• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Obama isn’t taking global warming seriously either

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
308
485
I don't accept your premise that the solution lies in congress coming to the table to hash it out, and I've made that perfectly clear in every one of my responses. Therefore, no matter how many times you prop it up as important, I've already
No instead you think the private sector is going to save your behind when in fact you realize and have said multiple times that the private sector is what has fucked you in the ass before
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,424
32,212
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Some of the biggest investors in direct-air-capture CO2 technology, for instance, are fossil-fuel companies like Chevron and BHP. And there are critics who point out that converting dac Co2 into liquid form could just be used by the fossil fuel companies for oil extraction.

So even the carbon reduction industry is "in bed" with Fossil Fuel companies. Is this bad? Unfortunately, most countries cannot afford carbon drawdown. The West could go carbon neutral tomorrow and most of the world would still pump out a ton of Co2 over the next 100 years while they catch up to us.

If one is serious about taking responsibility for climate change, I think it would be a pretty noble ambition to build technologies in first-world countries that can not only undo our fair share of the emissions, but also to compensate for high greenhouse emissions coming from developing countries. The West isn't going to go carbon negative by switching to electric cars and building more solar panels. We need tech that pulls carbon out of the air. What a way to use ingenuity and tech to do something good for the earth. While Africa still produces gigatons of carbon every year for farmland prep, the USA could be sucking carbon out of the atmosphere to offset it and sell it as a resource for some other purpose.

Population is going up. This isn't going to magically go away. People are screaming doomsday and predicting widespread famine and starvation. Some politicians are predicting population control, war, and genocide on a terrible scale and they're not shy about expressing these sentiments. However, what if we could feed them all? Not only feed them, but feed them with high-quality food that is superior to the declining nutritional food of BigAg. This would be rather profitable. If companies and countries can recover desertified regions / blasted fields and produce significantly more food per acre than we were on the old system, why not try it? Suddenly, food shortages (and water mgmt and food nutrition and all the other things that go along w holistic / regenerative methods) aren't such a big deal. Can you imagine the social relief to cultures struggling with food scarcity? This is not pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. This is existing tech, inexpensive, highly scalable, well-tested.

A good business idea would be to purchase dirt-cheap (lol) land via personal expense, business loan, or gov't grant, apply restorative agriculture techniques to it, and flip that land in 2 years as arable, organic farmland. Move on to the next plot of wasted, eroded, worthless cropland and repeat the process. I wonder if TLC would fund a TV show with me as the host: Blasted Field Flippers.

No instead you think the private sector is going to save your behind when in fact you realize and have said multiple times that the private sector is what has fucked you in the ass before
So the alternative is government intervention? Something so amorphous as "the private sector" cannot take the blame for messing things up. I don't understand the logic of holding a grude against "the private sector". Most of the world's problems have been handled by the private sector, as in, independent citizens who pursued an interest and produced a useful invention or discovery. When I see government agencies pushing highly expensive and ineffective solutions on one side, and on the other side I see passionate scientists and businessmen and philanthropists who are improving carbon drawdown in measurable, repeatable ways, which side should I pick? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that government can fix the climate problem in the first place. I've pointed out that the government in most countries isn't even talking about let alone proposing the methods that are proven to work. How can they fix something when they are fighting to implement proposals that aren't going to work?

Let me repeat that: most countries are not implementing the methods that will actually solve climate change. Instead, they are using ineffective methods that often put more greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere by way of their operation or manufacture. If politicians implemented ideas that are proven to work, I would support them. In the meanwhile, politicians are clinging to a caricature of climate change science that allows them to hold influence and to push unrelated agendas (like economic controls). In the same way that politicians might twist patriotism or religious convictions to make people vote for something or support something contradictory to their beliefs and best interests, politicians are twisting environmental science to elicit support for reasons that aren't real reasons and to build solutions that aren't actually helping.

They're milking a real issue for political gain. If they were serious about fixing the issue, the technology exists, it is widespread, it is well researched, farmers around the world already use it. Strangely, politicians (who must know more than those silly farmers and scientists) insist we need crippling taxes, economic reform, carbon credits, and multi-trillion dollar investments into some of the least cost-effective forms of green energy, solar and wind to finally solve the climate crisis.
 
