Nihilism And Climate Change

[Harnandia]

Yes, nothing has value. Goals and desires have value to me as an individual for selfish, hedonistic purposes. It is not that ''deep''.

We are all hypocritical. I am, you are, anyone reading this. So yeah, we create contradictions, what is your point?

My point is that your philosophy makes no sense. You admitted that the whole thing was inherently hypocritical, which proves my point

Just because you 'don't get it' does not mean it makes no sense. It makes no sense to you.
I think I was pretty clear in my previous statement and find nothing irrational about it. I stated that nothing has meaning and none of our actions matter, while elaborating that the things that I do for self pleasure are exactly that-just for pure self pleasure, via hedonism, because I might as well live my life until I die and have fun with it.

...even if everyone is occasionally hypocritical, myself included, most of us do not base our worldviews on self-contradictory philosophies.

Sure you do (as do most people), you either are truly unaware of it or in denial. For example I don't support murder, yet I am an omnivore. The food products I buy financially support the slaughter of various different animals. I also support common decency, yet have been in situations where I have forgone that. I am an atheist who despises religion and wishes it ceases to exist, yet I support freedom of religion (in the sense that people have the right to believe in whatever they want to).
I am no doubt sure you are in similar predicaments, where you have a specific perspective, yet your actions contradict it. Everyone has.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

When the scales of consumption are actively destroying the bio-sphere, [a cheeseburger] is [my business].

THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE. You cannot "break" the earth's cyclical climate. It is arrogant and vain to say that we can stop it, or slow it down. Climate change is real. The most we are doing is accelerating an extant process. The worst case scenarios presented by the collapse cult and Al Gore (etc.) are NOTHING compared to the Paleocene Thermal Maximum.

Even if we are accelerating climate change, it's nothing we can't fix with flood control and capitalists' innovation. Get the government out of subsidizing all energy, pass the Open Fuel Standard, and focus state resources solely on shoring up flood control.

"The climate changes naturally, so exacerbating the problem is fine" follows the exact same line of reasoning as "people die all the time, so murder isn't wrong".
Also, it's a proven fact that greenhouse gas emissions from various human activities (agriculture, industry, driving, etc) are changing the climate far more than anything else. Private companies, as a rule, consistently refuse to cut emissions without the government telling them that they have to. Reducing government intervention is just going to make climate change even worse.

[Tekeristan]

THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE. You cannot "break" the earth's cyclical climate. It is arrogant and vain to say that we can stop it, or slow it down. Climate change is real. The most we are doing is accelerating an extant process. The worst case scenarios presented by the collapse cult and Al Gore (etc.) are NOTHING compared to the Paleocene Thermal Maximum.

Even if we are accelerating climate change, it's nothing we can't fix with flood control and capitalists' innovation. Get the government out of subsidizing all energy, pass the Open Fuel Standard, and focus state resources solely on shoring up flood control.

"The climate changes naturally, so exacerbating the problem is fine" follows the exact same line of reasoning as "people die all the time, so murder isn't wrong".
Also, it's a proven fact that greenhouse gas emissions from various human activities (agriculture, industry, driving, etc) are changing the climate far more than anything else. Private companies, as a rule, consistently refuse to cut emissions without the government telling them that they have to. Reducing government intervention is just going to make climate change even worse.

There is no arguing with this people and it would be good for your health to come and realize that. Simply ignore them. They're meaningless in the scope of things and they'll probably just go fascist this coming collapse regardless of what you say. But they're ultimately a minority.

[Deacarsia]

First of all, I'm not ignoring 'time value of money', you can divide infinity by any finite integer and you'll still get infinity. Think long term here. Unless you mean to argue that future benefits have no value and maximizing current profit is the only good economic decision?
Second, GDP might be a bad statistic, but you didn't provide an actual measure of cost, so I used my own. Tell me how you're measuring the cost of destroying the planet versus the money you make by doing it and then you can complain about how much worse my measure is.

