way you're approaching my argument.

Your argument is born out of nothing but sheer idiocy and there is no other honest way to approach it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

I honestly don't care about global warming and climate change.  And if its true I should but I just can't bring myself to care.  I've never actually ever doubted it was true, always took it for granted, still do really but I just don't give a monkeys and I can't force myself or pretend to care, I dunno why that is.  I suppose, or perhaps its because, I've always had a healthy (or unhealthy perhaps!) awareness of the impermanence of things.  And being a devout atheist as I am I sort of think, well, fuck it, its all gonna do the off one day anyway :lol:  And I don't care about future generations, I don't care about mankind going on to do or discover new and wonderous things after I'm gone.  I mean, once I'm brown bread my phones going permanently off the hook, what relevance has the kids of the year 3032 got to me?  Its a shame really that I have this attitude but, quite frankly I just can't be bothered.  I just wanna do my shift and enjoy myself, the worlds a big bastard of a place, certainly bigger and more powerful and probably wouldn't be that different a place if I had never been born, I don't think the world really needs my help so much. 

Well, fortunately most people aren't nihils like you. Most people care about the earth and coming generations. In varying degrees, true, but to some extent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, action said:

"I'm not exactly coming well out of it"? what's that even supposed to mean. 

I don't think you do this on purpose, but you sometimes seem to read things that weren't actually said. I experienced the same thing when we had a discussion two days ago. I spent two posts explaining that I never said what you claimed I said. It gets in the way of having a constructive discussion when you have to waste time explaining you didn't say something. Plus it's quite annoying. Sorry.

Edited by EvanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, action said:

You're basically saying you're part of the problem, scientists say so, but then for some reason you argue you need not to change.

The problem is excess CO2 emission. Not any specific activity like driving cars or buying goods from China. Then the question is how can we reasonably reduce this excess carbon emission so that it is sufficient to reverse the trend we are seeing, with the least problems to mankind? And that's where the experts on the matter come in and have suggested that a gradual shift from fossil fuels to green fuels, for regulation that results in decreased emission from industry, etc, is the most efficient way forward. Again, for the umpteenth time, that we should abolish cars or planes is NOT among the suggestions from these experts, but rather that transportation should become more environmentally friendly be using electricity and biofuels and so on.

Edited by SoulMonster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Mankind is the cause for the abnormal global warming we are observing now. 

 

Huh? No one is denying that any excess carbon emission, whether that is driving a car, having a pet, heating your house, or exercising, add on to the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere. The idiocy here is arguing that we have to stop all activities that result in CO2 emission otherwise we can't reduce the total emission to below the threshold for climate change. That is a grotesque misrepresentation of what the experts say, and frankly an argument only seen from people who don't understand climate change and want to shame people who do because they are confused and feel threatened by what is happening. We don't have to stop driving, we don't have to stop flying, we don't have to become vegetarians., we don't have to forego our pets (although small dogs are an abomination to the creator (=mankind) and nothing but genetic debris and should be phased out), we don't have to only have one child, we don't have to stop eating candy. What we have to do is support systemic change that causes a green shift in the industry and phases out fossil fuels. Anyone saying anything else has either not got it or are lying.

 

 

I don't understand a fucking word of what you just said... 

we don't have to, we don't have to, we don't have to, etc...

what do we have to do then, according to you, is "support systemic change"...... but that would include anything you claimed we don't have to! is it just me, am I really an imbecile or does that just make no sense, at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day my car is gonna run on actions fast food grease. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I don't think you do this on purpose, but you sometimes seem to read things that aren't said. I experienced the same thing when we had a discussion two days ago. I spent two posts explaining that I never said what you claimed I said. It gets in the way of having a constructive discussion when you have to waste time on explaining you didn't say something. Plus it's quite annoying. Sorry.

mildly ironic coming from you, because earlier weren't you accusing me just for the same?

you told me: "you didn't say "to me", so effectively accusing me for things I didn't say...