Last edited:

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
308
485
Great! A reasonable answer. Now I'd like to hear from the grandstanders ( Nobody_Important Nobody_Important CeroFrio996 CeroFrio996 ) who wish to use climate change as a platform for moral posturing rather than a problem of science requiring a co-operative solution.
If you wanted an answer to your ridiculous question from particular people than be a man and @ me.

CeroFemmo please tell us more about assfucking
Oh, and DM me boi, if you want to hear more about it.

Burning fossil fuel isn't inherently immoral or bad, if you can keep the various problems associated with it from effecting humanity and the ecosystems we live in. The problem in that scenario is that fossil fuels are not endless, and the endless drilling for those fossil fuels has a horrible effect on the ecosystem.

So the alternative is government intervention? Something so amorphous as "the private sector" cannot take the blame for messing things up. I don't understand the logic of holding a grude against "the private sector". Most of the world's problems have been handled by the private sector, as in, independent citizens who pursued an interest and produced a useful invention or discovery. When I see government agencies pushing highly expensive and ineffective solutions on one side, and on the other side I see passionate scientists and businessmen and philanthropists who are improving carbon drawdown in measurable, repeatable ways, which side should I pick? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that government can fix the climate problem in the first place. I've pointed out that the government in most countries isn't even talking about let alone proposing the methods that are proven to work. How can they fix something when they are fighting to implement proposals that aren't going to work?
Oh please, many of the greatest human accomplishments have been those of governments. Manifest Destiny, going to the moon, the internet! To act as though government is some useless thing that only ever messes everything up is entirely ignorant of human history.

Acting as though the private sector will do, out of the goodness of it's heart, what it's failed to do, and hidden from the people, for decades is foolish.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,480
25,793
1,400
Australia
If you wanted an answer to your ridiculous question from particular people than be a man and @ me.



Oh, and DM me boi, if you want to hear more about it.

Burning fossil fuel isn't inherently immoral or bad, if you can keep the various problems associated with it from effecting humanity and the ecosystems we live in. The problem in that scenario is that fossil fuels are not endless, and the endless drilling for those fossil fuels has a horrible effect on the ecosystem.



Oh please, many of the greatest human accomplishments have been those of governments. Manifest Destiny, going to the moon, the internet! To act as though government is some useless thing that only ever messes everything up is entirely ignorant of human history.

Acting as though the private sector will do, out of the goodness of it's heart, what it's failed to do, and hidden from the people, for decades is foolish.
You're tagged in the very post you quoted :messenger_tears_of_joy:

You're right, fossil fuels are finite, but did you know that we have ~150 years worth of coal left? Then if you consider nuclear power (I note you didn't address the nuclear power question), there's another couple hundred years there.

Please expand upon your claim about the effects of fossil fuels on the ecosystem. Are you talking about acid rock drainage? There are solutions for that, and it's not just a fossil fuel problem; it occurs mostly in the mining of base metals that are used to make appliances like the smart phone you likely posted this from. Tailings storage? Well, there is an entire industry devoted to tailings management. Fracking-related seismicity? Overblown and in fact the increase in fracking is the main reason the US leads the world in emissions reduction. You are going to have to be more specific about your claims.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Oner

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,769
5,986
420
You're tagged in the very post you quoted :messenger_tears_of_joy:

You're right, fossil fuels are finite, but did you know that we have ~150 years worth of coal left? Then if you consider nuclear power (I note you didn't address the nuclear power question), there's another couple hundred years there.

Please expand upon your claim about the effects of fossil fuels on the ecosystem. Are you talking about acid rock drainage? There are solutions for that, and it's not just a fossil fuel problem; it occurs mostly in the mining of base metals that are used to make appliances like the smart phone you likely posted this from. Tailings storage? Well, there is an entire industry devoted to tailings management. Fracking-related seismicity? Overblown and in fact the increase in fracking is the main reason the US leads the world in emissions reduction. You are going to have to be more specific about your claims.
it's like talking to a brick wall.

He is determined that this climate change Armageddon is coming, and only the government(led by democrats of course) can save us. It's laughable at this point.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,480
25,793
1,400
Australia
it's like talking to a brick wall.