The destruction of humanity is an economic cost equivalent to the potential future GDP of the human race, which is somewhere between arbitrarily high [emphasis mine] and infinite depending on whether or not you think a post-scarcity society is possible. Cost benefit analysis therefore says that any finite cost is still worth it.

Since post-scarcity society is not possible, that would not be infinite, but finite. Secondly, I am measuring the cost that your stupid and scientifically incorrect “climate change” alarmist cult actually might be right despite all reason and evidence against the very real satisfaction of the wants and needs of all my family, friends, and all of humanity, which is unquantifiable, and in my view priceless.

I am thinking long-term, which is why I oppose economic destruction by the state and societal destruction by egalitarianism. You are the one who is pushing the latest fad backed by government-funded junk science and propaganda, which all people are somehow bound to swear loyalty toward as “settled science,” a stupid and unscientific mindset.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

"The climate changes naturally, so exacerbating the problem is fine" follows the exact same line of reasoning as "people die all the time, so murder isn't wrong".
Also, it's a proven fact that greenhouse gas emissions from various human activities (agriculture, industry, driving, etc) are changing the climate far more than anything else. Private companies, as a rule, consistently refuse to cut emissions without the government telling them that they have to. Reducing government intervention is just going to make climate change even worse.

There is no arguing with this people and it would be good for your health to come and realize that. Simply ignore them. They're meaningless in the scope of things and they'll probably just go fascist this coming collapse regardless of what you say. But they're ultimately a minority.

I didn't go into this debate with any expectation of arguing against a rational person.

[Tekeristan]

First of all, I'm not ignoring 'time value of money', you can divide infinity by any finite integer and you'll still get infinity. Think long term here. Unless you mean to argue that future benefits have no value and maximizing current profit is the only good economic decision?
Second, GDP might be a bad statistic, but you didn't provide an actual measure of cost, so I used my own. Tell me how you're measuring the cost of destroying the planet versus the money you make by doing it and then you can complain about how much worse my measure is.

The destruction of humanity is an economic cost equivalent to the potential future GDP of the human race, which is somewhere between arbitrarily high [emphasis mine] and infinite depending on whether or not you think a post-scarcity society is possible. Cost benefit analysis therefore says that any finite cost is still worth it.

Since post-scarcity society is not possible, that would not be infinite, but finite. Secondly, I am measuring the cost that your stupid and scientifically incorrect “climate change” alarmist cult actually might be right despite all reason and evidence against the very real satisfaction of the wants and needs of all my family, friends, and all of humanity, which is unquantifiable, and in my view priceless.

I am thinking long-term, which is why I oppose economic destruction by the state and societal destruction by egalitarianism. You are the one who is pushing the latest fad backed by government-funded junk science and propaganda, which all people are somehow bound to swear loyalty toward as “settled science,” a stupid and unscientific mindset.

Insect biomass is plummeting

[TURTLESHROOM II]

First of all, I'm not ignoring 'time value of money', you can divide infinity by any finite integer and you'll still get infinity. Think long term here. Unless you mean to argue that future benefits have no value and maximizing current profit is the only good economic decision?

Second, GDP might be a bad statistic, but you didn't provide an actual measure of cost, so I used my own. Tell me how you're measuring the cost of destroying the planet versus the money you make by doing it and then you can complain about how much worse my measure is.

Raising the oceans by six feet is not destroying the planet! It's petty, laughable even. That can be fixed if we simply build enough flood controlling infrastructure. I suggest we start doing it now. NYC is! Weather has been as bad and worse than this, and the Paleocene Thermal Maximum proves that the earth can overheat itself just fine.

I'll use some examples from my religion.

Creation is divine. The earth is unstoppable. Mankind is small, puny, and weak by comparison. Saying humanity has that kind of power, the power to break cycles predating the Fall of Man by billions of years, is as arrogant as it is ignorant. We couldn't have stopped the Paleocene Thermal Maximum.

Assuming we're accelerating a warming, our warming of the earth through the Industrial Revolution, in the worst collapse cult predictions, and all of the pollution we have ever made, cannot raise the earths' temperature to what the PTM wrought naturally.