 

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The problem is excess CO2[/sub) emission. Not any specific activity like driving cars or buying goods from China. Then the question is how can we reasonably reduce this excess carbon emission so that it is sufficient to reverse the trend we are seeing, with the least problems to mankind? And that's where the experts on the matter come in and have suggested that a gradual shift from fossil fuels to green fuels, for regulation that results in decreased emission from industry, etc, is the most efficient way forward. Again, for the umpteenth time, that we should abolish cars or planes is NOT among the suggestions from these experts, but rather that transportation should become more environmentally friendly be using electricity and biofuels and so on.

that's a load of bull. Most climate experts are saying it's too late, URGENT action is needed. "gradual change" in behaviour is contra-intuitive even to the casual observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, action said:

mildly ironic coming from you, because earlier weren't you accusing me just for the same?

you told me: "you didn't say "to me", so effectively accusing me for things I didn't say...

Huh? No, I wasn't. That is something completely different. 

Forget it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, action said:

that's a load of bull. Most climate experts are saying it's too late, URGENT action is needed. "gradual change" in behaviour is contra-intuitive even to the casual observer

A shift to green fuels can unfortunately only be gradual (in the sense of taking time). It takes time to develop technologies, to change infrastructure, to change policies, to change mindsets. But you are right that introducing green policies that stimulate the green shift is becoming more and more urgent the longer politicians ignore the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Its an interesting study in western masculinity - this "what can I do?" business from some of the denier segment. Focused on a grandiose sense of themselves. They believe that their working class/middle class consumer and lifestyle choices will make or break the planet. :lol:

They find out that they cant do anything and start spinning out of control. Unable to adapt to the reality that they arent the ones who are going to solve this. They arent going to be the hero. They arent needed at all. All they need to do is shut the fuck up and get out of the way.

This is beyond both their comprehension and the length of their cocks.

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

A shift to green fuels can unfortunately only be gradual (in the sense of taking time). It takes time to develop technologies, to change infrastructure, to change policies, to change mindsets. But you are right that introducing green policies that stimulate the green shift is becoming more and more urgent the longer politicians ignore the issue.

oh, I absolutely agree: it IS going to take time.... but that still does not negate the fact that it should happen "now".

In that sense, every little thing would help. that's really just common sense. So.... don't drive cars and fly planes. 

You seem to stress the fact that it "isn't necessary" to stop doing that, but PRECISELY in the light that a shift to green fuels only can be gradual, it BECOMES necessary.

stop being a scientist for one second please, and start thinking for yourself for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, action said:

oh, I absolutely agree: it IS going to take time.... but that still does not negate the fact that it should happen "now".

In that sense, every little thing would help. that's really just common sense. So.... don't drive cars and fly planes. 

Well, if you want to stop driving cars and flying planes, then be my guest :D I will consider doing that when it is being considered required by climate change experts. As of today, it simply isn't. The urgency lies on politicians enacting green policies, not individuals returning to a lifestyle anno 10,000 BC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, fortunately most people aren't nihils like you. Most people care about the earth and coming generations. In varying degrees, true, but to some extent. 

See I don't think that I'm particularly nihilistic, I see the value of things immensely...but its all in the moment, its all now.  I think art and music andbooks and people and drinking and being merry.  I'm probably more like supremely selfish than nihilistic.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, if you want to stop driving cars and flying planes, then be my guest :D I will consider doing that when it is being considered required by climate change experts. As of today, it simply isn't. The urgency lies on politicians enacting green policies, not individuals returning to a lifestyle anno 10,000 BC.

when your wife is telling you to do the dishes, are you going to consult scientsist first too?

why this obsession with "what scientists say". Scientists are out of touch with society and common sense, it's frustrating talking to someone who only believes what is scientifically proven. It is a recipe for a total inertia. your attitude is part of the problem, not the solution.

Edited by action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

See I don't think that I'm particularly nihilistic, I see the value of things immensely...but its all in the moment, its all now.  I think art and music andbooks and people and drinking and being merry.  I'm probably more like supremely selfish than nihilistic.

Maybe you will change when you have kids? Then it isn't protecting the planet for future lives of unknowns you don't care about, but for your children and your children's children? I certainly started thinking less on me when I became a father.

