[late]

@Godstud

Please state exactly how environmentalists are supposed to frame the problem so that you and others do something about it.

To be honest, I do not believe you have one.

Excuse Junkies are addicted to excuses.

[Godstud]

Excuse Junkies are addicted to excuses.

You're addicted to fear-mongering. Instead of seeking to change people's minds with facts and ideas, you do so with fear. Fear only gets you so far.

I am not an ACC denier. Since I question some of the science(not all, I do agree with the consensus, but some facts do not mesh, as it blurs into ideology/politics). You take that as an assault on your beliefs. There is only US vs Them, right? Is that's what you and others think? Cmon... Only Sith deal in absolutes.

We can recognize problems and address them in a reasonable and rational way. Climate change can be addressed as well, as a BIG problem. We need not go straight to the, "If we don't do this now we are all going to die!!", kind of speech. It's self-defeating.

In a way this reminds me of the people who argued against homosexual marriage, saying it would lead to people marrying horses. It did not, but this hyperbolic rhetoric sure didn't help their argument, did it?

You could try presenting solutions and actual facts, instead of models that are notoriously unreliable, @Pants-of-dog. Moderation would get you a great deal further than doom-saying. How you frame an argument can be as important as what you are trying to say. I your method is only to instill fear... Well, fear often defeats logic and reason. If you can't understand that, then I am not sure how I can frame MY argument, to make you understand, and we'll have to leave it at that.

[Pants-of-dog]

You could try presenting solutions and actual facts, instead of models that are notoriously unreliable,

I do present facts.

I presented the most realistic scenario for 2100.

You dismissed it.

And you apparently also made the unsubstantiated assumption that this scenario is based on some unreliable model.

Moderation would get you a great deal further than doom-saying. How you frame an argument can be as important as what you are trying to say. I your method is only to instill fear... Well, fear often defeats logic and reason. If you can't understand that, then I am not sure how I can frame MY argument, to make you understand, and we'll have to leave it at that.

Again, I have not said anything in this thread that can be interpreted as doom-saying.

I have explained the most plausible scenario for sea level rise by 2100.

I have explained how tipping points influence climate change.

If you are going to interpret realistic and science based scenarios as doom-saying, and then refuse to listen to science because you have decided it is doom-saying, then moderation is not getting me a great deal further at all.

[Steve_American]

Strawman Fallacies.

I never said we have nothing to fear from ACC. What I said, was that using fear as your sole marketing feature, won't work well, or might cause a reverse reaction to what you want. You want to change how people think, not scare them until they are jaded.

1] I never said I had solutions. What I asked was what YOUR solutions were, and you made up only a single "rationing", argument, which I dissembled as being unrealistic, 2] given the typical Western love of "Freedom", and because this is an extreme totalitarian tactic.

I am sure your "viewers" can certainly read and understand how you are mischaracterizing and misinterpreting what I have said.

Because Godstud has no solutions that he has heard of and liked, that is, saw as reasonable and that it might work, I'll talk to you instead of him.

1] Godstud here admis that he has never heard of a solution that he can support and that he thinks will work. All he does is complain that we psudo-doomers are going to scare everyone into inaction. All he does is try to block action. I accept that my take will scare some people into inaction. However, we already have a lot of inaction. We need bold action now.

2] I have asserted that every action that might work to reduce the burning of carbon fuels, must seriously restrict the "freedom" of almost everyone who lives in an advanced industrial nation. If voluntary actions would work, we would already be doing them. [u]Nobody has disagreed with this assertion.[/u]

By the way I have supported other ideas =>
a] Modify ships to go to the Arctic, and in the winter elsewhere, to vaporize sea water and project it high into the sky to make clouds that reflect the sun's light before it heats the water in the Arctic or elsewhere.
b] Build thousands of square miles of mirrors and use them to reflect the sun's light over land to keep the light from heating the land.
c] Equip all passenger planes to spray SO2 particles high in the sky to reflect the sun's light before it reaches the ground or water. These particles are also sent high in the sky during volcanic eruptions, so this is "natural". This one is dangerous because once we start, we will need to keep doing something like this to avoid a sudden spike in temp over a week or so of 1 deg. C everywhere. However, I assert that we must take that risk because we must cool the planet to buy time to reduce CO2 in the air.