It is hilarious to think man can break the earth or stand equal to God, who created it and evolved man in His Image. It is the EXACT same mindset that brought forth the Tower of Babel, except that it sets the state as god instead.

Humanity does not have the power or technology to truly destroy the planet, render itself extinct, or cause irreversible, permanent damage to the existing natural cycles. THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE.

Note that I already do my part. My religion holds me as Creation's master. That means I am to be a steward of the earth. Sustainable exploitation is a responsible act. The earth exists for man, not the other way around, but man has the duty to care for what God has entrusted him with Dominion to rule.

I do not litter. I don't pour toxic chemicals into a lake or unfiltered drain. I am solely in charge of recycling, and sorting, everything in my house. I turn out lights I don't use, don't lower my air condition under seventy-two, and drink water from a well. I do my part, and I am proud that I am more eco-friendly, as environmentalism is a part of the Dominion of man.

Likewise, as the earth's ultimate reason for existence is to serve man and be exploited by him, I stand by my argument that my cheeseburger is more important than six feet of seawater. That doesn't mean I support clear-cutting the Amazon for a few years of grazing, or that I think China has the right idea.

What I oppose is the state's ambition to enslave us, which is exactly what the so-called "watermelon socialism" (green outside, red inside), the Green New Deal, and the jet setting cultists like Al Gore prescribe.

It is not the science I criticize. No, it's the fact that the state is the only solution being proposed. I am not a slave to the state, and I will die on my knees in prayer alone, not in governmental chains. So come and take that burger!

[Deacarsia]

There is no arguing with this people and it would be good for your health to come and realize that. Simply ignore them. They're meaningless in the scope of things and they'll probably just go fascist this coming collapse regardless of what you say. But they're ultimately a minority.

Translation: I do not like engaging in real discussion.

EVERYTHING I DON’T LIKE IS FASCISM, AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS AN EVIL FASCIST! BOO-HOO!

[Tekeristan]

First of all, I'm not ignoring 'time value of money', you can divide infinity by any finite integer and you'll still get infinity. Think long term here. Unless you mean to argue that future benefits have no value and maximizing current profit is the only good economic decision?

Second, GDP might be a bad statistic, but you didn't provide an actual measure of cost, so I used my own. Tell me how you're measuring the cost of destroying the planet versus the money you make by doing it and then you can complain about how much worse my measure is.

Raising the oceans by six feet is not destroying the planet! It's petty, laughable even. That can be fixed if we simply build enough flood controlling infrastructure. I suggest we start doing it now. NYC is! Weather has been as bad and worse than this, and the Paleocene Thermal Maximum proves that the earth can overheat itself just fine.

I'll use some examples from my religion.

Creation is divine. The earth is unstoppable. Mankind is small, puny, and weak by comparison. Saying humanity has that kind of power, the power to break cycles predating the Fall of Man by billions of years, is as arrogant as it is ignorant. We couldn't have stopped the Paleocene Thermal Maximum.

Assuming we're accelerating a warming, our warming of the earth through the Industrial Revolution, in the worst collapse cult predictions, and all of the pollution we have ever made, cannot raise the earths' temperature to what the PTM wrought naturally.

It is hilarious to think man can break the earth or stand equal to God, who created it and evolved man in His Image. It is the EXACT same mindset that brought forth the Tower of Babel, except that it sets the state as god instead.

Humanity does not have the power or technology to truly destroy the planet, render itself extinct, or cause irreversible, permanent damage to the existing natural cycles. THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE.

Note that I already do my part. My religion holds me as Creation's master. That means I am to be a steward of the earth. Sustainable exploitation is a responsible act. The earth exists for man, not the other way around, but man has the duty to care for what God has entrusted him with Dominion to rule.

I do not litter. I don't pour toxic chemicals into a lake or unfiltered drain. I am solely in charge of recycling, and sorting, everything in my house. I turn out lights I don't use, don't lower my air condition under seventy-two, and drink water from a well. I do my part, and I am proud that I am more eco-friendly, as environmentalism is a part of the Dominion of man.