He is determined that this climate change Armageddon is coming, and only the government(led by democrats of course) can save us. It's laughable at this point.
That's the thing. They claim the authority of science without actually having any understanding of said science. They are just parroting inherited opinions from their preferred media sources. It's a moral issue for them, not a scientific issue, and they want to hand the reigns over to socialists/communists to lead us into the green utopia. Have you seen a single citation from NI in all of his inane rambling and NPD-driven posturing? He is simply leveraging the authority of science to claim the moral high ground and position himself as a better person than the rest of us. Now someone like Claus who actually works in environmental science, I give more credence to his opinions, though I wish he wouldn't lump himself in with the aforementioned ideologues simply because they're positioning themselves on the right side of history™. The issue as I see it is not about whether the science is legitimate but instead what we do about it. I've never seen any of the grandstanding brainlets propose a solution that doesn't involve regressing to more primitive standards of living. That's simply not going to happen, especially when the leaders of the movement don't want to lead by example, and I would prefer we instead talk co-operatively about technological solutions such as short to mid-term sequestration and nuclear energy + longer term development of cheaper/more efficient renewables.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,424
32,212
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Oh please, many of the greatest human accomplishments have been those of governments. Manifest Destiny, going to the moon, the internet! To act as though government is some useless thing that only ever messes everything up is entirely ignorant of human history.

Acting as though the private sector will do, out of the goodness of it's heart, what it's failed to do, and hidden from the people, for decades is foolish.
I'm not acting as thought government is some useless thing. Only a sith deals in absolutes. I'm pointing out that many of the current proposals from politicians are misguided or incorrect. Some of their suggestions have been debunked by science yet they continue to suggest bad ideas.

I'm not acting as though the private sector will do something out of the goodness of its heart. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. I'm pointing out how the private sector is already working to solve the issue and I have cited the specific techniques and some of the specific individuals who are involved in carbon drawdown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract
Jun 25, 2018
652
324
480
If we are (as a species) on the brink of passing a point of no return regarding our climate, which will inevitably kill many, if not all of us (as some of the bigger fearmongers say) - tyen why the fuck aren't we living in a police state that would enforce rules and regulations on us which would save us (as we are to dumb to do it ourself)?

If i was at the top, like 0.1% of the top i would make you filthy peasants count your farts so that you wouldn't kill me by your lifestyle.

If we really were on the brink of killing ourself the higher ups would surely force us all (like literally all) to change our lifestyle, as doing manicide by CO2 is something even should fear, more than a random robbery 🤷🏻‍♂️
The elite has a belief that Elon Musk gets them to Mars before shit hits the fan.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,424
32,212
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
TED talks aren't gospel, but this is a decent presentation as to why the current suggestions made by politicians -- solar and wind -- aren't as viable as we've been told. Can be summed up by his statement: "You might think dealing with climate change is just going to require that we all pay more for energy. That's what I used to think".

 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePiddle

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,314
1,547
430
The elite has a belief that Elon Musk gets them to Mars before shit hits the fan.
"The elite" are all pushing the same alarmism. And virtue signaling about how they installed a solar panel array that offsets .01% of the emissions from their McMansion that they bought. Then travelling thousands of miles on their yachts to attend a climate change crisis summit.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,647
3,737
425
"The elite" are all pushing the same alarmism. And virtue signaling about how they installed a solar panel array that offsets .01% of the emissions from their McMansion that they bought. Then travelling thousands of miles on their yachts to attend a climate change crisis summit.

On top of that, most of those fucking solar installs are government funded. So not only do we have to listen to all their horseshit, it’s on our dime.
 

Mahadev

Member
Mar 5, 2007
1,732
1,270
1,190
Well, we’re not fucked. What would help is developing sequestration tech as discussed by Dodunpanky above. What’s actually fucking us is ideological politicians pushing non-solutions like banning farting cows and airplanes. That and the constant doomsdaying just turns moderates and skeptics away. Climate change is a consequence of a growth-based economy, but the catch-22 is that the growth-based economy is the only way we enjoy the quality of life we have today. All of the green new deal type of “solutions” I’ve seen are fundamentally about reverting to a more primitive state of life and handing the power to implement it over to socialists and communists.

I’m a technological optimist. I think technology got us into this situation but I also believe that it will get us out of it. Focusing on the development of sequestration tech in the interim while we make renewable energy tech more efficient and affordable is how we will solve the problem. Running around chicken littling and trying to hold morality points over my head just turns me away. Moreover, this thread has somehow devolved into the usual finger pointing and accusations of science denial, but the thread was originally about the hypocrisy of the elites who want us to give up our lifestyle without giving up theirs. That’s not what leadership is about.

