|
Alctel posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...as-6276134.html Jesus christ... this almost seems like the most significant aspect of all Climate Change related news, or at least the most significant at the current moment. Why is nobody talking about this? I mean, I know why, but jesus. Can anyone with more scientific background elucidate how much this will accelerate things? It almost seems like everyone under the age of 60 will see the mass extinction of the entire human race and should probably find a painless suicide method...
|
| # ¿ Dec 13, 2011 18:57 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 18:41 |
|
|
CaptainFisby posted:It is odd that at times I hope the deniers are right and it is all just a big conspiracy borne of wild fantasy. Unfortunately, facts are indicating that we are entering a very dangerous period of time. Whereas before we were talking about major climate changes becoming gradually evident over decades, if the above story is as bad as it sounds we are entering the "it doesn't matter anymore" zone of how much we can mitigate the worst effects of Climate Change. Well, that is because the denialist train of thought is comforting. That's also why this isn't even on the front page of Google news. Should have known it would end like this. The only bright side I can see is the schadenfreude that will come with telling the denialists 'i told you so,' and that's pretty drat sad. They will have a few more comforting years of delusion before their petty, short sighted, insular worldview come crashing down. Meanwhile the informed rest of us can just sit and worry helplessly? global tetrahedron fucked around with this message at Dec 13, 2011 around 19:20 |
| # ¿ Dec 13, 2011 19:17 |
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:They'll just say "How could we have known? The science wasn't there!" They'll absolve themselves of any responsibility when it happens. The denialists (i refuse to use the term "skeptic") will not accept any study that shows global warming, and some seriously do think this it is just a scam. I just don't understand how they can rationalize it, what possible motive would anyone have to pull a global warming hoax? And then they don't see the possible motive behind industry-backed scientists posing contrarian evidence.
|
| # ¿ Dec 14, 2011 01:04 |
|
|
duck monster posted:I personally think that the names and personal details of the major denialists and their funders, ought be recorded for posterity , so that the next generation knows who needs to be punished for their predicament. dont worry, man, their names are all stored on the internet... oh wait
|
| # ¿ Dec 14, 2011 13:52 |
|
|
Somewhat interesting, a bit of an upside/counter to climate change skepticism:http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/18/150886905/poll-most-americans-link-climate-change-to-unusual-weather-events posted:Most Americans believe that global warming has played a role in a series of unusual weather events during the past year.
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2012 18:32 |
|
|
I see a lot of people making vague timeframes for when the poo poo will exactly hit the fan; and often these projections conveniently fall on the tail end of lifespans for most people alive today (i.e. 'sometime later in the century'). It almost seems like people are trying to comfort themselves that at least they won't have to be around to deal with it. Not anyone in this thread in particular, just a facet of the discussion that I've noticed comes up frequently. As many studies I've seen that say 'by 2100' there are a multitude claiming within decades, or even a generation, which are obviously a much tighter timeframe. Granted, I am not knowledgeable of all the scholarship, just my observation of the kind of language that has entered the discourse. In an odd and terrible way the 'end of the century' projections are almost comforting to me compared to the 'within a generation' ones, as it 'puts off' the horrible fate that could await. But in my gut I feel like it will happen far sooner than that; i.e. the stuff I've read methane locked under the permafrost pluming forth into the atmosphere. Ugh. I feel like I check into this thread to hear from some people actually into the phases of acceptance (the mention of the phases of grief up there is an evocative one), and working within and speaking within that vernacular/framework. Even (or especially) bringing up this subject around 'socially conscious' sorts brings kind of shrugs or dismissals or avoidance and it's infuriating. It's like they don't even have the language to even ponder or discuss the actual issue at hand. (I think it's because they are stupid liberals.) poo poo will hit the fan, no doubt, but this is when something will change, for better or for worse. Probably for the worse, but maybe with a sprinkling of something better? In that way I suppose I'm hopeful, but hopefully in a way that avoids the wide-eyed poo poo that comes out of the mouths of the 'eco friendly'.
|
| # ¿ Jun 14, 2012 01:34 |
|
|
TACD posted:Won't it be fun to tell the grandchildren about the days when there used to be two polar ice caps? Hmmm, might be fun, if anyone lives long enough to listen to or tell this depressing tale.
|
| # ¿ Sep 20, 2012 18:18 |
|
|
I know it's incredibly selfish and insular but at this sorry stage it's almost like the best thing I can hope for is that the poo poo hits the fan just after I'm dead. I'm 24 now, so this hope is probably in vain, and I will likely live to see calamitous events, but I feel completely powerless to enact any change. Simply hoping I live to be about 70 with a roof over my head is about as optimistic as I can be, and many days it's hard being even that optimistic. Being filled with a vague dread is not a healthy mindset but how can any informed person not have these moments or days of panic? I hear people in this thread suggesting that we should simply enjoy our lives and be glad we won't be around for the worst of it which strikes me as by far the most morally questionable option. Surely we are compelled to act towards *something* out of a sense of basic conscience and moral obligation? However, in some ways this 'sit back and enjoy your life' may also be the most pragmatic option, because I certainly do not see the drive needed among the public to drastically re-imagine and restructure our society. This re-structuring is basically the only option human beings have to stop mass extinction. But once people are forced to wake up to this fact it may be fruitless and probably too late. Presuming that 'enacting change' is a fruitless goal, any energy I have left after a day of work can either be transformed into dread and worry, and blame and ire towards baby boomers/global capital for setting us onto this course, or it could be used to enjoy the time I have with my friends, by living modestly and not getting too attached to any particular way of doing things. Am I doing it right? Is there any other choice? I can't sit around going 'why me? Why now?', and I can't try and convince denialists who are convinced of an entirely different version of reality.
|
| # ¿ Sep 21, 2012 16:41 |
|
|
duck monster posted:welp I just had a workmate completely lose his poo poo at me when I told him my sister was a former CSIRO climate researcher. Like full on anger-shouty stuff. I hope people like that dude will be around when the cracks really start to show. I mean, they're on display right now, but they will become too big to ignore. How will they keep up their cognitive dissonance then?
|
| # ¿ Oct 9, 2012 14:49 |
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Honestly, it's astounding that we haven't already used a nuclear weapon on ourselves (ourselves being humanity) if you look at the history of the weapon and how close we've come so many times. What do you mean by this? You're forgetting two really obvious instances, unless they doesn't fit some criteria that you haven't told us about...
|
| # ¿ Oct 9, 2012 19:05 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 18:41 |
|
|
To what extent are most colleges invested in oil companies as part of their endowments? My alma mater is not the most transparent when it comes to such things so I don't even know where to begin in trying to find out. I am thinking of starting a divestment petition, since its one (somewhat) effective venue I have to express myself (okay, somewhat effective might be putting it too optimistically). But I don't want to start one if it turns out that they don't have any funds invested in fossil fuel companies. They tend to take alumni feedback and opinions seriously. Oh wait, that's only when said alums have the money to donate towards new football stadiums and the like. Ah well. Why the hell not, I say.
|
| # ¿ Dec 3, 2012 17:06 |
|