Likewise, as the earth's ultimate reason for existence is to serve man and be exploited by him, I stand by my argument that my cheeseburger is more important than six feet of seawater. That doesn't mean I support clear-cutting the Amazon for a few years of grazing, or that I think China has the right idea.

What I oppose is the state's ambition to enslave us, which is exactly what the so-called "watermelon socialism" (green outside, red inside), the Green New Deal, and the jet setting cultists like Al Gore prescribe.

It is not the science I criticize. No, it's the fact that the state is the only solution being proposed. I am not a slave to the state, and I will die on my knees in prayer alone, not in governmental chains. So come and take that burger!

The fact you think climate change is only water levels tells me all I need to know about you, boomer

[Tekeristan]

There is no arguing with this people and it would be good for your health to come and realize that. Simply ignore them. They're meaningless in the scope of things and they'll probably just go fascist this coming collapse regardless of what you say. But they're ultimately a minority.

Translation: I do not like engaging in real discussion.

EVERYTHING I DON’T LIKE IS FASCISM, AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS AN EVIL FASCIST! BOO-HOO!

Ok boomer, just, get back into your burger there, omnom

[Deacarsia]

First of all, I'm not ignoring 'time value of money', you can divide infinity by any finite integer and you'll still get infinity. Think long term here. Unless you mean to argue that future benefits have no value and maximizing current profit is the only good economic decision?

Second, GDP might be a bad statistic, but you didn't provide an actual measure of cost, so I used my own. Tell me how you're measuring the cost of destroying the planet versus the money you make by doing it and then you can complain about how much worse my measure is.

Raising the oceans by six feet is not destroying the planet! It's petty, laughable even. That can be fixed if we simply build enough flood controlling infrastructure. I suggest we start doing it now. NYC is! Weather has been as bad and worse than this, and the Paleocene Thermal Maximum proves that the earth can overheat itself just fine.

I'll use some examples from my religion.

Creation is divine. The earth is unstoppable. Mankind is small, puny, and weak by comparison. Saying humanity has that kind of power, the power to break cycles predating the Fall of Man by billions of years, is as arrogant as it is ignorant. We couldn't have stopped the Paleocene Thermal Maximum.

Assuming we're accelerating a warming, our warming of the earth through the Industrial Revolution, in the worst collapse cult predictions, and all of the pollution we have ever made, cannot raise the earths' temperature to what the PTM wrought naturally.

It is hilarious to think man can break the earth or stand equal to God, who created it and evolved man in His Image. It is the EXACT same mindset that brought forth the Tower of Babel, except that it sets the state as god instead.

Humanity does not have the power or technology to truly destroy the planet, render itself extinct, or cause irreversible, permanent damage to the existing natural cycles. THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE.

Note that I already do my part. My religion holds me as Creation's master. That means I am to be a steward of the earth. Sustainable exploitation is a responsible act. The earth exists for man, not the other way around, but man has the duty to care for what God has entrusted him with Dominion to rule.

I do not litter. I don't pour toxic chemicals into a lake or unfiltered drain. I am solely in charge of recycling, and sorting, everything in my house. I turn out lights I don't use, don't lower my air condition under seventy-two, and drink water from a well. I do my part, and I am proud that I am more eco-friendly, as environmentalism is a part of the Dominion of man.

Likewise, as the earth's ultimate reason for existence is to serve man and be exploited by him, I stand by my argument that my cheeseburger is more important than six feet of seawater. That doesn't mean I support clear-cutting the Amazon for a few years of grazing, or that I think China has the right idea.

What I oppose is the state's ambition to enslave us, which is exactly what the so-called "watermelon socialism" (green outside, red inside), the Green New Deal, and the jet setting cultists like Al Gore prescribe.

It is not the science I criticize. No, it's the fact that the state is the only solution being proposed. I am not a slave to the state, and I will die on my knees in prayer alone, not in governmental chains. So come and take that burger!

