Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Galla-]

If you switched off coal powerplants and replace them with nuclear reactors, you'd cut anywhere between 20% to 50% of carbon dioxide emissions by doing so. It's fucking easy to make drastic cuts to our emissions at the moment. The problem is the coal boards, oil companies, anti-nuclear campaigners and any self-righteous developing country that is taking advantage of the situation.

Anti nuclear protestors and lobbyists (including pro-coal, etc.) should just be shot out of hand really. That'd probably push a fair bit of paperwork through.

Sadly this means pretty much all of New Zealand will have to be genocided, but that comes with the territory.

[Tubbsalot]

If you switched off coal powerplants and replace them with nuclear reactors, you'd cut anywhere between 20% to 50% of carbon dioxide emissions by doing so. It's fucking easy to make drastic cuts to our emissions at the moment. The problem is the coal boards, oil companies, anti-nuclear campaigners and any self-righteous developing country that is taking advantage of the situation.

In fairness, it's not going to be easy to site all the waste which results (and waste will result, even with fuel recycling).

[Free South Califas]

You may or may not disagree with anti-nuclear protesters, but their dispute is reasonable: we don't know what to do with the waste, we can't be totally sure it's safe to just stick it in the ground like we've been doing, and dense populations are endangered by such high-stakes operations. Sure, if you're a chemistry or physics or biology professor, it's easy to say "They just need to monitor the hard water, and everything will be fine! Just don't hire buffoons for hard water monitors!" But that's easier said than done when there are palms to be greased, deregulated energy markets to be exploited, and so forth.

Blocking the inevitable and necessary transition away from coal and oil as primary sources of fuel is not reasonable. Comparing concerned citizens volunteering at anti-nuke protests to paid lobbyists for wantonly destructive industries is somewhere between ignorant and treasonous--whether you agree with them or not. More than likely, anti-nuclear protestors will be forced to continue to accept a compromise for a long time, perhaps forever. That will have likely said more about the industrial interests in their jurisdictions than the righteousness in their hearts and minds, however. They are people who care about the world around them and are willing to take action for what they believe in while others stand idly by. To equate them to paid executives and lobbyists is infuriating.

[Halloween Karaoke]

Doom and gloom is good. Doom and gloom makes people take the issue seriously.

No it doesn't. Doom and gloom does this:

So, self-mockery now? You described YOUR OWN opinion as Doom and Gloom.

Consider shaving your beard, daily. People will take you more seriously.

This won't be an issue for at least another century, which is too far away for anyone on this forum to see it and too soon to stop it, tbh. Better to just build sea walls or smth and adapt as it comes instead of saying "WE'LL ALL DIE TOMORROW IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING THIS VERY MOMENT".

Humanity has never reacted to doom and gloom that way. We only react when something forces us to. Generally when you react to things like this with "DOOM GLOOM BAWW" you get people like me, who don't give a fuck until something happens and then deal with it.

People like you, who wait until "something happens" and try to deal with it.

Homo Sapiens are not the fastest runners on Earth. They are not the most fecund, not the most resistant to changed conditions (I give that prize to ferns), nor the best at species co-operation (that would be bees, or some other hive creature).

Homo Sapiens are well up in the running for most caring of their offspring. And certainly for best users of tools, and manipulators of their environment to their own advantage ... but there's the problem. The tools and the manipulation are a double edged sword with which we can harm ourselves.

What humans excel at, and are absolutely supreme over other Earthly life, is in predicting our own futures. That is the most significant advantage in survival we have. We call it "intelligence".

If we cannot combine our individual intelligences, to predict the future for our whole species, then we're screwed. But I know we can. Language, Science, Culture, the very pride of an individual in our species says that we can, and have done, and will in the future do what is best for our species.

We can do it, and you'll be proud of youself for coming around to the common interest. I want to give you a hug, brother or sister, but you don't know who I am so that might come across as creepy. I'll put it in a spoiler:

[SanctusEmpire]

No it doesn't. Doom and gloom does this:

(Image)

So, self-mockery now? You described YOUR OWN opinion as Doom and Gloom.

Consider shaving your beard, daily. People will take you more seriously.

This won't be an issue for at least another century, which is too far away for anyone on this forum to see it and too soon to stop it, tbh. Better to just build sea walls or smth and adapt as it comes instead of saying "WE'LL ALL DIE TOMORROW IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING THIS VERY MOMENT".

Humanity has never reacted to doom and gloom that way. We only react when something forces us to. Generally when you react to things like this with "DOOM GLOOM BAWW" you get people like me, who don't give a fuck until something happens and then deal with it.

People like you, who wait until "something happens" and try to deal with it.

Homo Sapiens are not the fastest runners on Earth. They are not the most fecund, not the most resistant to changed conditions (I give that prize to ferns), nor the best at species co-operation (that would be bees, or some other hive creature).

Homo Sapiens are well up in the running for most caring of their offspring. And certainly for best users of tools, and manipulators of their environment to their own advantage ... but there's the problem. The tools and the manipulation are a double edged sword with which we can harm ourselves.

