The Donald vs Big Tech

[astfgyl]

I think humans have absolutely fucked the environment in many many ways and could do an awful lot to clean up their act but I think this focus on one element of such a complex system and throwing all the eggs into that one basket is just pure folly. Something like micro plastics will turn out to be 1000 times worse than carbon emissions and everyone will be like oh what a surprise shock horror we shouldn't have put all those eggs in the one basket but we did anyway. Just think about all those bpa free claims on plastics now that leave out that the replacement for bpa is as bad if not worse but it satisfies some narrow environmental or health directives so poison us all away lads.

It's the typical human rot, none of the massive profit making giants in the oil plastic or renewable businesses have any care for saving the world at all but have somehow convinced most folks that living under the thumb of mad environmental initiatives and simply paying way more for everything will fix the earth and get it to some imaginary optimum level of carbon by 2050, completely ignoring the possibility of a single big volcanic eruption putting paid to the point of all that shit in a single day while we all stab ourselves with paper forks into the eyes as self punishment for not having seen the big scam.

Ah well

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

We already went over that scenario:

Volcano CO2 Emissions No Match for Human Activity
In as little as 2 days, smokestacks, tailpipes, and other human sources spew a year's worth of volcanic greenhouse gas

https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceshot-volcano-co2-emissions-no-match-human-activity

That means that the "single big volcanic eruption putting paid to the point of all that shit in a single day" which you're imagining would have to be so big as to almost literally render the planet asunder.

Volcanic CO2: accounted for.
Heating effect of reduced aerosols: accounted for.
Millennial climate evolution: accounted for.

Anything real you can think of from the comfort of your armchair, read about on a blog, or hear about in a podcast or YouTube video whose primary source is a blog... all accounted for.

[Ducky]

I think humans have absolutely fucked the environment in many many ways and could do an awful lot to clean up their act but I think this focus on one element of such a complex system and throwing all the eggs into that one basket is just pure folly. Something like micro plastics will turn out to be 1000 times worse than carbon emissions and everyone will be like oh what a surprise shock horror we shouldn't have put all those eggs in the one basket but we did anyway. Just think about all those bpa free claims on plastics now that leave out that the replacement for bpa is as bad if not worse but it satisfies some narrow environmental or health directives so poison us all away lads.

It's the typical human rot, none of the massive profit making giants in the oil plastic or renewable businesses have any care for saving the world at all but have somehow convinced most folks that living under the thumb of mad environmental initiatives and simply paying way more for everything will fix the earth and get it to some imaginary optimum level of carbon by 2050, completely ignoring the possibility of a single big volcanic eruption putting paid to the point of all that shit in a single day while we all stab ourselves with paper forks into the eyes as self punishment for not having seen the big scam.

Ah well

It absolutely is not folly. CO2 traps heat (this is Junior Cert science), we've been pumping shitloads of CO2 since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution into the atmosphere, and global temperatures have risen since then. Joining the dots here isn't meant to be so obtuse.

And maybe the microplastics will bring about the apocalypse, but as it is all available evidence points to them not doing that, so heyyo the limited resources available to tackle the issue are routed towards the things that are causing the issues (again, basic science).

The imaginary optimum level of CO2 according to who, exactly? Again, the mathematics, the rigours testing, and peer reviews point to best levels as we currently understand it. This stuff doesn't magically drop from the air.

[astfgyl]

All available evidence points to CO2 not being the apocalypse, but the shit that the terror about it is used to justify will be another rotten wealth transfer. In fact I'm sure it will lead to digital ID like everything else will.

No, CO2 will green the planet if we stop getting rid of trees at the same time. Yes it looks likely that it contributes to atmospheric warming but we as a species could be looking to adapt instead of terrorising ourselves with it, especially in light of the fact that our attempts are experimental and very likely to make no difference to the planet but a massive difference to our quality of life on it.

Let's just say we were good as gold and then this https://www.carbonbrief.org/tonga-volcano-eruption-raises-imminent-risk-of-temporary-1-5c-breach/ happens, rendering our efforts pointless while China uses coal to power air conditioning for half a billion people and the fuckin eejits in Europe are bollixing on with the same oul paper fork shit and hardly a rex to their name but the place still isn't getting colder or staying at the imaginary optimum.

