181–190 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
So you think the comment above that advocates for fascism is referring to the Italian political party? Or are you just trying to muddy the water about what fascism actually is and who is a fascist?
I wasn't addressing that comment, I was answering orange-juice's question. Nothing in my reply was a statement about "what fascism actually is and who is a fascist" in any sense beyond that.
Stop being so defensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We have about 10 years of emissions left if we want to stay below 2°. First off, if that is the case you can be sure we'll end "above 2°" (by which I'm sure you mean 2° above some earlier average). China and India alone have massive projected tails for their CO2 output. Second, "10 years of emissions left"? You're suggesting that somehow C02 emissions could be curtailed completely within 10 years? Absurd... Neither…
No, I'm suggesting that we start a linear reduction right now and be done in 20 years. Perhaps overshoot the target by a few years and pay for it with carbon sequestration.
You expect to have all fossil fuel powered vehicles worldwide phased out within 20 years? Including aircraft? What about cargo ships?
There is no practical chance of even hitting the lowest trajectory IPCC target, much less something considerably below that.
FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken.
REG: Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. It really touches on the emotional aspects of it, which I think really need to be discussed. When I picture why certain family members have a hard time accepting the reality of global warming, it certainly comes down to difficulty grappling with emotions, not a hard review of the literature. Recognizing emotions as part of the problem and solution feels like a big step.
>Recognizing emotions as part of the problem and solution feels like a big step. I think this is actually the worst thing we can do. Science is facts, cold hard facts. If you want to get rid of the science and focus on emotions, then the solutions to the _real_ problem will get distorted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there's enough time for a solar or wind revolution? It's not like solar panels come out of thin air either. Same with windmills... To build solar or wind at the scale we need would be quite the "revolution". Probably even more so than nuclear because you'd have no way to store the energy unless you went absolutely mad with lithium mining and battery production. Which would also take years to scale. Truth is - bot…
Renewables have the benefit that they provide a gradual reduction in CO2 emissions that starts basically right now, compared to not reducing emissions at all until the reactors go online.
I know that nuclear power plants are a large scale event but so is creating a factory to make PVs. Same with lithium mines. Same with refinement of that lithium. Now we're getting into having to create lots of steel for wind turbines too.
In my mind, you get to the end in 10 years with nuclear. With solar, you get to production capacity to solve the issue in 10 years while slowly addressing the problem along the way. I think the dent you'd make in 10 years while ramping up to production capacity would at best just match increased demand.
Then you have large swaths of land that are dedicated to solar cells, wind turbines, refineries, factories, and mines we had to use for all the lithium. (Not that some of those won't exist for nuclear)
Sorry man, but all your hopes look pretty bad (as any other average eco-enthusiast hopes do). 1. Renewable energy (solar and wind mainly) is shitty mostly, not delivering, huge resources required, and huge backup battery/hydro storage required. SOLUTION = Nuclear 2. EV cars are junk, poorly packed energy, much less than gasoline per kg, giving bad range and big mass overhead to vehicle (meaning also bigger energy con…
We have about 10 years of emissions left if we want to stay below 2°. Building nuclear plants takes ten years on average, at the current rate of building them. If you wanted to suddenly build two or three orders of magnitude more, you'd first have to scale up the supply chain, e.g. for pressure vessels. There is not enough time left for a nuclear revolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you presenting a false dichotomy?
A false dichotomy is when two opposing views are expressed as the only options. I am comparing a real solution (science) with a phony one (emotions). Can a warm fuzzy doctor cure cancer with science? Yes. Can a warm fuzzy doctor cure cancer with emotions and no science? No. So, this is not a false dichotomy. The climate can not be changed by feeling different about it. Is there a solution to climate change that does…
What they're talking about is how important emotions are when dealing with humans, and you need to deal with humans to solve this problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that "cold hard facts" are what motivate human behavior, you are deeply ignorant of _critical_ aspects to understanding human behavior, working with humans, and solving human problems. You're not wrong or bad for this ignorance, we're all born into ignorance, it's the human condition.
It's pure delusion to think you can get everyone to band together to change the climate. We can't people to stop murdering each other, stealing, lying, or many other harmful things. You are arguing that propaganda is the solution to climate change. That manipulating people by appealing to their emotions will lower the carbon in the air. But, you are missing that whoever controls the best manipulation tactic decides t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a large body of evidence that a warm soft doctor is more likely to actually try and succeed to fix your cancer than a cold hard doctor. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/should_we_trai... https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wps.20146 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.0045... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21300514 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2124860…
If there is any science that says smiling or telling a joke will alter the climate, I will be the first in line to admit my error. Otherwise, I will argue that emotions are directly linked to our personal health, but not the climate. It's an entirely different system that has no emotions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a large body of evidence that a warm soft doctor is more likely to actually try and succeed to fix your cancer than a cold hard doctor. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/should_we_trai... https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wps.20146 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.0045... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21300514 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2124860…
If there is any science that says smiling or telling a joke will alter the climate, I will be the first in line to admit my error. Otherwise, I will argue that emotions are directly linked to our personal health, but not the climate. It's an entirely different system that has no emotions.
You're not going to fix anything without convincing people do act, and its more likely that you can convince people to act if you can connect with with on an emotional level, rather than just tell them the facts and saying what needs to be done.
We've been telling people the facts for years and it's not done shit.