Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Bulaba Jones wrote:IMO I think it's already too late to do much about it.
skinster wrote:I think it's fair to say...we're fucked.
Decky wrote:I am reliably informed by my brother that Mossad have a weather controlling machine.
Atlantis wrote:In its effect, that sort of fatalistic view is no different from climate change denial, since it relieves us of the necessity to take action.
Of course, it is still possible to fight climate change. It's a matter of political will.
Bulaba Jones wrote:Well, no, it isn't a resignation to fatalism, [...]
No one said there isn't a necessity to do something. The issue is that those with money don't care.
Bulaba Jones wrote: The rate of extinctions and numbers of species now endangered is alarmingly high,
and global climate patterns are shifting.
By the time anyone in politics with power decides to try and actually curb this, it'll be too late to stop the lingering runaway effects of a warmer Earth and a decimated global ecology;
at some point people will grudgingly realize we can't destroy the only planet we live on,
but so much will be lost at that point.
No one said there isn't a necessity to do something.
The issue is that those with money don't care.
Atlantis wrote:Oh yes, it is a resignation to fatalism.
To say that we can't do anything about it anyways will invariably lead to an attitude of 'tough lack for future generations' and 'let's enjoy it while it lasts', as expressed by the Gaia founder James Lovelock, who wants to plaster the planet with thousands of nuclear power stations.
Political inertia is second nature to politicians of all times. However, to solve a problem it needs political will. That vision is lacking today, as elected politicians are loath to look beyond the next election and at a time everybody holds onto economic growth as onto dear life.
Nobody said it would be easy. But it's the only way. If humans are endowed with greater intelligence than a virus multiplying to destroy its host organism, then humans can devise ways of averting climate change.
How convenient! It's always the others who have to do something. As long as 1% or the richest will make sacrifices, the 99% can go on consuming as hard as they like?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you saying that rising CO2 levels are only beneficial?
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:The only way for climate deniers to argue is to break down sentences into fragments so that they can then deconstruct fragments of ideas without attempting to grasp ideas or put forth any of their own.
There is no way to look at Climate Change as a theory and deny it, because there is no better explanation for Climate Change than it is man-made.
Simply, none exists and none will ever exist because it is based on facts that cannot be countered.
So they will continue to exploit that shadow of a doubt that exists in all things because at the end of the day the world could just not exist altogether, and if that's true then of course humans aren't causing climate change!
Truth To Power wrote:To be accurate, within the limits of rising concentrations that could plausibly be caused by human fossil fuel use, rising atmospheric CO2 levels are net beneficial to humanity and ecological productivity.
Bulaba Jones wrote:I don't think you understand what I meant.
I did not suggest or imply this.
The issue is that those with money don't care.
Atlantis wrote:What's so hard to understand in what you said?
You don't believe that there will be the political will to achieve a change. I reply that it is not impossible to achieve that political will, and that it is in fact the only solution.
Will we achieve the political will? That is something we can never tell in politics. It's the political process that counts. There is no savior to save the planet single-handedly, we can only be part of a process.
Which to me suggests that you believe that those with money have to take action, while the rest of us can lean back. To which I replied that the large majority of consumers with little money can to far more damage than the small number of rich people, who may incidentally even be more environment-conscious than most of us.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt it.
Now, since you used the "net" term, we can logically surmise that there will be, and possibly already are, negative effects to climate change.
anasawad wrote:Actually we do understand how climate works and how earth's system works and we understand the cycles and why they happen.
Thats why scientists say this shouldn't happen.
You know, because of long long decades of constant research into climate science, they came up with one simple result, this is an unnatural change. (duh)
The time when we didn't understand the climate was somewhere around the 60s or so.
Ooh, and its not chaotic, it actually has very specific cycles and patterns that can only change if external factors effected it. (i.e like humans)
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power So, when you said we did not need to do anything, were you claiming that we do not need to do anything about the negative impacts?
And some on the Left, at least, are worried about […]
What do you know about the public debate in "[…]
Trump's racist dog-whistling is ok because he has[…]
Some time ago I mused that American Liberals are r[…]