Yet again, an excellent post!

[Deacarsia]

Insect biomass is plummeting

So what?

[Deacarsia]

Translation: I do not like engaging in real discussion.

EVERYTHING I DON’T LIKE IS FASCISM, AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS AN EVIL FASCIST! BOO-HOO!

Ok boomer, just, get back into your burger there, omnom

Whatever, commie.

[Tekeristan]

Insect biomass is plummeting

So what?

The oceans are warming. Reefs are bleaching

[Cekoviu]

Insect biomass is plummeting

So what?

Hello there, I can definitely help with this. Insects and other arthropods are keystones of every ecosystem, from the ecosystem in your carpet to the Amazon. They serve a vital role in seasonal cycles in tropical habitats by consuming and recycling detritus, which is crucial to plants and therefore herbivores (which humans eat). They serve as food for our food, or provide food for us. They help, directly and indirectly, to cull plant populations so they maintain a reasonable population. Losing insects would decimate the world and we probably wouldn't be able to survive.

[Tekeristan]

So what?

Hello there, I can definitely help with this. Insects and other arthropods are keystones of every ecosystem, from the ecosystem in your carpet to the Amazon. They serve a vital role in seasonal cycles in tropical habitats by consuming and recycling detritus, which is crucial to plants and therefore herbivores (which humans eat). They serve as food for our food, or provide food for us. They help, directly and indirectly, to cull plant populations so they maintain a reasonable population. Losing insects would decimate the world and we probably wouldn't be able to survive.

You don't get it. You just don't get it friend

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

First of all, I'm not ignoring 'time value of money', you can divide infinity by any finite integer and you'll still get infinity. Think long term here. Unless you mean to argue that future benefits have no value and maximizing current profit is the only good economic decision?
Second, GDP might be a bad statistic, but you didn't provide an actual measure of cost, so I used my own. Tell me how you're measuring the cost of destroying the planet versus the money you make by doing it and then you can complain about how much worse my measure is.

The destruction of humanity is an economic cost equivalent to the potential future GDP of the human race, which is somewhere between arbitrarily high [emphasis mine] and infinite depending on whether or not you think a post-scarcity society is possible. Cost benefit analysis therefore says that any finite cost is still worth it.

Since post-scarcity society is not possible, that would not be infinite, but finite [1]. Secondly, I am measuring the cost that your stupid and scientifically incorrect [2] “climate change” alarmist cult actually might be right despite all reason and evidence [3] against the very real satisfaction of the wants and needs of all my family, friends, and all of humanity, [4] which is unquantifiable, [5] and in my view priceless. [6]

I am thinking long-term, which is why I oppose economic destruction by the state and societal destruction by egalitarianism. [7] You are the one who is pushing the latest fad backed by government-funded junk science and propaganda, [8] which all people are somehow bound to swear loyalty toward as “settled science,” [9] a stupid and unscientific mindset. [10]

[1]: That's your opinion, and the math works out the same way even if 'infinite' and 'functionally infinite' are technically two different concepts.
[2]: Source?
[3]: You have scientific consensus that climate change doesn't exist?
[4]: Which according to you do not include life. I can demonstrate actual, measurable costs of climate change if you want me to. Would you be happy with me pointing out the damage that rising sea levels would do to the real estate market, for example?
[5]: Money exists to quantify all of those things, so... no, they actually are quantifiable.
[6]: Are you saying that it's impossible to fulfill your wants and needs, or that you have infinite money? Saying that those things have infinite value leads to one of those two conclusions, after all.
[7]: Quantify these and provide evidence that government intervention and egalitarianism universally result in economic damage. If you can find any, that is.
[8]: Scientific consensus is propaganda, but fringe podcasts and corporate-funded studies aren't. Love the logic here.
[9]: That is how reality works, yes.
[10]: Listening to science is a stupid and unscientific mindset, apparently.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

First of all, I'm not ignoring 'time value of money', you can divide infinity by any finite integer and you'll still get infinity. Think long term here. Unless you mean to argue that future benefits have no value and maximizing current profit is the only good economic decision?