Doing these things alone without slashing the burning of carbon fuels will not help at all.

Some say that we can't do these things because they WILL change the pattern of the weather, and this will hurt some people while it helps everyone. My reply is So What? We are now burning carbon fuels, why not attack this as "changing the pattern of the weather". No matter what we do on a large enough scale to make a difference, it will change the pattern of the weather. So, this argument can be used against every possible action. I assert that we don't know who will die from the changes in the pattern of the weather. So, everyone is taking the same risk, the risks are equal everywhere as far as we can possibly know.
.5971 views, now 6213, now 6323

[late]

You're addicted to fear-mongering. Instead of seeking to change people's minds with facts and ideas, you do so with fear.

One of the classic propaganda techniques is to create the appearance of a controversy when no controversy exists.

The science is solid, consensus was reached over 20 years ago. AGW has never faced a serious challenge.

Recent work shows that the rate at which the planet is heating up is increasing. That is a problem.

So... does it matter if you are kook, or just a paid troll?

Not really.

[Godstud]

Godstud here admits that he has never heard of a solution that he can support and that he thinks will work.

I never said that. Stop making up lies. Your "viewers" can see it, too. It does not help your argument when you make false accusations of other posters. The only suggestion you've made is rationing, and so that's the only "solution" I could respond to.

All he does is try to block action. I accept that my take will scare some people into inaction. However, we already have a lot of inaction. We need bold action now.

Scaring people is more likely to make people become inactive, or even negative. You can't incite panic and expect reason and logic. You cannot have bold action without a plan.

2] I have asserted that every action that might work to reduce the burning of carbon fuels, must seriously restrict the "freedom" of almost everyone who lives in an advanced industrial nation.

That's false. Governments can have incentives(tax breaks, for instance) in place to encourage reduction of fossil fuel usage. They can create cheaper renewable energy sources and create better infrastructures in cities for public transportation. They can invest in nuclear energy. These are solutions to the problems(none are instantaneous, however), and screaming, "The sky is falling!", is not one of them. It's counter-productive.

However, I assert that we must take that risk because we must cool the planet to buy time to reduce CO2 in the air.

Reducing Co2, according to who? Are you sure that CO2 is the problem, or are there other more significant factors, like simple pollution? Some people say it's methane that's the big problem, but then they discovered that is is re-absorbed over 20 years.

You do realize that, at the current rate of CO2 increase of 2 ppm/year we will increase temperatures, but let's not forget that only a few million years ago we were at those temperatures(5C higher than now). The Earth thrived at a 10C increase, millions of years ago(1,000 ppm CO2). 1,000 ppm, incidentally, is harmless to humans, as this is the average CO2 level indoors.
Please note: CO2 increases will help plant growth, and crop yields already grow by over a 1% point every year.

Will ACC affect humans all over the world? Without a doubt. How we deal with it, remains to be seen, and the best way we can do that is to bring humans all up to a level playing field in terms of resources. People in 3rd world countries aren't concerned about ACC when they are struggling to put food on their table. They deal with the immediate reality around them, and not the future potentials and scenarios. ACC is a 1st World problem, in terms of "reaction".

We're not all on the same page, and can't be until a lot of things change. We're going to have climate problems over the next few decades, but we'll deal with them, and improve.

One of the classic propaganda techniques is to create the appearance of a controversy when no controversy exists.

What controversy? You're babbling.

So... does it matter if you are kook, or just a paid troll?

Are you stupid, or just willfully ignorant? What I am saying is pretty clear, if you stop and think for a few seconds.

Fear-mongering is not a solution to AGW.

[ingliz]

Does it matter?

In the papers today.

The Gulf Stream system could collapse as soon as 2025, a new study suggests. The shutting down of the vital ocean currents, called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) by scientists, would bring catastrophic climate impacts.

[...]

