On the Insidiousness of "We have 12 Years to Save the Planet." - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15005075
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that hydro-electric (a renewable) does far better than fossil fuels.


So what? Nobody is arguing against using hydro, it's wind and solar that are shit. When you take into account all the relevant factors, carbon is still king. Wind and solar are expensive and unreliable, hydro isn't available everywhere, and while nuclear should be our primary energy source the fuckwits just aren't having it.
#15005121
Sivad wrote:So what? Nobody is arguing against using hydro, it's wind and solar that are shit.


Yes, I have noticed that when people argue against renewables, they cherry pick which renewables.

But if we look at all renewables, fossil fuels are still less efficient than most of them.

And solar and wind seem about as efficient as fossil fuels when looking at EROIs over a life cycle.

When you take into account all the relevant factors, carbon is still king.


No, that would be hydro and nuclear.

Wind and solar are expensive and unreliable, hydro isn't available everywhere, and while nuclear should be our primary energy source the fuckwits just aren't having it.


Again, wind and solar seem just as good as fossil fuels.

And please note that wind and solar also do not create nearly as much negative externalities in the form of pollution and greenhouse gases.

If we factor in the cost of cleaning up after fossil fuels, fossil fuels are probably the least efficient.
#15005181
Hong Wu wrote:Some further thoughts I've had on climate change:

What are prerequisites to believe in climate change?

(1) A lack of a belief in God in any active, benevolent kind of way. You could still believe in God while believing in climate change as a serious threat but it would be a God that would allow people to destroy their own planet; I'm not sure how that can mesh with lots of the other liberal conceptions of God.
(2) A persistent belief in climate experts despite many incidents of incorrect predictions and faked data. This is a very strong belief in authority figures and experts.
(3) Accepting either the Green New Deal or having an interesting take on Germany's failed projects; what are we actually supposed to do about it?
(4) A weird blind spot regarding nuclear power since if we strictly wanted to go zero-emissions, wouldn't the occasional nuclear problem be worth saving the planet?

Honestly curious if the usual leftists on this forum have any coherent responses to these questions, thanks.


Climate change in only one of many potential extinction causes. Pesticides and other "cides" are destroying ecosystems and inflicting genetic damages on animals including humans.

GMO crops have the potential to destroy the natural balance of plants, insects, and animals by flooding the earth with unrecognizable substances with unknow side effects.

Our nuclear power plants could poison us all very easily.

All of the tech mentionned above are already causing very serious harm, and they are not related to climate change. GMO crops are often cites as a "solution" to climate change, which is like curing a heroin overdose with a cocaine overdose: only a drug-addict could even see this as remotely appropriate.

The problem is money married technology and called it "a civilization" a few thousand years ago. And we have been trained to not question "civilization" right up to our own death.
#15005191
QatzelOk wrote:Climate change in only one of many potential extinction causes. Pesticides and other "cides" are destroying ecosystems and inflicting genetic damages on animals including humans.

GMO crops have the potential to destroy the natural balance of plants, insects, and animals by flooding the earth with unrecognizable substances with unknow side effects.

Our nuclear power plants could poison us all very easily.

All of the tech mentionned above are already causing very serious harm, and they are not related to climate change. GMO crops are often cites as a "solution" to climate change, which is like curing a heroin overdose with a cocaine overdose: only a drug-addict could even see this as remotely appropriate.

The problem is money married technology and called it "a civilization" a few thousand years ago. And we have been trained to not question "civilization" right up to our own death.

We don't know any better. We think we know better than God, but we don't.
Praise the Lord.
#15005258
QatzelOk wrote:Our nuclear power plants could poison us all very easily.

Actually it's very difficult for nuclear plants to poison us because all pollutants are captured and stored on site and the cost of clean up is paid upfront; unlike every other source of power, which are allowed to pollute first and (might) clean up later.

Even in a worse case scenario like when a 50 year old reactor with inadequate safety backups got hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami the resulting meltdown didn't kill anyone.
#15005416
AFAIK wrote:Actually it's very difficult for nuclear plants to poison us because ...

Because you work for the nuclear industry as a paid shill?

There are already lots of people in Canada with various forms of cancer due to living near nuclear power plants.

You could always explain that being exposed to radiation isn't poison. It's something else that's deadly.

But my point was that there are many ways that modern technology can wipe out species including ours. And nuclear is right up there. We've also been poisoned by their marketing.
#15005444
QatzelOk wrote:Because you work for the nuclear industry as a paid shill?

There are already lots of people in Canada with various forms of cancer due to living near nuclear power plants.

You could always explain that being exposed to radiation isn't poison. It's something else that's deadly.

But my point was that there are many ways that modern technology can wipe out species including ours. And nuclear is right up there. We've also been poisoned by their marketing.

Perhaps it would be wise to do more to eliminate cancer instead of climate change.
#15005465
QatzelOk wrote:Because you work for the nuclear industry as a paid shill?

Yeah that must be it. There's no other explanation for why someone could disagree with someone as smart as yourself. There's certainly no need to read the rest of my post for possible clues as to why I said that.

BTW, this wind turbine killed more people than Fukushima has;

Image
#15005868
Well Skinster. That was sobering reading for a fine Sunday morning.