Second, GDP might be a bad statistic, but you didn't provide an actual measure of cost, so I used my own. Tell me how you're measuring the cost of destroying the planet versus the money you make by doing it and then you can complain about how much worse my measure is.

Raising the oceans by six feet is not destroying the planet! It's petty, laughable even. That can be fixed if we simply build enough flood controlling infrastructure. I suggest we start doing it now. NYC is! Weather has been as bad and worse than this, and the Paleocene Thermal Maximum proves that the earth can overheat itself just fine.

I'll use some examples from my religion.

Creation is divine. The earth is unstoppable. Mankind is small, puny, and weak by comparison. Saying humanity has that kind of power, the power to break cycles predating the Fall of Man by billions of years, is as arrogant as it is ignorant. We couldn't have stopped the Paleocene Thermal Maximum.

Assuming we're accelerating a warming, our warming of the earth through the Industrial Revolution, in the worst collapse cult predictions, and all of the pollution we have ever made, cannot raise the earths' temperature to what the PTM wrought naturally.

It is hilarious to think man can break the earth or stand equal to God, who created it and evolved man in His Image. It is the EXACT same mindset that brought forth the Tower of Babel, except that it sets the state as god instead.

Humanity does not have the power or technology to truly destroy the planet, render itself extinct, or cause irreversible, permanent damage to the existing natural cycles. THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE.

Note that I already do my part. My religion holds me as Creation's master. That means I am to be a steward of the earth. Sustainable exploitation is a responsible act. The earth exists for man, not the other way around, but man has the duty to care for what God has entrusted him with Dominion to rule.

I do not litter. I don't pour toxic chemicals into a lake or unfiltered drain. I am solely in charge of recycling, and sorting, everything in my house. I turn out lights I don't use, don't lower my air condition under seventy-two, and drink water from a well. I do my part, and I am proud that I am more eco-friendly, as environmentalism is a part of the Dominion of man.

Likewise, as the earth's ultimate reason for existence is to serve man and be exploited by him, I stand by my argument that my cheeseburger is more important than six feet of seawater. That doesn't mean I support clear-cutting the Amazon for a few years of grazing, or that I think China has the right idea.

What I oppose is the state's ambition to enslave us, which is exactly what the so-called "watermelon socialism" (green outside, red inside), the Green New Deal, and the jet setting cultists like Al Gore prescribe.

It is not the science I criticize. No, it's the fact that the state is the only solution being proposed. I am not a slave to the state, and I will die on my knees in prayer alone, not in governmental chains. So come and take that burger!

I feel obligated to point out that the vast majority of this post is a series of dubiously rational justifications for ignoring science, and the end of it is a statement that you're not ignoring science.

[Antityranicals]

Raising the oceans by six feet is not destroying the planet! It's petty, laughable even. That can be fixed if we simply build enough flood controlling infrastructure. I suggest we start doing it now. NYC is! Weather has been as bad and worse than this, and the Paleocene Thermal Maximum proves that the earth can overheat itself just fine.

I'll use some examples from my religion.

Creation is divine. The earth is unstoppable. Mankind is small, puny, and weak by comparison. Saying humanity has that kind of power, the power to break cycles predating the Fall of Man by billions of years, is as arrogant as it is ignorant. We couldn't have stopped the Paleocene Thermal Maximum.

Assuming we're accelerating a warming, our warming of the earth through the Industrial Revolution, in the worst collapse cult predictions, and all of the pollution we have ever made, cannot raise the earths' temperature to what the PTM wrought naturally.

It is hilarious to think man can break the earth or stand equal to God, who created it and evolved man in His Image. It is the EXACT same mindset that brought forth the Tower of Babel, except that it sets the state as god instead.

Humanity does not have the power or technology to truly destroy the planet, render itself extinct, or cause irreversible, permanent damage to the existing natural cycles. THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE.

