That's true. Nature is powerful enough that in thousands of years, we should predict for some kind of intelligent life to return. — Manuel

Yes. So we can safely go back to sleep.

How can this tightly-linked, interdependent, globalised economy we've created be scaled back enough to reduce our collectivised carbon footprint?

How can this tightly-linked, interdependent, globalised economy we've created be scaled back enough to reduce our collectivised carbon footprint? — The Opposite

Reduction wouldn't solve the problem. We need to stop burning hydrocarbons period.

There's no way to get the whole world to make the transition without a global government.

been reading Brave New World eh?

been reading Brave New World eh? — The Opposite

I did read it in my teens.

@frank it's a potential solution for sure, but would cost us in other ways

it's a potential solution for sure, but would cost us in other ways — The Opposite

Definitely. I don't think a global government is likely. Next best thing: a new global religion.

Can't plan for that, though. They just pop up when they're ready.

How can this tightly-linked, interdependent, globalised economy we've created be scaled back enough to reduce our collectivised carbon footprint? — The Opposite

Doesn’t matter because it’s probably not permanent. All we have to do is wait it out for ten thousand years of so. Yes, we’ll suffer in the meantime, but gotta think positive.

:smile: you're doomed

it’s probably not permanent — Xtrix

What isn't? I'm not sure what you're anaphorically referencing there old chap

Does anyone else find it a bit hypocritical of David Attenborough to be lecturing people about their carbon footprint, when his carbon footprint has been astronomical during his lifetime of swanning around the old British empire and beyond?



Can't say the same for Greta, that's for sure.

Does anyone else find it a bit hypocritical of David Attenborough — The Opposite

Always glad to join the ragging of a national treasure. What I find hypocritical is the way he spent most of his long career being the acceptable face of Nature as entertainment and avoided all controversy or lending his support to any of the many environmental campaigns and issues over the years, until they became mainstream, and then suddenly in the last few years makes like he is the Spokesman for the Environment, and longstanding member of the Vanguard of the Green Revolution. If eating raw monkey brains was respectable, David would make a programme to celebrate it.

Did you get David Archer's book?

Because basically what it means is that a source you trusted was really really wrong, as in must have made up the stuff about permanent global warming. You'd have to know next to nothing about climatology to assert that.

I'm interested in how people adjust to that kind of thing. If they're even capable of adjusting.

I voted very unlikely. I don't know much about climate science, but from what I've heard from sources I think are credible and from some of the evidence presented, it really seems important but isn't the issue more about why we don't do something about it? Why aren't our governments or are elected leaders doing anything serious? Is it because they're all given money by the energy companies and stuff? Or is it because it's too hard of an issue to solve? What are the solutions besides renewable energy? Why do people keep voting for people who don't do anything? I know there probably aren't great answers to these questions but it's what comes to mind when I see articles about it. Must be frustrating to be a climate scientist.

What isn't? — The Opposite

Just satirizing the ramblings of one of our several town idiots.

I'm interested in how people adjust to that kind of thing. If they're even capable of adjusting. — frank

I generally just change my mind when I find I am wrong, which I quite often am. But you have yet to point me to where I am wrong about climate change, apart from treating 100,000 years as 'permanent', which is a bit of a picky criticism even by your standards.

generally just change my mind when I find I am wrong, which I quite often am. But you have yet to point me to where I am wrong about climate change, apart from treating 100,000 years as 'permanent', which is a bit of a picky criticism even by your standards. — unenlightened

100,000 years isn't permanent. I don't think it's picky to say so.

The fact that warming will come in a dramatic spike (the size of which we don't know) over a few thousand years will be more challenging for us in some ways.

As soon as we adapt to the change, we'll have to adapt again.

As David Archer explains, warming will have a long tail, thus the 100,000 year figure.

I guess I wonder why people who show interest in this particular topic are resistant to learning more. It seems like it would be a high priority to know the facts.

For those who like the bad news, amid the much trumpeted talk of methane reduction, reservoirs of methane hydrate will quite possibly totally overwhelm any reductions made.

https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/

100,000 years isn't permanent. I don't think it's picky to say so. — frank

Picky isn't the right word. Idiotic. Stupid. Ignorant. Moronic. Imbecilic. Buffoonish. Doltish. Shallow. All these suffice.

I'll spell it out for those following along (not for you -- go back to sleep), in case it isn't crystal clear why this is so stupid:

Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, and the planet is warming along with them. We're currently on track to a roughly 2.7C rise, which will make the world unrecognizable and probably lead to tipping points which would be irreversible and, as David Archer (for those who have read him) explains, will last for thousands of years to come. Emissions need to be phased out as quickly as possible.

That's the challenge that we face. To throw in something like "Well, maybe we don't ALL end up dead," or "We'll probably adapt," or "in 10,000 years things may get back to livable conditions," is more denialist bullshit -- nothing more. That's not the argument David Archer, or anyone serious, is making. No one should take it seriously. What we should be doing is all we can to educate and organize -- to do all we can to contribute to stopping the "digging of our own graves," as Guterres rightly says. Not to speculate about how a few human beings may survive, or about how the dust will settle in thousands of years. It's true in the case of nuclear war, it's true in the case of climate change -- totally irrelevant. If there were a 1% chance that humanity will be wiped out, or the earth significantly altered for the worse, than we should take it seriously. It's far beyond 1%.