To get us back on track, I will pose a few questions:

1. What do you think about nuclear energy? Why do you think the Obamas of the world are not advocating for nuclear energy as a solution to climate change?

2. What is your opinion on sequestration? Do you think it’s ok to continue burning fossil fuels if we can capture or offset the emissions? Why/why not?

3. Given that we agree on the existence of climate change and that it is indeed an existential threat, let’s park that argument and instead focus on solutions. What do you think would be the best solution to mitigate the consequences of climate change? Do you think there could be any unintended consequences? If so, what?

You're way too optimistic imo. the chain of events that is unfolding is too big for technology to save us from this one. To give a couple of examples, climate change causes the arctic to melt which will release huge amounts of methane which will further cause the arctic to melt releasing even more methane. Another example is huge forest fires that are caused by extreme temperatures and wind patterns, it's a self-propelling loop you can't easily escape from when it's started. Your questions seem kind of pointless to me now, capitalism's moronic exponential growth model has proven absolutely destructive for this planet and there's no way in hell these greedy fucks will stop now plus these half measures can't change shit, this green bullshit are just PR for a bunch of rich fucks and their puppet politicians. We're screwed.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,480
25,793
1,400
Australia
You're way too optimistic imo. the chain of events that is unfolding is too big for technology to save us from this one. To give a couple of examples, climate change causes the arctic to melt which will release huge amounts of methane which will further cause the arctic to melt releasing even more methane. Another example is huge forest fires that are caused by extreme temperatures and wind patterns, it's a self-propelling loop you can't easily escape from when it's started. Your questions seem kind of pointless to me now, capitalism's moronic exponential growth model has proven absolutely destructive for this planet and there's no way in hell these greedy fucks will stop now plus these half measures can't change shit, this green bullshit are just PR for a bunch of rich fucks and their puppet politicians. We're screwed.
...
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,424
32,212
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
You're way too optimistic imo. the chain of events that is unfolding is too big for technology to save us from this one. To give a couple of examples, climate change causes the arctic to melt which will release huge amounts of methane which will further cause the arctic to melt releasing even more methane. Another example is huge forest fires that are caused by extreme temperatures and wind patterns, it's a self-propelling loop you can't easily escape from when it's started. Your questions seem kind of pointless to me now, capitalism's moronic exponential growth model has proven absolutely destructive for this planet and there's no way in hell these greedy fucks will stop now plus these half measures can't change shit, this green bullshit are just PR for a bunch of rich fucks and their puppet politicians. We're screwed.
We're not screwed. The "point of no return" death loop has been forecasted since the 70s and the predictions continue to be incorrect. And pointing this out is typically met by "what? You don't believe in climate change?!?"

We are not in a climate apocalypse. We are not past the point of no return. Anticipating that oceans may rise over the next 100 years, it seems feasible that we would figure out ways to mitigate that in the meanwhile. We're already desalinating water. In a few decades are we going to hear protests about corporations "sucking the ocean dry"?

When companies are pulling CO2 out of the air and injecting it into the ground for fossil fuel extraction, and then burning it in carbon-neutral energy plants, and the atmospheric carbon is no longer a problem but a resource for industry, what will they say next? What can be said if these fossil fuel companies go carbon-negative using oil and natural gas? "We're going to deplete the atmosphere's supply of carbon!"
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,647
3,737
425
We're not screwed. The "point of no return" death loop has been forecasted since the 70s and the predictions continue to be incorrect. And pointing this out is typically met by "what? You don't believe in climate change?!?"

We are not in a climate apocalypse. We are not past the point of no return. Anticipating that oceans may rise over the next 100 years, it seems feasible that we would figure out ways to mitigate that in the meanwhile. We're already desalinating water. In a few decades are we going to hear protests about corporations "sucking the ocean dry"?

When companies are pulling CO2 out of the air and injecting it into the ground for fossil fuel extraction, and then burning it in carbon-neutral energy plants, and the atmospheric carbon is no longer a problem but a resource for industry, what will they say next? What can be said if these fossil fuel companies go carbon-negative using oil and natural gas? "We're going to deplete the atmosphere's supply of carbon!"
Back in the 70s they were promising another Ice Age. Then it went to Global Warming. Then Climate Change because that got made too much fun of. And now they're starting to talk about another Ice Age again. It's shit like this that has made people so openly hostile to the idea. They shouldn't have let the fanatics be the ones to introduce the concept to the public. It's literally a case of the boy who cried wolf.
 