The Amoc collapsed and restarted repeatedly in the cycle of ice ages that occurred from 115,000 to 12,000 years ago. It is one of the climate tipping points scientists are most concerned about as global temperatures continue to rise.

[Godstud]

@ingliz well, according to what you say, we are doomed anyways, so I am just going to ignore the climate and do nothing, as it's all a waste of time, and effort. I'll tell others to do the same, as it's already too late.

That's what you wanted, right?


Or, is this just another climate model that they've decided to tell people about, since it give the worst possible case scenario, and scaring people is the only thing they can think of?

[Potemkin]

@ingliz well, according to what you say, we are doomed anyways, so I am just going to ignore the climate and do nothing, as it's all a waste of time, and effort. I'll tell others to do the same, as it's already too late.

That's what you wanted, right? :?: :?: :?:


Or, is this just another climate model that they've decided to tell people about, since it give the worst possible case scenario, and scaring people is the only thing they can think of?

1. Denial.
2. Anger. <——— You are here
3. Bargaining.
4. Depression.
5. Acceptance.

[ingliz]

I am just going to ignore the climate and do nothing

That seems to be the default First World response.

Guterres said the climate agenda is being “undermined” with countries backtracking “at a time when we should be accelerating action.” He previously urged countries in the G20 to significantly bring forward their net zero targets – a call they have largely ignored.

[Godstud]

That seems to be the default First World response.

That is the what you are going for, is it not? I'm a little confused that you haven't thought BEYOND simply getting a reaction.

Guterres said the climate agenda is being “undermined” with countries backtracking “at a time when we should be accelerating action.” He previously urged countries in the G20 to significantly bring forward their net zero targets – a call they have largely ignored.

Where are the solutions? As I already stated, fear-mongering alone does NOTHING. You have to have more, and apparently, such is not the case. Countries are "backtracking" because they don't know what to do, or they don't know how to achieve it.

@late I'm sorry to upset you, but I am not angry about this. I understand that you want me to get emotional, but I am not. I am simply looking for you to employ some logic and reason in what you are saying. I am simply disappointed in the lack thereof.

Emotional is what climate change activists go for, but they don't haven't thought beyond that. It's like the Just Stop Oil people in London, who do more to anger average people than actually help their cause. Just calling attention to something isn't enough.

[ingliz]

@Godstud

The wife does the recycling, and it ends up in a landfill anyway. I don't own a car when every other family has two or three. Or use AC. I don't throw food away, I eat it. And I am going to be dead soon enough, so one less polluter.

Of course, it's all a waste of time.

The world is fucked.

The World Wildlife Fund studied more than 5,200 species for its Living Planet Report and found that out of the nearly 32,000 populations analyzed, there was an average decline of 69% since 1970. Up to 2.5% of mammals, fish, reptiles, birds, and amphibians have already gone extinct, the report says.

[Potemkin]

@Godstud

The wife does the recycling, and it ends up in a landfill anyway. I don't own a car when every other family has two or three. Or use AC. I don't throw food away, I eat it. And I am going to be dead soon enough, so one less polluter.

Of course, it's all a waste of time.

The world is fucked.

The World Wildlife Fund studied more than 5,200 species for its Living Planet Report and found that out of the nearly 32,000 populations analyzed, there was an average decline of 69% since 1970. Up to 2.5% of mammals, fish, reptiles, birds, and amphibians have already gone extinct, the report says.

The vertebrates are being particularly hard-hit, probably because we are vertebrates ourselves and therefore occupy similar habitats and similar niches in the food web. Just as we out-competed all other homo species and exist now in splendid isolation on the human family tree, so we are now doing a number on all the other vertebrates. Pretty soon, we’ll be one of the few vertebrates left (aside from our pets, our domesticated food animals, and the rats). But it’s not the world that’s fucked - if humans vanished tomorrow, the Earth’s biodiversity would have almost completely recovered within a few million years - it’s we who are fucked. We inherited a paradise after the glaciers retreated, and we’re currently turning it into a desolate monoculture. We’re shitting where we live and eat.

[late]

What controversy?

When outright denial became untenable, new excuses to do nothing had to be found.