Emissions need to be phased out as quickly as possible. — Xtrix

I agree and never said otherwise.

10,000 years things may get back to livable conditions — Xtrix

The world won't be unlivable during the worst part of the warming. I'm astonished that you put so much energy into this topic and don't know that.

What we should be doing is all we can to educate and organize - — Xtrix

Maybe put a little more emphasis on educate?

it really seems important but isn't the issue more about why we don't do something about it? Why aren't our governments or are elected leaders doing anything serious? Is it because they're all given money by the energy companies and stuff? — John McMannis

Partly, yes. Many aren't bought by fossil fuel interests, but by other corporate interests -- so they don't care about changing the energy sector. But they're all motivated by power, and the way they maintain their power is through getting elected. Getting elected requires a lot of money and a lot of propaganda, because the "people" (the voters) still have a say. If you're running for office, you've already been filtered out -- probably come from a wealthy family, have gone to elite universities, or have come around to the ideology of the ruling class.

Big Oil is becoming a persona non grata, like tobacco before it, so more politicians are giving lip service to reeling them in. Still very little has been done, because they still have a lot of lobbying power and have nearly the entire Republican party completely under their control, so passing any meaningful legislation is next to impossible. But even if some did get through, they use the courts (now completely reshaped thanks to the hard work of McConnell and the election of Trump) to delay or overrule it.

Or is it because it's too hard of an issue to solve? What are the solutions besides renewable energy? — John McMannis

We have the solutions. Renewable energy is now at a level of technology that it can be employed, and is "cost effective." What's needed right now is electrification of the infrastructure, which will take while and require a lot of investment. It'll require nuclear energy as well, in my view. It'll require divesting from fossil fuel companies, which is gaining momentum. Most importantly, it'll require -- as with nearly anything beneficial that has ever happened in history, from the New Deal to civil rights to women's rights to gay rights -- ordinary citizens to come together and demand it. Seems cliched, but it's true. That requires education, communication, organizing, collective action.

Why do people keep voting for people who don't do anything? — John McMannis

All good and basic questions. We're stuck in a two-party system in the United States, and both are beholden to corporate interests. The Republicans get much more money from fossil fuel companies than Democrats, and so the former are outright deniers (led by Trump, who once said that climate change is a Chinese hoax) and the latter say nice words but never deliver. As this issue becomes more and more severe, we see painfully slow movement. Now the Republicans, led by the fossil fuel companies themselves, are saying climate change is a real threat and we should do something, but offer nothing but greenwashing bullshit. The Democrats are making some lovely proposals, knowing full well there's no chance of them passing and deliberately letting them fail. Biden, for example, makes a lot of noise about the importance of climate change, and then turns around and begs OPEC to pump more oil. Why? Because high gas prices hurt his approval ratings.

So the voter is stuck between a rock and hard place. If they punish the Democrats by not voting, or voting third party, then the Republicans win, who are even worse. Third party candidates like Ralph Nader gain almost no traction and then are blamed for siphoning votes. Bernie and progressive candidates, many of which are no doubt sincere, have to take the label "Democrat" but are often fought against by the DNC. They're made it through in recent years thanks to social media and independent fundraising, but they're still a small minority.

So no easy answers, but nothing will happen at all if we give up.

The world won't be unlivable during the worst part of the warming. — frank

:lol:

Interesting to see the variants of climate denial crop up.

I'm astonished that you put so much energy into this topic and don't know that. — frank

You don't know what you're talking about. Which is not so astonishing.

The "worst part of warming" is meaningless. The worst case is that we spiral out of control, and hit over 4 or 5 degrees of warming. Do you know what that will look like? Are you aware of what even a 2C rise will do? No, you don't. You have no idea. None. So until you look into that a little more, I'll continue to laugh in your "astonished" face.

I'll continue to laugh in your "astonished" face. — Xtrix

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society’s pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he’s in

But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it’s alright, Ma, if I can’t please him — a nobel prize for literature winner

The worst case is that we spiral out of control, and hit over 4 or 5 degrees of warming. Do you know what that will look like? — Xtrix

That was the temperature during the Eocene. Yes, we know exactly what it looked like.

Did you get that book yet?

That was the temperature during the Eocene. — frank

When human beings weren't even a dream. Yes, and the earth was practically a fireball if you go back far enough.

Like I said, look into it a little more. That may help your denial.

Yes, and the earth was practically a fireball if you go back far enough — Xtrix

Fascinating

A lot of the arguments I see remind me of abortion arguments, talking about sentience, viability, conception, when life starts, God, rape, incest, etc.

Should we continue to rape the Earth because it feels good, she's no longer a virgin, she has it coming, and we want to get our nut? It's too late to pull out now? It's natural to do what we are doing? Or should we just fuck her slower, whisper in her ear, and kiss her on the neck in the hopes she likes it better? Maybe it's not too late and she'll love us if we start acting like we should have been acting all along?

Or better yet, how about "no means no." How about we pay reparations and start re-wilding. Or just STOP and let her heal on her own?

Disturbing analogy.