Note that I already do my part. My religion holds me as Creation's master. That means I am to be a steward of the earth. Sustainable exploitation is a responsible act. The earth exists for man, not the other way around, but man has the duty to care for what God has entrusted him with Dominion to rule.

I do not litter. I don't pour toxic chemicals into a lake or unfiltered drain. I am solely in charge of recycling, and sorting, everything in my house. I turn out lights I don't use, don't lower my air condition under seventy-two, and drink water from a well. I do my part, and I am proud that I am more eco-friendly, as environmentalism is a part of the Dominion of man.

Likewise, as the earth's ultimate reason for existence is to serve man and be exploited by him, I stand by my argument that my cheeseburger is more important than six feet of seawater. That doesn't mean I support clear-cutting the Amazon for a few years of grazing, or that I think China has the right idea.

What I oppose is the state's ambition to enslave us, which is exactly what the so-called "watermelon socialism" (green outside, red inside), the Green New Deal, and the jet setting cultists like Al Gore prescribe.

It is not the science I criticize. No, it's the fact that the state is the only solution being proposed. I am not a slave to the state, and I will die on my knees in prayer alone, not in governmental chains. So come and take that burger!

I feel obligated to point out that the vast majority of this post is a series of dubiously rational justifications for ignoring science, and the end of it is a statement that you're not ignoring science.

Stop calling the pipe dreams of AOC and company science.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

The fact you think climate change is only water levels tells me all I need to know about you, boomer

First, I swore an oath to never report anyone or anything to the Moderators (having been banned for filing a report before). That said, I am sick of you belittling me and insulting me through name calling. You have clearly been unable to refute my arguments, as your every act has been succeeded by insults on me as a person, as opposed to my statements.

Second, I focused on sea levels because of the "muh climate refugees" meme and the idea that NYC will be underwater in twelve years. Oceanic rising is one of the only observable effects of climate change- which is a real thing, remember -aside from extreme weather, which I do not attribute to climate change because it has been observed to be cyclical for as long as we've taken records.

Climate change certainly did not cause the Georgian Hurricane of 1898 AD, which only now has been equalled in my state by Hurricane Dorian. Hurricane Dorian himself did not defeat the Great Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 AD, which, remember, is the only hurricane to ever have "great" in its name.

Not to mention, just a few years ago (2017-2018 AD, if I am not mistaken), the quietest tornado season in sixty years was closed. While weather is obviously not quiet, the idea that every bad storm is because of AGCC, and every hotter month is AGCC, is, again, the mindset of the Tower of Babel.

On the left, the Millenarism builders of this metaphorical ziggaraut declare the state as god and demand we submit to the chains of Big Government. Nothing- NOTHING - is worth bowing to the state and surrendering all Free Will in the realm of human consumption. You cannot create any scenario, short of the earth accelerating to a black hole or being literally invaded by aliens, that can justify that.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

I feel obligated to point out that the vast majority of this post is a series of dubiously rational justifications for ignoring science, and the end of it is a statement that you're not ignoring science.

The climate is changing. The earth is warming. That is a fact. I don't deny that.

I repeat what I've said this whole time. THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE. Man cannot halt natural cycles. Assuming every prediction of the collapse cult is correct besides THE WORLD LITERALLY ENDING IN TWELVE YEARS, we won't even come close to the natural heating of the Paleocene Thermal Maximum. Snow won't become a once-a-decade thing in Dixie. The North Pole's ice caps won't permanently disappear.

Nothing man can accelerate or produce, assuming man can even do so, will ever break the earth's cycles. Even if we are responsible for climate change, the God will always have His Will in the end. The earth is solid, permanent, set upon its "foundations" for eternity, or, hypothetically, until the sun gives out in five billion years.

You are building the Tower of Babel. You say that man is all-powerful, that the state is god, and that if we surrender enough of our freedoms, we can somehow make the whole earth do what we want it to do.

News flash. We cannot. Your quest to enslave me will result in your cult's downfall.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE.