[Godstud]

When outright denial became untenable, new excuses to do nothing had to be found.

Sure. Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. It appears that you can't understand nuance.

@ingliz I do not believe in fatalism or nihilism. I am an optimist. I think there is a solution for every problem. Every problem is not instantly solved, however, and people expecting that are being very unrealistic.

Just saying/thinking, "The world is fucked.", @ingliz , doesn't solve any problems. If anything, it kind of makes it seem futile, to attempt to solve the AGW problems. Do we really need to be sending that message? I'd think that we should be highlighting successes, even if they are small ones. Why is that seen by you guys, as denial?

[late]

Sure. Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. It appears that you can't understand nuance.

What it looks like to me is the same dumbass conversation I've been having for over 20 years.

Nuance my ass, the only thing that changes is the dumbass excuses to do nothing.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

Again, how are we supposed to message people in away that will not have you and others blaming us for your inaction?

[Steve_American]

► Show Spoiler

I never said that. Stop making up lies. Your "viewers" can see it, too. It does not help your argument when you make false accusations of other posters. 1] The only suggestion you've made is rationing, and so that's the only "solution" I could respond to.

Scaring people is more likely to make people become inactive, or even negative. You can't incite panic and expect reason and logic. You cannot have bold action without a plan.

That's false. 2] Governments can have incentives(tax breaks, for instance) in place to encourage reduction of fossil fuel usage. They can create cheaper renewable energy sources and create better infrastructures in cities for public transportation. They can invest in nuclear energy. These are solutions to the problems(none are instantaneous, however), and screaming, "The sky is falling!", is not one of them. It's counter-productive.

Reducing Co2, according to who? Are you sure that CO2 is the problem, or are there other more significant factors, like simple pollution? Some people say it's methane that's the big problem, but then they discovered that is is re-absorbed over 20 years.

You do realize that, at the current rate of CO2 increase of 2 ppm/year we will increase temperatures, but let's not forget that only a few million years ago we were at those temperatures(5C higher than now). The Earth thrived at a 10C increase, millions of years ago(1,000 ppm CO2). 1,000 ppm, incidentally, is harmless to humans, as this is the average CO2 level indoors.
Please note: CO2 increases will help plant growth, and crop yields already grow by over a 1% point every year.

Will ACC affect humans all over the world? Without a doubt. How we deal with it, remains to be seen, and the best way we can do that is to bring humans all up to a level playing field in terms of resources. People in 3rd world countries aren't concerned about ACC when they are struggling to put food on their table. They deal with the immediate reality around them, and not the future potentials and scenarios. ACC is a 1st World problem, in terms of "reaction".

We're not all on the same page, and can't be until a lot of things change. We're going to have climate problems over the next few decades, but we'll deal with them, and improve.

What controversy? You're babbling.

Are you stupid, or just willfully ignorant? What I am saying is pretty clear, if you stop and think for a few seconds.

Fear-mongering is not a solution to AGW.

1] In my reply that Godstud quoted, I gave him 3 solutions and he deleted them from the quote, and asserted that the only solution I have given him was rationing. That looks like a lie to me. The part he deleted is above and I'll add it here for you.

I wrote this and he deleted it: By the way I have supported other ideas =>
a] Modify ships to go to the Arctic, and in the winter elsewhere, to vaporize sea water and project it high into the sky to make clouds that reflect the sun's light before it heats the water in the Arctic or elsewhere.
b] Build thousands of square miles of mirrors and use them to reflect the sun's light over land to keep the light from heating the land.
c] Equip all passenger planes to spray SO2 particles high in the sky to reflect the sun's light before it reaches the ground or water. These particles are also sent high in the sky during volcanic eruptions, so this is "natural". This one is dangerous because once we start, we will need to keep doing something like this to avoid a sudden spike in temp over a week or so of 1 deg. C everywhere. However, I assert that we must take that risk because we must cool the planet to buy time to reduce CO2 in the air.

Doing these things alone without slashing the burning of carbon fuels will not help at all.

As you can see I gave him some additional solutions and he chose to ignore them in a rather dishonest way.