There's also a mad idea floating around that there's an absolute optimum amount of Co2 or optimum temperature for the earth, even with all the known variables, such as the amount of it that's absorbed by green cover. Well do we think that the earth has ever reached that equilibrium before, and if we do then why the fuck didn't it stay that way? Because it can't but yet here's the fuckin humans thinking they can get there. Lord above. Am I to assume that the absolute optimum was reached right before the industrial revolution and we ruined it by burning things? Ah the whole thing withers me

All anyone has to do is forget the fuckin scientific consensus for a minute and look at the thing as it is and the evidence available and if they are anything like me they will see it's another bullshit game but lots of people are being paid well by pushing it.

[Ollkiller]

How does that volcano exploring render our efforts useless. Like it's a big explosion but humans are chucking far more shit into the atmosphere.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

You're not forgetting the fuckin scientific consensus though, you're merely pointing at the parts of it that suit your narrative (yes, it is very much a narrative) while ignoring the bulk. For example, from your own link about the volcano:

The authors stress that temporarily crossing the 1.5C threshold [because the impact of the volcano would be temporary] would not equate to missing the Paris Agreement target, which concerns long-term temperature trends.

Scott Pruitt was the first person I ever heard talking about this "mad idea" that there's an absolute optimum amount of CO2 or temperature for the earth. And it was pure confusionism from him. Paid confusionism. You seem merely to be repeating the confusionist line of argumentation about it that he popularized six years ago when he was working under Trump. Rather than encouraging people to confuse themselves as you do, to the point where solid science looks like bullshit, you should maybe try to forget all political instrumentalizations and pay closer attention to just the details of the basic research and get rid of this idea that all the scientists are paid off when, demonstrably, it's the confusionists like Pruitt who are paid to sow doubts. Absolutely non-coincidentally the precise doubts you relentlessly repeat on here.

[astfgyl]

How does that volcano exploring render our efforts useless. Like it's a big explosion but humans are chucking far more shit into the atmosphere.

They aren't. Not in the one go like that. And that's just one volcano. You can look it up and add it all up if you want and then you will see too without me having to point it out all the time. You keep acting like the burden of proof should be on the skeptic but it should actually be on the followers of the religion to prove their god exists so that I might follow it. Simply saying lots of scientists have a consensus reached doesn't compel me to believe any of them.

It causes a bit of cognitive dissonance for the left leaning folk of today thinking that people should forego religion in place of science and then replace that by treating science as religion with all the attached priests and prophets. I don't want your religion thanks and all

You're not forgetting the fuckin scientific consensus though, you're merely pointing at the parts of it that suit your narrative (yes, it is very much a narrative) while ignoring the bulk. For example, from your own link about the volcano:

The authors stress that temporarily crossing the 1.5C threshold [because the impact of the volcano would be temporary] would not equate to missing the Paris Agreement target, which concerns long-term temperature trends.

Scott Pruitt was the first person I ever heard talking about this "mad idea" that there's an absolute optimum amount of CO2 or temperature for the earth. And it was pure confusionism from him. Paid confusionism. You seem merely to be repeating the confusionist line of argumentation about it that he popularized six years ago when he was working under Trump. Rather than encouraging people to confuse themselves as you do, to the point where solid science looks like bullshit, you should maybe try to forget all political instrumentalizations and pay closer attention to just the details of the basic research and get rid of this idea that all the scientists are paid off when, demonstrably, it's the confusionists like Pruitt who are paid to sow doubts. Absolutely non-coincidentally the precise doubts you relentlessly repeat on here.

Lol I have you out of the woodwork now and all lol am I a Heretic now?     

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

A heretic? No, you're a dupe.

[Ollkiller]

Humans emit about 60 times more co2 annually into the atmosphere than all the volcano eruptions. Where are you getting figures that it isn't that way.

[The Butcher]

Was just thinking about how computer parts are basically standardised while in cars nope, very little and not even across the same brand. Exception being the odbc ports but imagine if you standardised car part interfaces, you could swap out your gear box for any gearbox or engine etc, parts would get cheaper overnight even if it was done in tiers and you could easily and cheaply swap an old standardised engine to a newer lower co2 one
for example but anyway i rant  Remember we have global covid restrictions/lockdowns and co2 dropped by feck all - should have been an eye opener.

I dislike alot of greenie ideas that go beyond pollution control like how they'd prefer everyone living to work in sardine canned apartments with no cars etc. Eamon Ryan talking about car pooling in rural villages shows what a huge naive fool he is. I think there is a small chance the green movement will eat itself as greedy corporatists take over.