Do I believe him? In a word, yes. I do believe that what will look very much like civilization collapse will happen and sooner than we think. Every day we get more bad news.

Speaking for the third world, I would simply assert that it does not have the resources or stability to be more than an observer in this process. Its response will be completely defensive and local.

For the first world, the problem will be apathy. As long as we first world citizens have a modicum of comfort we will do little. There is no leadership.

Speaking of the USA specifically, we have a major political party that has decided to hang its future on denial. Its leadership has made the calculated decision to ignore the overwhelming evidence and collect money for it campaigns from people who stand to see diminished profits through even the most simple steps to slow the inevitable progression of this problem. They (the republicans) have decided to ensure the deaths of millions or even billions of people, coldly and dispassionately, so that they can get a check from XYZ company. They have promulgated a disinformation campaign aimed at the least educated and most impressionable of our citizens. Now they want to spend a trillion dollars on "infrastructure"; not one penny of it to mitigate the problems we already face from climate change. They will run in the 2020 election on the unthinkable platform that global climate change is:

Bad science.

Dramatically overblown.

God's will.

None of which, is even debatable except the last one and that only if we choose to believe that global climate change is another 'Noah's Flood" and for about the same reasons. Just look. We actually have people serving in the senate of the United States of America who have said, on record, that an increase in atmospheric carbon is good because "plants like it".

Democrats in the meantime are talking about this issue but not very loudly. Why? Because scaring people does not work very well for getting elected. Oh sure it is fine to scare people over some light brown person in the Middle East who you can fairly easily blow to pieces but to scare them over a killer that does not differentiate between Christian or Muslim, white or black or immigrant and citizen does not get votes. From any of them.

So I suspect this about right. Though hope springs eternal, I will probably not live to see the real collapse. Neither will most of the people in power today. The saddest people for me to image are the young republicans who will live to see just how amateurishly they have been duped. The climate if their lottery ticket. But unlike a lottery ticket, if they win and the climate does not bring them down, there is no payoff.

Americans and Europeans should have to spend a week in Beijing. They should have to understand what awaits us just in the easily visible.

Image

China is already the third leading cause of air pollution in the United States.

What they will never understand is that even if we clean up the visible effects of air pollution we have not solved the problem. A traffic cop in Guangzhou China has a life expectancy of 42 because of respiratory illness. Now. But this problem is not about you, youngster, getting emphysema from jogging in the morning. It has gone way beyond that. Your future's are dark. You have little chance to enjoy what will soon be seen as the idyllic life that my generation enjoyed. Our wars, famines, and economic events will seem like parlor games to what you will suffer. If you are under 40 your best bet is to somehow contrive to become very rich or high up in the military. Otherwise.......
#15006385
Hindsite wrote:We disagree because God said,
"As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it."
(Genesis 9:7 NASB)




YOU did not OBSERVE "GOD" say that.

YOU PARROT an easily discredited 2000 year old book that defines "soon" as "more than 1800 years from now" and thinks stars are the same size as fig leafs....
#15006498
LaDexter wrote:YOU did not OBSERVE "GOD" say that.

YOU PARROT an easily discredited 2000 year old book that defines "soon" as "more than 1800 years from now" and thinks stars are the same size as fig leafs....

Your problem is with your perspective compared to God's.
#15007214
Hindsite wrote:Your problem is with your perspective compared to God's.

You don't know God's perspective, only your own.
That your "own" is based on limiting your reading to one particular text... makes you very un-God-like.
God would read a lot more books than just one because He would want to be smart and well read.

Your problem with the thread title isn't "have 12 years to save the planet," it's the "we" that troubles you because you think Jesus or God will save everyone just before the elevator hits the ground. This is because the Bible uses heroic action-figure devices as a marketing tool.

"But what if we meek people destroy the earth on the way to inheriting it?"
"No prob. Savior-rama to the rescue!"

*sold!*
#15007265
QatzelOk wrote:You don't know God's perspective, only your own.
That your "own" is based on limiting your reading to one particular text... makes you very un-God-like.
God would read a lot more books than just one because He would want to be smart and well read.

God doesn't need to read any books, because He already knows it all. The text I read is called God's word because it presents the truth instead of lies. You think you are getting smart by reading more propaganda, but all those lies are just making you more deceived.
#15007295
What I would like to know Hindsite, is why we should not work to save the planet. I don't think you are arguing that we should not because it is God's job. Are you? I think you have been led into a trap.

We are to trust in God in all things but we are responsible for acting to protect his creation. For example, we are to care for one-another. We are to heal the sick. Air pollution makes people sick. So God has commanded us to clean up the air because we are to heal the sick.

There is absolutely NO justification for a Christian to oppose cleaning up the environment which is what is required to control warming. In fact, as Christians, we are called upon to fight to clean up the environment because to pollute is not to love others as ourselves. Do unto others and all.

So make everyone happy Hindsite. Tell us all that you favor extreme measures to clean up the environment.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 12

Probably because the going rates of pay for thes[…]

The situation has already progressed to a level th[…]

The Paradox of Poverty

As communities grow more diverse, either in cul[…]

The journey was epic and not without it's worryi[…]