What humans excel at, and are absolutely supreme over other Earthly life, is in predicting our own futures. That is the most significant advantage in survival we have. We call it "intelligence".

If we cannot combine our individual intelligences, to predict the future for our whole species, then we're screwed. But I know we can. Language, Science, Culture, the very pride of an individual in our species says that we can, and have done, and will in the future do what is best for our species.

We can do it, and you'll be proud of youself for coming around to the common interest. I want to give you a hug, brother or sister, but you don't know who I am so that might come across as creepy. I'll put it in a spoiler:

:hug:

We are also capable of enormous amounts of greed, selfishness, and ignorance which appears to be a blessing that has only been afforded to humans. Just to make a speculation on the future we won't achieve true sustainability for at least another say 3 generations maybe?

Maybe we need an apocalypse so we can start all over again with new values. Like the machines on Terminator said. They were saving Earth from us

[Bosiu]

If you switched off coal powerplants and replace them with nuclear reactors, you'd cut anywhere between 20% to 50% of carbon dioxide emissions by doing so. It's fucking easy to make drastic cuts to our emissions at the moment. The problem is the coal boards, oil companies, anti-nuclear campaigners and any self-righteous developing country that is taking advantage of the situation.

In fairness, it's not going to be easy to site all the waste which results (and waste will result, even with fuel recycling).

Thorium reactors are better. Inherently safe and the waste only lasts several decades, not tens of thousands of years

[Costa Alegria]

Sadly this means pretty much all of New Zealand will have to be genocided, but that comes with the territory.

And, pray tell, what do we have that Australia doesn't have in infinitely vaster quantities? And anyway, nuclear power wouldn't work here. Too many volcanoes and earthquakes.

[Equestrian Democratic Republic]

Electoral democracy is not a suicide pact, and it's certainly not an end in itself. Rather, it's a means to ensuring the well-being of humanity, and there should be no hesitation to set it aside when it becomes a hindrance to that end, just as we would set aside a hammer with no compunctions when it comes time to cut a plank in two.

If the climate change deniers continue with their willfull ignorance and obstructionism, well, we are not obligated to let them sacrifice all of humanity for their own short-term private interests. Our lives are more important than their oil revenues. If saving mankind requires removing their access to the political system, should we do it?

Funny how you always speak of freedom but you advocate the oppression of anyone against your views. But to answer your question I do not think that people who disagree with you should be denied basic human rights such as voting.

[Ovisterra]

Electoral democracy is not a suicide pact, and it's certainly not an end in itself. Rather, it's a means to ensuring the well-being of humanity, and there should be no hesitation to set it aside when it becomes a hindrance to that end, just as we would set aside a hammer with no compunctions when it comes time to cut a plank in two.

If the climate change deniers continue with their willfull ignorance and obstructionism, well, we are not obligated to let them sacrifice all of humanity for their own short-term private interests. Our lives are more important than their oil revenues. If saving mankind requires removing their access to the political system, should we do it?

Funny how you always speak of freedom but you advocate the oppression of anyone against your views. But to answer your question I do not think that people who disagree with you should be denied basic human rights such as voting.

(It's worth noting that I do not agree with FDB's idea, before I say anything)

This isn't a matter of oppressing those who do not agree with him, but a matter of refusing to listen to those who have displayed obvious willful ignorance and refusal to accept facts just because they're uncomfortable.

[Free Soviets]

If you switched off coal powerplants and replace them with nuclear reactors, you'd cut anywhere between 20% to 50% of carbon dioxide emissions by doing so. It's fucking easy to make drastic cuts to our emissions at the moment. The problem is the coal boards, oil companies, anti-nuclear campaigners and any self-righteous developing country that is taking advantage of the situation.

In fairness, it's not going to be easy to site all the waste which results (and waste will result, even with fuel recycling).

well, we could just do what they do with the even more radioactive coal waste. just dump it into the air, water supply, and open pits.


also, zombies and necromancers, etc.

[Meridiani Planum]

If saving mankind requires removing their access to the political system, should we do it?

Please just say that you don't like democracy and get it over with.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I like real democracy. But electoral pseudo-democracy isn't compatible with that.

[Ad-Liberal]

Oh absolutely! Climate Change deniers are pretty much just like Holocaust deniers when it comes down to it. I'm all for free speech, but speech about stuff that most people disagree with has no place in the modern world. Al Gore already said the debate on Global Warming...er...Climate Change is over, so that means that it is illegal to argue against it now. We can argue over the little things like how there can be record-setting cold temperatures when the earth is warming, but no one can disagree with the fact that Climate Change is a fact!

[Fintanland]

Oh absolutely! Climate Change deniers are pretty much just like Holocaust deniers when it comes down to it. I'm all for free speech, but speech about stuff that most people disagree with has no place in the modern world. Al Gore already said the debate on Global Warming...er...Climate Change is over, so that means that it is illegal to argue against it now. We can argue over the little things like how there can be record-setting cold temperatures when the earth is warming, but no one can disagree with the fact that Climate Change is a fact!

If that was an attempt at sarcasm, you did not do very well. Live and learn, young adept.

[Xeng He]

Then what do you propose we do, if the climate change deniers continue their stubbornness indefinitely and continue to promote humanity's destruction for their own private interests?

