Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Chief]

I started reading about it and it is quite sick the way this child is being exploited by her parents and the elite.

Compared to... ?

I mean, our kids are eating plastic and watching ecosystems vanish. How is that not exploitation on an industrial scale?

 

[Bigjobss]

Do you think the modern education system of teacher in classroom is the only system that could ever work?

Do you know whether this girl is doing distance education? Some other type of home schooling?

I don't see how this relates to what I said, did you quote the wrong post?

 

[Chief]

I don't see how this relates to what I said, did you quote the wrong post?

Definitely.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If it can't get the funding from straight profits, it needs funding from taxes.

Public funding has given us massive wins in the past. Capitalist funding gave us Viagra.

Correctamundo.

The folks that tend to spend the money should cease distracting people with ridiculous bullshit so they can get back in to power.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I'm OK with banning international travel.

Why?

 

[its free real estate]

Why?

As the entire world becomes as rich as the West, we can only expect the number of air miles to increase. My four year old son has travelled by plane more than I did in my first 20 years of life. I've travelled by plane more than my father has his whole life, and he's twice as old as me. I don't think either case is unusual.

If we're to be serious about tackling climate change, then it would seem to me the most frivolous and decadent activity people do would be worthy of restriction. It currently comprises ~5% of emissions, but is expected to reach 20% by 2050 (last stats I saw).

Except, no one who advocates tackling climate change actually wants cheap holidays in sunny destinations and career-advancing conferences to end. It would be one of the easier, least impactful things to do (ie jack up the cost of air tickets to the point few could do it).

People pretend it is easier to reengineer the grid such that it is mostly renewables, but this is false. Decarbonisation comes at the cost of energy intensive industries - and they just move elsewhere. That alumina smelter that is no longer in the now carbon neutral economy is in China, plugged into a coal fired power station. A country's net emissions fall, but global emissions keep increasing.

 

[Frank Bunn]

What do you expect? For her to read the scientific findings? She doesn't have to go through the mass of data & analysis. That's what the scientists have done & are doing. She's getting in the faces of the political hypocrits.

Brainwashed by the scientific evidence is certainly a lot better than the politicised braindead ignorance of some others.

It's not just a scientific issue. It's political. It's economic. We should not be taking much notice on this issue from a teenage girl with mental issues, who has no expertise in any of the relevant topics, but just makes speeches full of platitudes, and virtue signals by making a trip on a multi million dollar "carbon free" yacht. She's a complete irrelevance to the discussion.

 

[Frank Bunn]

As the entire world becomes as rich as the West, we can only expect the number of air miles to increase. My four year old son has travelled by plane more than I did in my first 20 years of life. I've travelled by plane more than my father has his whole life, and he's twice as old as me. I don't think either case is unusual.

If we're to be serious about tackling climate change, then it would seem to me the most frivolous and decadent activity people do would be worthy of restriction. It currently comprises ~5% of emissions, but is expected to reach 20% by 2050 (last stats I saw).

Except, no one who advocates tackling climate change actually wants cheap holidays in sunny destinations and career-advancing conferences to end. It would be one of the easier, least impactful things to do (ie jack up the cost of air tickets to the point few could do it).

People pretend it is easier to reengineer the grid such that it is mostly renewables, but this is false. Decarbonisation comes at the cost of energy intensive industries - and they just move elsewhere. That alumina smelter that is no longer in the now carbon neutral economy is in China, plugged into a coal fired power station. A country's net emissions fall, but global emissions keep increasing.

You are correct that most who advocate tackling climate change don't want any significant degradation in their lifestyles - such as overseas holidays, more than one car per family, ducted heating and cooling.

But before this stage in their thinking people need to ask themselves a series of questions.

