Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[tstorm823]

Firstly: no, that was not all you were saying.

The posts are all there unedited.

Secondly: the sources are issuing dire warnings, talking about "damage", "severity", and how it can be mitigated. All the world's most authoritative environmental agencies have issued direct appeals to avoid it. You think they regard this is a neutral, hunky-dory change?

In certain aspects, yes. And the warnings are not in a vacuum. Climate change could serve to expand habitats for many species, but if the spaces they could expand to are overdeveloped for human use, it becomes a compounding issue.

And if you consider the alternative... If humanity could not change the climate and natural cycles persisted, the glaciers would be coming back south. That's much less good for biodiversity.

This damage is not compensated by a corresponding "flourish" under any existing model-- and you've presented literally nothing to back up, just sheer speculation about future forestation.

It's literally where fossil fuels came from, it's not that complicated.

 

[tstorm823]

Amazing technologies to make a better world are a major reason I would vote centre to left. Because the centre to left are interested in supporting investment into green technology where the right wing prefers to hand bungs to fossil fuel interests so they can do more drilling.

The businesses you resent out-invest governments in green energy development like 5:1.

 

[Ag3ma]

The businesses you resent out-invest governments in green energy development like 5:1.

I don't resent business - I am broadly pro-capitalism. I resent corporate excesses and abuses. I thus tend to vote against political parties that coddle businesses and facilitate those abuses and excesses, which is another reason I'm inclined to vote centre - left.

Even through private sector R&D in most broad areas is comprehensively more than public, no-one should underestimate the importance of public sector funding. Public funding tends to support "blue sky" research much more heavily, which forms the basis for a huge amount of later corporate R&D. Silicon valley is possibly the classic example - born on a huge government slush fund and source of the USA's comprehensive sector dominance for decades, but there are many more examples.

Secondly, major public funding drives further support and sets trends. If a green energy company is planning where to set up operations, a country offering it a 20% funding increase is much more likely to be chosen as a place to invest in. Knowledge that money is there to be used attracts talent and interest into that area - business start-ups, graduates choosing careers, etc. As a result, even if a relatively modest proportion of total research funding, public funding can be a vital plank of a country's economic success in an area. We could for instance look at China: why does a country that climbed out of the medieval era 50 years ago now lead the world in numerous key technologies? Because they had an industrial strategy for the government to aggressively support those technologies and industries.

Or, you know, you can throw money at digging shit out of the ground as if that will still be big business in 50 years. Doesn't sound to me like looking to the future.

 

[Silvanus]

The posts are all there unedited.

They are indeed, in which you made numerous other dubious claims.

In certain aspects, yes. And the warnings are not in a vacuum. Climate change could serve to expand habitats for many species, but if the spaces they could expand to are overdeveloped for human use, it becomes a compounding issue.

So let's see the statements from authoritative bodies and environmental experts to that effect, then: that climate change could be fine/neutral/beneficial for biodiversity.

I've provided statements from them giving warnings, talking about damage, talking about falling biodiversity. You've... what?

And if you consider the alternative... If humanity could not change the climate and natural cycles persisted, the glaciers would be coming back south. That's much less good for biodiversity.

So, based on planetary motion alone, some observers predicted the next glacial period could begin in ~1,500 years. Other analyses taking into account naturally higher Co2 puts it at far into the future as ~50,000 years, even without human impact. And you're telling me you consider the risk to life from that occurrence, with thousands of years to adapt to it, to be reason enough to be complacent about drastic shifts in climate in the opposite direction in >200 years.

Putting aside the fact that we have the last glacial period to thank for quite a lot of the accessible water in the Northern hemisphere and elsewhere; it shaped the world that we have now in the Holocene and was necessary for providing the environments that resulted in the subsequent biodiversity of the interglacial.

It's literally where fossil fuels came from, it's not that complicated.

No, it's not. Don't avoid the question. Where's your model for flourishing biodiversity under climate change, compensating for the loss that the biologists and climatologists are warning us about?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Dude, we have people who actually voted from Palmer and Hanson. We have plenty of crazies

*politely declines to point out the geographical concentrations of those voters*

To be fair, they are probably targeting all migrants and make it up on the spot why each one is bad.

Well, migrants who aren't english speaking white people...

 

[tstorm823]

So, based on planetary motion alone, some observers predicted the next glacial period could begin in ~1,500 years. Other analyses taking into account naturally higher Co2 puts it at far into the future as ~50,000 years, even without human impact. And you're telling me you consider the risk to life from that occurrence, with thousands of years to adapt to it, to be reason enough to be complacent about drastic shifts in climate in the opposite direction in >200 years.

No, I never said anything remotely like that. I said it's good that humans can change the climate and we should act as stewards.