"Yes, those damn atheists shouldn't have control over the lord's state. They shouldn't be allowed to degrade our society's moral fabric"

The two actually aren't equal, so long as the methods used to force one are different than the methods used to force the other.

[Caninope]

In fairness, it's not going to be easy to site all the waste which results (and waste will result, even with fuel recycling).

Thorium reactors are better. Inherently safe and the waste only lasts several decades, not tens of thousands of years

Oddly enough, that doesn't make it "inherently safe".

You see, you can never actually rid yourself of radioactive material. You can only get rid of half of it. That's why it's called a "half-life".

Secondly, a shorter half life means more energy, and thus more radioactivity. In fact, during the thorium fuel cycle, a gamma radiation is released through the release of products like radon.

[Oppressorion]

Yes, I can agree with this. We know that climate change exists, therefore deniers are wrong. Wrong people shouldn't vote. Wrong people are a threat. Threats should be dealt with...for the good of the world.

We know that homosexuality is bad, therefore civil rights activists are wrong. Wrong people shouldn't vote. Wrong people are a threat. Threats should be dealt with...for the good of the world.

[Ovisterra]

We know that homosexuality is bad,

Eh, no we don't.

[Free Soviets]

Yes, I can agree with this. We know that climate change exists, therefore deniers are wrong. Wrong people shouldn't vote. Wrong people are a threat. Threats should be dealt with...for the good of the world.

We know that homosexuality is bad, therefore civil rights activists are wrong. Wrong people shouldn't vote. Wrong people are a threat. Threats should be dealt with...for the good of the world.

problem 1: we know that climate change is going to certainly cause unimaginable suffering and is probably going to collapse global civilization if we don't start responding to it at the hitler-marching-on-europe scale right this fucking second. on the other hand, we don't have any reason to think homosexuality is wrong at all - if anything, it seems to be a large social good for homosexuality to be warmly accepted.

problem 2: this slope is not that slippery. at a certain level of danger, everyone who isn't insane must be willing to give up democratic ideals to preserve civilization. in slogan form, you shall not crucify mankind on a cross of naive idealism. the argument in this thread is really saying that the threat posed by climate change is well past the danger level where we already expect and allow democratic freedoms to be severely curtailed (during invasions and the like, for instance).

[Caninope]

We know that homosexuality is bad,

Eh, no we don't.

I think he was being facetious.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Oh absolutely! Climate Change deniers are pretty much just like Holocaust deniers when it comes down to it. I'm all for free speech, but speech about stuff that most people disagree with has no place in the modern world. Al Gore already said the debate on Global Warming...er...Climate Change is over, so that means that it is illegal to argue against it now. We can argue over the little things like how there can be record-setting cold temperatures when the earth is warming, but no one can disagree with the fact that Climate Change is a fact!

If that was an attempt at sarcasm, you did not do very well. Live and learn, young adept.

I rather enjoyed it, myself.
He illustrates the absurdity of science being a matter of consensus quite well.
I believe we can dispose of climate change in the same dust bin as the Earth being flat and the solar system being geo-centric, as they were both known to be true, until proven wrong.

[Tmutarakhan]

If you switched off coal powerplants and replace them with nuclear reactors, you'd cut anywhere between 20% to 50% of carbon dioxide emissions by doing so. It's fucking easy to make drastic cuts to our emissions at the moment. The problem is the coal boards, oil companies, anti-nuclear campaigners and any self-righteous developing country that is taking advantage of the situation.

Anti nuclear protestors and lobbyists (including pro-coal, etc.) should just be shot out of hand really. That'd probably push a fair bit of paperwork through.

Sadly this means pretty much all of New Zealand will have to be genocided, but that comes with the territory.

Well, then we can declare it the Palestinian homeland, so it would be win-win, really.

[Free Soviets]

I believe we can dispose of climate change in the same dust bin as the Earth being flat and the solar system being geo-centric, as they were both known to be true, until proven wrong.

and there you have it. conclusive proof that climate change is both happening and catastrophic if left unchecked. because if you-gi says it, it has to be false.

[You-Gi-Owe]

I believe we can dispose of climate change in the same dust bin as the Earth being flat and the solar system being geo-centric, as they were both known to be true, until proven wrong.

and there you have it. conclusive proof that climate change is both happening and catastrophic if left unchecked. because if you-gi says it, it has to be false.

You're a genius, everyone loves you, you're never going to die and you will bodily enter into your own personal heaven.

[Sobaeg]

If you switched off coal powerplants and replace them with nuclear reactors, you'd cut anywhere between 20% to 50% of carbon dioxide emissions by doing so. It's fucking easy to make drastic cuts to our emissions at the moment. The problem is the coal boards, oil companies, anti-nuclear campaigners and any self-righteous developing country that is taking advantage of the situation.

Anti nuclear protestors and lobbyists (including pro-coal, etc.) should just be shot out of hand really. That'd probably push a fair bit of paperwork through.

Sadly this means pretty much all of New Zealand will have to be genocided, but that comes with the territory.

Are you going to raise all those sheep?