[...]

Even if we are accelerating climate change, it's nothing we can't fix with flood control and capitalists' innovation. Get the government out of subsidizing all energy, pass the Open Fuel Standard, and focus state resources solely on shoring up flood control.

Ok boomer

Okay Marxist.

You clearly have no refutation to the actual solutions I listed here. In no time at this debate did I ever insult you as a man or call you names. You did, which is very typical of contemporary Marxists in my country. I'm sure there's a college "cry-in" you could enter to protest the fossil fuel enabling propaganda I shilled today.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

So what?

The oceans are warming. Reefs are bleaching

1. Insect biomass can recover if we switch habitat destruction with sustainable exploitation, alongside not clear-cutting the Amazon for a few years of grazing.

2. No amount of oceanic warming that man could accelerate could equal the oceanic temperatures of the Paleocene Thermal Maximum. No amount of oceanic warming can break the oceans or undo their natural cycles and currents.

3. Reeves always repair themselves over time, but if we want to save them now, we can start by farming warm-water coral and "planting" it to breed with cold-water coral.

[Salandriagado]

I'd argue that using government tyranny to fight climate change will cause more suffering than it could ever alleviate, even if the global warming folks are right, a questionable thing in itself...

Even if they are completely right, there is nothing on the earth or off it, in Heaven or in Hell, by man or nature, that can justify total control of human consumption and a government with infinite power. The band Cheap Trick predicted it nine years ago. I would sooner have climate change raise the oceans by six feet than ever, EVER give up my freedom. Or my soda. OR MY CHEESEBURGER.

Strawman.

This is exactly why I am an anthropogenic climate change skeptic. It's not the science I doubt. There is no doubt the earth is warming and the climate is changing. This is well-established, sound fact. What I doubt is that mankind can stop it and that mankind is primarily responsible for it.

That is also well-established, sound fact, and just as scientific as the other part.

The earth is not fragile. Its biosphere is not on the verge of collapse. The ONLY mass extinction that man has caused is through habitat destruction.

Nobody is claiming otherwise.

Furthermore, it's been vastly hotter than this. Those nasty CO2 expelling dinosaurs can tell you about the Paleocene Thermal Maximum.

Note that if the temperatures were that high today, humanity would die.

The worst possible scenario can easily be fought with sea walls, quay barriers, and whatever technology man cooks up by 2100 AD. I don't consider a possible six foot increase in sea levels in the twenty-second century, as forecast by people literally telling me the world will end in twelve years, live from their private jets, to be a realistic threat, nor do I care.

And the death of a few million people. And nobody is saying that the world will end in 12 years: we're saying that we need to act in the next 12 years in order to do anything to mitigate it.

There is one, and only one, primary reason I doubt AGCC: the solution proposed is the infinite expansion of government to regulate every aspect of human consumption. This includes seizure of the Means of Production, putting caps on the amount of air travel per year, and literally rationing beef. Imagine telling an American to give up his cheeseburger!

Apart from this being an outright lie, it's also directly fallacious.

Worse yet, the Paris Climate Accords will NOT lower global temperatures enough to counter the cycle.

Yes, we need something vastly more significant.

[/quote]Climate change has a literal, actual collapse cult, complete with Millinerianism doctrine, rituals, and vestments. (I made the album in the link, the second image in it is satire.)

I call it "watermelon socialism". It's green on the outside, red on the inside.[/quote]

More lies.

How do you advance an agenda in today's world? You exploit a child, of course!

She's not being exploited.

Greta Thurnberg filed complaints with the UN against several polluting nations for their contributions to AGCC. As of a few months ago, China was not one of the ones receiving. Ergo, her handlers are pushing a fraud.

China is literally not a party to the relevant treaty.

[Chan Island]

Screw your edgelord nihilism. Some of us prefer to live in a world where we don't watch millions of people suffer from crop failure and ecological collapse. And I bet if you believed you'd be one of the first to be impacted you wouldn't have such a blase attitude to it all.