 

[Silvanus]

No, I never said anything remotely like that. I said it's good that humans can change the climate and we should act as stewards.

And you said, in direct response to someone talking about rapidly rising temperatures under current policies, that change isn't necessarily bad. The clear implication of that is that the rise could be fine or good.

You then said climate change could be beneficial to biodiversity. That our actions could stave off the next glacial period, which you believe would be worse. Denied it drove habitat loss and extinction. You even claimed the experts were neutral on the prospect of climate change, in the face of repeated warnings from them to avoid it.

At every turn you've quibbled and objected when people have considered rapidly rising temperatures under current climate change to be a danger/negative. At every turn you've minimised or denied its negative impact. You cannot now weasel out of that and pretend you were just making a super-vague general statement about how greater human control could be good.

 

[tstorm823]

And you said, in direct response to someone talking about rapidly rising temperatures under current policies, that change isn't necessarily bad. The clear implication of that is that the rise could be fine or good.

You then said climate change could be beneficial to biodiversity. That our actions could stave off the next glacial period, which you believe would be worse. Denied it drove habitat loss and extinction. You even claimed the experts were neutral on the prospect of climate change, in the face of repeated warnings from them to avoid it.

At every turn you've quibbled and objected when people have considered rapidly rising temperatures under current climate change to be a danger/negative. At every turn you've minimised or denied its negative impact. You cannot now weasel out of that and pretend you were just making a super-vague general statement about how greater human control could be good.

All my posts are still there. Everyone can still read them.

 

[Silvanus]

All my posts are still there. Everyone can still read them.

Indeed, but for everyone's convenience;

Here you are, stating that it "isn't a thing" that climate change drives habitat loss.

you're acting as though the many species losing habitat right now are being driven by climate change. Which isn't a thing, that's not a consensus, nobody serious is going to agree to that.

Here you are stating that the biodiversity loss from climate change will be more than made up for by biodiversity gains elsewhere;

Sure, some species will cease to be well adapted to their home habitat, and either migrate or die, but they will be replaced by even more new things.

Here you are stating that anthropogenic climate change is making the world "greener and livelier";

By pure accident, human technology seems to be ending the ice age and taking the earth back to a greener, livelier climate than has existed since before humans came into being.

 

[Elijin]

OMFG, don't you understand how everything in the study was redone BUT WITH random numbers? You act like something is being hidden or whatever. Don't you understand how damning that is to the validity of the original study? Guess what a digital dice roller didn't actually roll a physical dice, we all know this. You're focusing on bullshit semantics that don't matter vs discussing the actual point of the study. Not to mention mathematicians already have said they did the math wrong on the original study, which you keep not talking about as well.


Mathematicians founds they did the math wrong so the same result happens with like any numbers (like say random numbers) because the results were just noise.

Wait. Waitwaitwait. Your take on this (Yours, I've read your linked articles and that this is definitely YOUR assessment of their words), is that the math has been done in such a way that no matter what entries are put into the fields, the resulting graph will always be the same.

NO MATTER WHAT ENTRIES ARE PUT INTO THE FIELDS, THE RESULT IS THE SAME.

That one was just to let yourself hear it out loud again.

Man. I was going to insult your intelligence here, but do I need to?

 

[tstorm823]

Here you are, stating that it "isn't a thing" that climate change drives habitat loss.

Do you not understand that you are conflating extinctions driven by habitat destruction with climate change? You can't blame loss of diversity on climate change if a forest that would otherwise be thriving gets cut down

Here you are stating that the biodiversity loss from climate change will be more than made up for by biodiversity gains elsewhere;

That's nearly a guarantee eventually.

Here you are stating that anthropogenic climate change is making the world "greener and livelier";

Than an ice age. We are still living in an ice age, there are parts of the world, like 10% of the Earth's surface, that are too frozen to support any significant amount of life. When the Earth was warmer, death valley was an inland sea. A warmer world is going to be greener and livelier.

 

[Gergar12]

Thank you democrats for allowing Republicans to use the first mover's advantage on this.

 

[Avnger]

Thank you democrats for allowing Republicans to use the first mover's advantage on this.

Right now the entire "story" is based solely on 3 to 4 layers of the telephone game. The latest claims even involve space-time engineering lol. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not he-said-he-said-he-said-he-said tales given to tabloids like the DailyMail.

Either a direct whistleblower (preferably one who's not also trying to publish a book...) needs to testify under oath or, even better for some of the more out there claims, some hard evidence needs to be shown.

 

[Absent]

Right now the entire "story" is based on solely 3 to 4 layers of the telephone game.

That's the standard in ufology.

