Can someone explain to me why everyone is making such a big deal about climate change deniers in office when the damage that has been done is irreversible?Don't get me wrong, I believe climate change is very real, and I think protecting the environment is an important thing, but to say there's hope at this point is delusional -- you people are the REAL climate change deniers.
Quote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 03:48:04 PMCan someone explain to me why everyone is making such a big deal about climate change deniers in office when the damage that has been done is irreversible?Don't get me wrong, I believe climate change is very real, and I think protecting the environment is an important thing, but to say there's hope at this point is delusional -- you people are the REAL climate change deniers.Should we leave forest fires alone once they've destroyed a few houses? Damage is already done, no point in trying to rein them in anymore at that point.
Quote from: 「Prime」 on November 11, 2016, 03:59:39 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 03:48:04 PMCan someone explain to me why everyone is making such a big deal about climate change deniers in office when the damage that has been done is irreversible?Don't get me wrong, I believe climate change is very real, and I think protecting the environment is an important thing, but to say there's hope at this point is delusional -- you people are the REAL climate change deniers.Should we leave forest fires alone once they've destroyed a few houses? Damage is already done, no point in trying to rein them in anymore at that point.Global disruption and destruction of ecosystems can hardly be compared to a forest fire.
Nihilists belong in a landfill.
Quote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:01:48 PMQuote from: 「Prime」 on November 11, 2016, 03:59:39 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 03:48:04 PMCan someone explain to me why everyone is making such a big deal about climate change deniers in office when the damage that has been done is irreversible?Don't get me wrong, I believe climate change is very real, and I think protecting the environment is an important thing, but to say there's hope at this point is delusional -- you people are the REAL climate change deniers.Should we leave forest fires alone once they've destroyed a few houses? Damage is already done, no point in trying to rein them in anymore at that point.Global disruption and destruction of ecosystems can hardly be compared to a forest fire.When your argument is "we've already done the damage, no point in trying anymore" it kind of is. It's not a matter of reversibility, it's limiting the damage we've already doled out, eg the Amazon will never be the same but we can at least preserve what's left.
If I was nihilistic about this, it would mean that I would not care, nor would I post it to begin with.
No, my argument is "we've already completely destroyed it
Quote from: 「Prime」 on November 11, 2016, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:01:48 PMQuote from: 「Prime」 on November 11, 2016, 03:59:39 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 03:48:04 PMCan someone explain to me why everyone is making such a big deal about climate change deniers in office when the damage that has been done is irreversible?Don't get me wrong, I believe climate change is very real, and I think protecting the environment is an important thing, but to say there's hope at this point is delusional -- you people are the REAL climate change deniers.Should we leave forest fires alone once they've destroyed a few houses? Damage is already done, no point in trying to rein them in anymore at that point.Global disruption and destruction of ecosystems can hardly be compared to a forest fire.When your argument is "we've already done the damage, no point in trying anymore" it kind of is. It's not a matter of reversibility, it's limiting the damage we've already doled out, eg the Amazon will never be the same but we can at least preserve what's left.No, my argument is "we've already completely destroyed it and then some, no point in trying anymore".
Quote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:11:18 PMIf I was nihilistic about this, it would mean that I would not care, nor would I post it to begin with.You also wouldn't do anything because it's physically impossible to go full nihilist. The bottom line is that you're still an attention-craving human being just like everybody else, and because you're an angsty twenty-something on the Internet, you still have some nihilistic tendencies. Like saying climate change doesn't matter because the world is fucked anyway. Call it "pessimistic defeatism" or whatever you want--I'll call it what it is.Quote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:14:41 PMNo, my argument is "we've already completely destroyed itThen you're just factually wrong.
Quote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:14:41 PMQuote from: 「Prime」 on November 11, 2016, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:01:48 PMQuote from: 「Prime」 on November 11, 2016, 03:59:39 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 03:48:04 PMCan someone explain to me why everyone is making such a big deal about climate change deniers in office when the damage that has been done is irreversible?Don't get me wrong, I believe climate change is very real, and I think protecting the environment is an important thing, but to say there's hope at this point is delusional -- you people are the REAL climate change deniers.Should we leave forest fires alone once they've destroyed a few houses? Damage is already done, no point in trying to rein them in anymore at that point.Global disruption and destruction of ecosystems can hardly be compared to a forest fire.When your argument is "we've already done the damage, no point in trying anymore" it kind of is. It's not a matter of reversibility, it's limiting the damage we've already doled out, eg the Amazon will never be the same but we can at least preserve what's left.No, my argument is "we've already completely destroyed it and then some, no point in trying anymore".Like Flee said, it's still a heavily researched subject and many still believe that limiting the damage is a possibility. It's not already completely gone, either; ocean's still rising, ice is still melting, average temperature is still rising. If we don't do something about it, it might be catastrophic by 2100. But there would still be land, ice, etc, just significantly less.