Smart meter beeps.

*Alert - You have used your quota for the year. You have one hour to add more carbon credits.*

*We've decided to lower your emissions - Your freezer is now operating at room temperature, please consume all goods within 18 hours.*

[Ducky]

All available evidence points to CO2 not being the apocalypse, but the shit that the terror about it is used to justify will be another rotten wealth transfer. In fact I'm sure it will lead to digital ID like everything else will.

No, CO2 will green the planet if we stop getting rid of trees at the same time. Yes it looks likely that it contributes to atmospheric warming but we as a species could be looking to adapt instead of terrorising ourselves with it, especially in light of the fact that our attempts are experimental and very likely to make no difference to the planet but a massive difference to our quality of life on it.

Let's just say we were good as gold and then this https://www.carbonbrief.org/tonga-volcano-eruption-raises-imminent-risk-of-temporary-1-5c-breach/ happens, rendering our efforts pointless while China uses coal to power air conditioning for half a billion people and the fuckin eejits in Europe are bollixing on with the same oul paper fork shit and hardly a rex to their name but the place still isn't getting colder or staying at the imaginary optimum.

There's also a mad idea floating around that there's an absolute optimum amount of Co2 or optimum temperature for the earth, even with all the known variables, such as the amount of it that's absorbed by green cover. Well do we think that the earth has ever reached that equilibrium before, and if we do then why the fuck didn't it stay that way? Because it can't but yet here's the fuckin humans thinking they can get there. Lord above. Am I to assume that the absolute optimum was reached right before the industrial revolution and we ruined it by burning things? Ah the whole thing withers me

All anyone has to do is forget the fuckin scientific consensus for a minute and look at the thing as it is and the evidence available and if they are anything like me they will see it's another bullshit game but lots of people are being paid well by pushing it.

The "anything like me" bit got me, so I have to ask - what are your scientific credentials, exactly?

[son of the Morrigan]

If ye want a bunch of highly educated individuals expressing alternative scientific opinions on the CO2 issue I suggest ye Google CO2coalition.org.
Ye'll find the CO2 facts section most interesting.

[Caomhaoin]

Regardless of whether or not climate change is 'real', or to what extent human activity has influenced it, it's become an industry now. Contrarian positions have been engineered to further entrench 'left' v 'right' (the unholy alliance of neoliberal economic globalists with the postmodern left makes the terms obsolete) ; buy more things, accept this tax, allow corrupt, hypocritical politicians and their media mouthpieces sermonise about your 'carbon footprint' and all the rest of it. EVs, wind and solar are not going to solve the problem, and they create issues themselves.

We all agree that pollution, overfishing and deforestation are problems. Why can't those issues be confronted (to the extent that they can be) instead pointless bickering and point scoring (rich coming from an arch-bickerer but still).

The fundamental problem is that taxing diesel cars off the road, 'smart' bottle caps, eco public transportation and rubbish separation are pissing into the wind when the populations of Indonesia, China and India are producing gigantic amounts of pollution in an attempt to no longer be poor. They, like us, are not going to accept any measures which lower rather than increase their standard of living. Fuck the environment if I can feed my kids and have some kind of a life, and none of ye would do any different. How many lads would give up the smartlphone which some ex child soldier in the Congo pulled the cobalt out of the ground fit in a highly un environmentally friendly way for? Same rules apply, just we have the time to Google other people's theories and research and post shite about it on the internet.

If it is 'our' fault, what's the solution?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

If ye want a bunch of highly educated individuals expressing alternative scientific opinions on the CO2 issue I suggest ye Google CO2coalition.org.
Ye'll find the CO2 facts section most interesting.

Ever dug into the backgrounds of the founders and financers of this well-known climate denialist group? Most interesting too:

William O'Keefe is the former CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute, before it became the CO2 Coalition in 2015. He also sat as an inital Board Member of the CO2 Coalition.

O'Keefe served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute (API) from 1974 to 1999. API "represents all aspects of America's oil and natural gas industry."

He has worked for a variety of think tanks and industry groups in executive capacities, and has worked as a registered lobbyist for industry groups on climate change and energy issues including oil giant ExxonMobil and API.

I could go on. But in a nutshell, yes the CO2 Coalition has many learned scientists in it, but the vast majority of them, including the founding members, are not climatologists.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

If it is 'our' fault, what's the solution?

I think the best we'd come up with on here was a meet-up in a car park somewhere to take pills...?