Edited by SoulMonster
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, action said:

when your wife is telling you to do the dishes, are you going to consult scientsist first too?

Nah, but Id have to wonder why I married a bossy and lazy woman :lol:

 

(is this why Im single? :lol:)

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, action said:

when your wife is telling you to do the dishes, are you going to consult scientsist first too?

It is not really within the realm of science, is it?

 

11 minutes ago, action said:

why this obsession with "what scientists say". 

I think I was talking about climate change experts, that includes scientists and everybody who spends their livelihoods looking at the mitigating factors of climate change. But yes, I will always listen to what experts say on any subject. I have an enormous respect for people who study stuff and spend their time understanding things. I find that such a relief because then I don't have to. In fact, this out-sourcing or distributed effort of figuring things out which means that not everybody have to invent the wheel and that we can inherit knowledge from other separated from us in time and space, is the moat astonishing aspect of humanity. It means that we can overcome our individual stupidity.

 

11 minutes ago, action said:

it's frustrating talking to someone who only believes what is scientifically proven.

I believe lots of stuff that isn't scientifically proven. But I never believe anything that isn't supported by facts. 

 

11 minutes ago, action said:

your attitude is part of the problem, not the solution.

Hmm, so when it comes to mitigating climate change, my attitude of accepting the advise of actual experts on the field and supporting their conclusions, is part of the problem? Now, that's another of the stupid things that you routinely post here. You can't seriously blame us for pointing out that you post moronic things. If you want me to stop pointing it out you simply have to stop posting.

Edited by SoulMonster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is not really within the realm of science, is it?

 

I think I was talking about climate change experts, that includes scientists and everybody who spends their livelihoods looking at the mitigating factors of climate change. But yes, I will always listen to what experts say on any subject. I have an enormous respect for people who study stuff and spend their time understanding things. I find that such a relief because then I don't have to. In fact, this out-sourcing or distributed effort of figuring things out which means that not everybody have to invent the wheel and that we can inherit knowledge from other separated from us in time and space, is the moat astonishing aspect of humanity. It means that we can overcome our individual stupidity.

 

I believe lots of stuff that isn't scientifically proven. But I never believe anything that isn't supported by facts. 

 

Hmm, so when it comes to mitigating climate change, my attitude of accepting the advise of actual experts on the field and supporting their conclusions, is part of the problem? Now, that's another of the stupid things that you routinely post here. You can't seriously blame us for pointing out that you post moronic things. If you want me to stop pointing it out you simply have to stop posting.

in this instance, you use science to justify "not" changing your behaviour. I'd call that "science shopping"

if a salesman doesn't want to drink his own brewsel, my simple mind tells me to walk the other way

Edited by action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, action said:

in this instance, you use science to justify "not" changing your behaviour. I'd call that "science shopping"

You'd be right if I only agreed with the scientific consensus when it suited me. I don't. As I sad before, I would be a sad man if I had the arrogance to disagree with what thousands of people who spend their lives studying something agrees on. 

All this being said, it isn't really the scientific community that suggests mitigating actions to climate change, those suggestions comes out of the intersection between scientists (like the IPCC), KOLs, politicians, and environmental agencies. Still, I would be a sad man if I were to reject the opinion of these experts.

8 minutes ago, action said:

if a salesman doesn't want to drink his own brewsel, my simple mind tells me to walk the other way

What? :lol:

Edited by SoulMonster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/01/2020 at 2:35 PM, Dazey said:

The fire itself doesn't need to reach across to physically come into contact with anything. The actual heat radiated by the fire can cause dry woodland etc to spontaneously combust without coming into contact with the flames. Wood will start to burn if it gets to about 250oC without any direct source of ignition.

Just make the moat wider then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

Just make the moat wider then. 

We'll just make the world out of moat then shall we? :lol: 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh how I wish the stupid boomer conservative argument of "it's cold outside what are you liberals talking about with this climate change" would die so we can actually debate policy prescriptions rather than is this happening. 

Edit: apologies to boomers...#NotAllBoomers

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×