2] The solutions that he suggested suffer from the fact that people are being "encouraged" with payments to do things they'd rather not do. So, they likely will not do them. Of course, the Gov. could triple the payments and then triple them again to get everyone to do them, however flooding the economy with money like this without taxing it back somehow will very likely lead to inflation. Therefore, there will not be enough votes in Congress to pass the laws to do that. So, IMHO, these ideas are unreasonable.
. . . Of course, the Gov. can increase the amount of green energy being created, etc. We are doing that to some extent. There is the problem that some of these ideas require rare elements that might not exist on earth in the quantities required for the advanced nations, never mind the whole world.

.

[Godstud]

@Steve_American You don't seem to want a reasonable and rational discussion as you seem to be attacking me and not what I say. I never deleted anything you said. Your "viewers" can see that for themselves, and you can stop pandering to imaginary people. It doesn't matter. I asked them and they said you're being silly.

If I missed your so-called solutions, it's only because your "solutions" are just NOT actually solutions.They are pie-in-the-sky ideas. Most of the ideas are unrealistic and absurd, as well.

Build thousands of square miles of mirrors and use them to reflect the sun's light over land to keep the light from heating the land.

Who is going to make them, install them and pay for them, or is that not part of this that you took into account? What will these mirrors cover? Cropland? Mountains?

Modify ships to go to the Arctic, and in the winter elsewhere, to vaporize sea water and project it high into the sky to make clouds that reflect the sun's light before it heats the water in the Arctic or elsewhere.

How many ships? Who will provide them? Do you realize that ships use a lot of fuel and so you'll be counter-acting the very thing that you are trying to accomplish?

Equip all passenger planes to spray SO2 particles high in the sky to reflect the sun's light before it reaches the ground or water. These particles are also sent high in the sky during volcanic eruptions, so this is "natural". This one is dangerous because once we start, we will need to keep doing something like this to avoid a sudden spike in temp over a week or so of 1 deg. C everywhere. However, I assert that we must take that risk because we must cool the planet to buy time to reduce CO2 in the air.

FFS, do you know how stupid this is? You suggest causing MORE pollution. Nevermind the logistical impossibility of such a thing.

As you can see I gave him some additional solutions and he chose to ignore them in a rather dishonest way.

Please remove your head from your butt. I respond to realistic solutions, and not imaginary fantasies that have no place in a reasonable discussion.

I didn't post your solutions because they're a joke. You made up lazy and logistically impossible fantasies.

USA is not the only country in the world, and you can't seem to understand that. I should have guessed by your name that you'd be a little America-centric, but not every country is as wealthy and can respond to AGW like the USA can, nor has the will to do so. How are you going to sell your crazy solutions to them?

"Sorry citizen. We'd like to feed you, really we would, but we've got to pay for more mirrors and cover your crop-land."

"We will be taking your fishing boat so we can spray water into the air instead of you using it to feed your family."

"Sorry about your crops, but we had to spray pollutants in the air to stop AGW. Your family dies in a good cause, though."

Not every idea is a good one. Not every idea can be done. We have to be realistic about what we can and cannot do.

Again, how are we supposed to message people in away that will not have you and others blaming us for your inaction?

You don't care to even attempt to understand what I am saying. You are not trying to. That is not because you are stupid, but because you don't want to admit that your fear-mongering tactics are failing. I merely suggest another avenue and I am called a Denier. Your arguments are dishonest and disingenuous.

@late What you fail to understand is that I am not making excuses. What I am saying is that the fear-mongering isn't making you the allies that you need to combat AGW. Why is that so hard for you, and @Pants-of-dog, to understand? You create your own antagonists, even when someone, like me, is not arguing AGAINST solutions and action to combat AGW.

You call me a "denier", but I am not denying the existence of AGW. I am arguing against fear-mongering as a tactic in gaining support to combat AGW. It's having the opposite effect, as far as I can see. Can you understand that, or is it too complex?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

You did not suggest a different avenue for discussing climate that works

Note that I did exactly as you asked and instead you got offended and falsely accused me of attacking you.

Can you show me where I did any fear mongering in this thread?