 

[Silvanus]

Do you not understand that you are conflating extinctions driven by habitat destruction with climate change? You can't blame loss of diversity on climate change if a forest that would otherwise be thriving gets cut down

You've been given quotes from authoritative bodies definitively listing climate change itself as a driver of habitat loss.

That's nearly a guarantee eventually.

Let's see the models, then. Where's the corresponding flourish? Where are the authoritative bodies, climatologists, biologists etc saying climate change will give us this flourish?

Than an ice age. We are still living in an ice age, there are parts of the world, like 10% of the Earth's surface, that are too frozen to support any significant amount of life. When the Earth was warmer, death valley was an inland sea. A warmer world is going to be greener and livelier.

Except even without anthropogenic climate change, we wouldn't be in a glacial period now, and may not be for 50,000 years.

You're happy to allow demonstrable devastation right now in exchange for a hypothetical benefit in tens of thousands of years.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

The whole UFO shit is just another vapid distraction. They keep doing this. And every time it's just more people talking more talk. It's always talk. Not interested in their talk, they need to show us the solid evidence or shut the fuck up and enjoy their retirement. Decades and decades of this bullshit, now with cameras everywhere, yet still no evidence. Absolutely nothing! Just constant dopey hopium that helps no-one. And now most of the believers are slipping into anti-vaxx qanon bollocks anyway. Bin it. Give it up. Yeet it unto the bloody sun. No more teasing shadows, that's the realm of scams, cults, con-artists and religions.

 

[Absent]

The whole UFO shit is just another vapid distraction. They keep doing this. And every time it's just more people talking more talk. It's always talk. Not interested in their talk, they need to show us the solid evidence or shut the fuck up and enjoy their retirement. Decades and decades of this bullshit, now with cameras everywhere, yet still no evidence. Absolutely nothing! Just constant dopey hopium that helps no-one. And now most of the believers are slipping into anti-vaxx qanon bollocks anyway. Bin it. Give it up. Yeet it unto the bloody sun. No more teasing shadows, that's the realm of scams, cults, con-artists and religions.

Yeah. As a kid, I was quite a bit into that. But when you have a tiny bit of a critical mind, the more you dig into it, the more ridiculous and futile it reveals itself. Just like religions are so multiple that even if there was a real god he (he! ) would be hopelessly lost in the noise of historically and philosophically debunkable ones, if there was an extra-terrestrial visitor, it would be drowned in the multiplicity of false testimonies. It's not an absolute impossibility, but the avalanche of ridiculous beliefs, demonstrable hoaxes and explainable errors makes each one less likely to be "truly real this time for real".

Would be fun though. I'd welcome a surprise on any front.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Yeah. As a kid, I was quite a bit into that. But when you have a tiny bit of a critical mind, the more you dig into it, the more ridiculous and futile it reveals itself. Just like religions are so multiple that even if there was a real god he (he! ) would be hopelessly lost in the noise of historically and philosophically debunkable ones, if there was an extra-terrestrial visitor, it would be drowned in the multiplicity of false testimonies. It's not an absolute impossibility, but the avalanche of ridiculous beliefs, demonstrable hoaxes and explainable errors makes each one less likely to be "truly real this time for real".

Would be fun though. I'd welcome a surprise on any front.

Yeah same, was well into the ghosties, paranormal and the aliens as a kid, with shelves of second-hand books covering them. Would still love to find any proof today, if only to soothe the existential dread of being caught in humanity s slow-motion suicide. But so far it's just been grifters all the way down, kept afloat by a lot of ignorance around the basics of human psychology. Even a hostile alien species reveal would be a relief at this point, yes we'd be screwed, but it'd be something. Plus they'd likely make it quicker than our current march towards the microplastic oceans.

 

[Ag3ma]

Yeah same, was well into the ghosties, paranormal and the aliens as a kid, with shelves of second-hand books covering them. Would still love to find any proof today, if only to soothe the existential dread of being caught in humanity s slow-motion suicide. But so far it's just been grifters all the way down, kept afloat by a lot of ignorance around the basics of human psychology. Even a hostile alien species reveal would be a relief at this point, yes we'd be screwed, but it'd be something. Plus they'd likely make it quicker than our current march towards the microplastic oceans.

UFOs are so 1990s. Although I guess it's been long enough they might be due a revival.

 

[tstorm823]

You're happy to allow demonstrable devastation right now in exchange for a hypothetical benefit in tens of thousands of years.

Setting aside that the 50,000 year time line is just possibility, and that happening in the short term was also a possibility to the point that serious scientific research was put into the potential of imminent global cooling like 50 years ago...

It's not an exchange. It's two effects that share a cause, and its imprudent to consider only some effects of an action while ignoring all the others.