Has the global climate warmed since the industrial age started?​

If so, will the earth continue to warm?​

Is the warming caused by humans?​

Is the warming undesirable?​

Can the warming be stopped by humans taking action?​

What are the proposed climate actions?​

Are the costs of actions justified in monetary and human terms?​

Are there any possible undesirable effects from the proposed climate actions?​

Failure in any step in this argument renders the conclusion to have policies to reduce global carbon emissions invalid, with its associated monetary costs in the trillions of dollars and impacts on human life such as bans on international travel or petrol driven cars.

I would seriously question just the very first three steps, just as a start.

The global average temperature record is pretty flakey until about 50 years ago, barely covering 5 per cent of the globe. There's evidence of the temperature data being manipulated to give the appearance of warming.

The projected warming is based on models that have little/no credibility. The IPCC in its third report said

In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.​

There's a poor correlation between rising CO2 and 20th century temperature rises.

 

[its free real estate]

You are correct that most who advocate tackling climate change don't want any significant degradation in their lifestyles - such as overseas holidays, more than one car per family, ducted heating and cooling.

I don’t really care for your opinion on the science, but this is the point that matters. Even if you believe the science what are you prepared to give up?

Should Australia still accelerate to 40 million people by 2050 as so many demand us to do? Should redistribution be the current priority for solving climate change, or is every dollar spent on low return welfare in the present robbing solutions which will help avert disaster for the billions in the future?

The answers to these questions usually reveal that even the people who take climate change seriously don’t take it that seriously.

 

[Maddhew]

Even if you believe the science what are you prepared to give up?

Its a privileged position to have. Will these same people oppose the electrification of rural India?

 

[its free real estate]

Its a privileged position to have. Will these same people oppose the electrification of rural India?

At least Bernie Sanders came out and said we should abort Africans. I'd vote for a Sanders-Kaczynski ticket tbh.

 

[Work Hardery]

This is quite amusing

 

[Snake_Baker]

Here's a left field solution that will actually work. Stop breeding.

Any "environmentalist" that chooses to have kids, is full of shit.

 

[its free real estate]

Here's a left field solution that will actually work. Stop breeding.

Any "environmentalist" that chooses to have kids, is full of s**t.

But then who are you saving the world for?

 

[Snake_Baker]

But then who are you saving the world for?

The other 5 billion odd species on the planet.

BTW, I'm not calling for an end to human beings, just a major downturn in their numbers.

Most of them are just pointless consumers on pointless consumption cycles anyway.

 

[woota]

But then who are you saving the world for?

The whales. Rid the earth of humans to save the whales.

 

[its free real estate]

The other 5 billion odd species on the planet.

BTW, I'm not calling for an end to human beings, just a major downturn in their numbers.

Most of them are just pointless consumers on pointless consumption cycles anyway.

Except this creates the situation where the people most likely to have children smart enough to solve the crisis are the least likely to have children.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Except this creates the situation where the people most likely to have children smart enough to solve the crisis are the least likely to have children.

 

[Bradesmaen]

But then who are you saving the world for?

Didn't you know he's the biggest fence sitter around?

 

[Work Hardery]

Shame on all the adults who've exploited this little girl to push their agendas.

 

[maryjames]

Shame on all the adults who've exploited this little girl to push their agendas.

Crazy left

 

[Present Not Past]

Shame on all the adults who've exploited this little girl to push their agendas.

I thought she was just talking about climate change? I didn't realise she was being forced into anything illegal. Shame. Booooo.

 

[Stax on the mill]

I thought she was just talking about climate change? I didn't realise she was being forced into anything illegal. Shame. Booooo.

Nah, she’s a climate change messiah, or the chosen one, if you are to believe some deluded people. Given far too much exposure and credence for someone who is just parroting what she’s been fed.

 

[Present Not Past]

Nah, she’s a climate change messiah, or the chosen one, if you are to believe some deluded people. Given far too much exposure and credence for someone who is just parroting what she’s been fed.

So you think as a girl she should know her place in society? Seen but not heard?

 

[Craven Morehead]

So you think as a girl she should know her place in society?

Lesson 101 on how a leftie will craft a conversation to make any criticism make the poster look bad.