Quote from: 「Prime」 on November 11, 2016, 04:22:04 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:14:41 PMQuote from: 「Prime」 on November 11, 2016, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:01:48 PMQuote from: 「Prime」 on November 11, 2016, 03:59:39 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 03:48:04 PMCan someone explain to me why everyone is making such a big deal about climate change deniers in office when the damage that has been done is irreversible?Don't get me wrong, I believe climate change is very real, and I think protecting the environment is an important thing, but to say there's hope at this point is delusional -- you people are the REAL climate change deniers.Should we leave forest fires alone once they've destroyed a few houses? Damage is already done, no point in trying to rein them in anymore at that point.Global disruption and destruction of ecosystems can hardly be compared to a forest fire.When your argument is "we've already done the damage, no point in trying anymore" it kind of is. It's not a matter of reversibility, it's limiting the damage we've already doled out, eg the Amazon will never be the same but we can at least preserve what's left.No, my argument is "we've already completely destroyed it and then some, no point in trying anymore".Like Flee said, it's still a heavily researched subject and many still believe that limiting the damage is a possibility. It's not already completely gone, either; ocean's still rising, ice is still melting, average temperature is still rising. If we don't do something about it, it might be catastrophic by 2100. But there would still be land, ice, etc, just significantly less.Well, that's the optimistic side of it -- you also have the pessimists whose tone sounds like something along the lines of what I've been saying.
Quote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:23:19 PMAnyway, if people decide to wake up, make an effort on conserving the environment, and it turns out I was wrong, and we actually save it? Good. Wonderful. I couldn't be happier about being wrong.Then why do you rule it out altogether, though? There's thousands upon thousands of experts and scientists out there who are vastly more knowledgeable on this topic than you or I will ever be. The fact that they still present solutions, support policy reducing pollution and that we're still seeing a ton of research appearing on this topic should kind of tell us that no, this isn't a done deal and that we're not guaranteed to be irreversibly fucked by an environmental catastrophy soon. Your comments would suggest that the entire scientific world has thrown their hands in the air and went "well, might as well just stop caring altogether because we're fucked", when that really couldn't be farther from the truth. So yeah, I'd say that it's extremely valid for people to still care about who we put in charge of our environmental policy and that even though we've already caused some irreversible damage to the environment, leaving its future up to people who have literally made a living on selling pseudo-science and "fighting" environmental protectionists is a pretty damn bad idea.
Anyway, if people decide to wake up, make an effort on conserving the environment, and it turns out I was wrong, and we actually save it? Good. Wonderful. I couldn't be happier about being wrong.
Are there sources for any of these beyond pure speculation?
Quote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:38:55 PMQuote from: Flee on November 11, 2016, 04:31:34 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:23:19 PMAnyway, if people decide to wake up, make an effort on conserving the environment, and it turns out I was wrong, and we actually save it? Good. Wonderful. I couldn't be happier about being wrong.Then why do you rule it out altogether, though? There's thousands upon thousands of experts and scientists out there who are vastly more knowledgeable on this topic than you or I will ever be. The fact that they still present solutions, support policy reducing pollution and that we're still seeing a ton of research appearing on this topic should kind of tell us that no, this isn't a done deal and that we're not guaranteed to be irreversibly fucked by an environmental catastrophy soon. Your comments would suggest that the entire scientific world has thrown their hands in the air and went "well, might as well just stop caring altogether because we're fucked", when that really couldn't be farther from the truth. So yeah, I'd say that it's extremely valid for people to still care about who we put in charge of our environmental policy and that even though we've already caused some irreversible damage to the environment, leaving its future up to people who have literally made a living on selling pseudo-science and "fighting" environmental protectionists is a pretty damn bad idea.That's a fair point. I guess while we're still here it can't hurt to try.Although, I think that Trump's cabinet will become more educated on these issues as they settle down -- I'm sure it's common knowledge that these people are lacking in the experience department. But you know what? Experience can be gained, and I think we should give them a chance.Damn you are one retarded motherfucker. It has nothing to do with experience. It's the fact they outright deny any of these problems even exist because they'll get their pockets filled by the oil barons when they destroy climate change policies Obama has put into effect. Do everybody a favor and don't post in Serious again.
Quote from: Flee on November 11, 2016, 04:31:34 PMQuote from: clum clum on November 11, 2016, 04:23:19 PMAnyway, if people decide to wake up, make an effort on conserving the environment, and it turns out I was wrong, and we actually save it? Good. Wonderful. I couldn't be happier about being wrong.Then why do you rule it out altogether, though? There's thousands upon thousands of experts and scientists out there who are vastly more knowledgeable on this topic than you or I will ever be. The fact that they still present solutions, support policy reducing pollution and that we're still seeing a ton of research appearing on this topic should kind of tell us that no, this isn't a done deal and that we're not guaranteed to be irreversibly fucked by an environmental catastrophy soon. Your comments would suggest that the entire scientific world has thrown their hands in the air and went "well, might as well just stop caring altogether because we're fucked", when that really couldn't be farther from the truth. So yeah, I'd say that it's extremely valid for people to still care about who we put in charge of our environmental policy and that even though we've already caused some irreversible damage to the environment, leaving its future up to people who have literally made a living on selling pseudo-science and "fighting" environmental protectionists is a pretty damn bad idea.That's a fair point. I guess while we're still here it can't hurt to try.Although, I think that Trump's cabinet will become more educated on these issues as they settle down -- I'm sure it's common knowledge that these people are lacking in the experience department. But you know what? Experience can be gained, and I think we should give them a chance.
Trump's cabinet