Mahadev

Member
Mar 5, 2007
1,732
1,270
1,190
We're not screwed. The "point of no return" death loop has been forecasted since the 70s and the predictions continue to be incorrect. And pointing this out is typically met by "what? You don't believe in climate change?!?"

We are not in a climate apocalypse. We are not past the point of no return. Anticipating that oceans may rise over the next 100 years, it seems feasible that we would figure out ways to mitigate that in the meanwhile. We're already desalinating water. In a few decades are we going to hear protests about corporations "sucking the ocean dry"?

When companies are pulling CO2 out of the air and injecting it into the ground for fossil fuel extraction, and then burning it in carbon-neutral energy plants, and the atmospheric carbon is no longer a problem but a resource for industry, what will they say next? What can be said if these fossil fuel companies go carbon-negative using oil and natural gas? "We're going to deplete the atmosphere's supply of carbon!"
It's been forecasted since the 70's and it's happening right now. Extreme weather conditions all over the world and mass extinction of animals species, what more proof do you want? You seem to think that oceans rising is the only problem or the main one, it isn't.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,424
32,212
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
It's been forecasted since the 70's and it's happening right now. Extreme weather conditions all over the world and mass extinction of animals species, what more proof do you want? You seem to think that oceans rising is the only problem or the main one, it isn't.
Like I said, any pushback results in "what? You don't believe in climate change?!?"

And yet people wonder why we can't have civil open dialogue about these issues.
 

Mahadev

Member
Mar 5, 2007
1,732
1,270
1,190
Back in the 70s they were promising another Ice Age. Then it went to Global Warming. Then Climate Change because that got made too much fun of. And now they're starting to talk about another Ice Age again. It's shit like this that has made people so openly hostile to the idea. They shouldn't have let the fanatics be the ones to introduce the concept to the public. It's literally a case of the boy who cried wolf.

It stopped being called Global Warming because of imbeciles that can't understand that global warming is causing extreme weather conditions locally and that includes cold weather. Scientists were sick of hearing stupid shit like "Wow, I've never seen a snowstorm like that in my entire life and scientists are trying to tell me there's global warming!" Sentences like that are mindnumbingly stupid because the idiots saying them are proving themselves wrong and they don't even realize it.


Like I said, any pushback results in "what? You don't believe in climate change?!?"

And yet people wonder why we can't have civil open dialogue about these issues.
And like I said, the proof is now tangible, it's not about believing to it or not, it's about opening your eyes and reading the news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lamel

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,769
5,986
420
It stopped being called Global Warming because of imbeciles that can't understand that global warming is causing extreme weather conditions locally and that includes cold weather. Scientists were sick of hearing stupid shit like "Wow, I've never seen a snowstorm like that in my entire life and scientists are trying to tell me there's global warming!" Sentences like that are mindnumbingly stupid because the idiots saying them are proving themselves wrong and they don't even realize it.
That's why? Hmm I thought it was becuase your side was predicting the end of the world 20-30 years ago and ohh....we are still here.
 

Mahadev

Member
Mar 5, 2007
1,732
1,270
1,190
That's why? Hmm I thought it was becuase your side was predicting the end of the world 20-30 years ago and ohh....we are still here.

"My side" aka scientists who have dedicated their entire lives to study this stuff and are WAY smarter than you and I were giving a deadline about when the situation will become irreversible and they were right, we're past that deadline and it shows. The scientific theory remains the same, plus the term "global warming" only changed the last ~5 years when the effects of global warming became apparent to anyone that has eye sight so yeah, your entire post is misinformation.

Well sure, with that attitude we are.
I'm not saying don't do anything about it, we can still minimize its catastrophic effects as much as we can but I'm being realistic here. These scumbag politicians that pretend to care about climate change are only doing PR for themselves when the planet needs drastic changes right now. So yeah, please try but I'm not optimistic at all.
 
Last edited:
Jun 25, 2018
652
324
480
"The elite" are all pushing the same alarmism. And virtue signaling about how they installed a solar panel array that offsets .01% of the emissions from their McMansion that they bought. Then travelling thousands of miles on their yachts to attend a climate change crisis summit.
Solar powered yacht, i would say the best Thing would be to just held a Skype conference. But well if they demand personal presense then well thats at least better than flying. According to what we know about flight fossil fuel emissions
 
Last edited: