People just haven't gotten creative about how to hide wind turbines from view yet. For instance, if NZ builds those giant Kings of the North outstretched hand statues from Lord of the Rings, no one will notice if they have wind turbine blades sticking out of their palms.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Global warming discussion V
- Thread starter lobosrul5
- Start date
It sounds as if the tech sector actually wants to ruin the climate.
Last edited:
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,952
Best of all, develop an AI graphics program to edit them out!
I'll have a talk to Jacko and tell him next movie he makes to put some turbines in to get people used to them. Maybe Smaug could use wind power to help guard his den?
...in real time, when looking through smart glasses.
I'm sure that that approach couldn't possibly lead to any dystopian future or nothin'.
Might it be worth the drop in efficiency to add rings or trailing streamers with timed LED lights to make wind turbines look like giant daisies or lollipops?
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,952
That's actually genius!
LED lights use so little power it wouldn't matter. One of my clients does all the fancy lights at the local stadium and it costs bugger all.
You could have them lit up in any configuration you like. I'd be 100% for it.
Uncomfortable changes – the austerity argument revisited
I seriously doubt that Myriad is talking about the power used by imaginary LED lights. The aerodynamics of wind turbine blades is serious business.
Anyway, on a serious note:
Myriad, I think that you have probably given up on the austerity argument at this point.
However, many people out there are still pushing it, like this one guy on Bluesky, InTheMox.
Here with a bit of context:
Can you see the trick of (or, possibly, the trap you fall into with) this argument?
Can you see why it's necessary to point out to these people (and the people who listen to them) that they don't have to make "uncomfortable changes" for the sake of their grandchildren? That it's completely unnecessary?
There are no uncomfortable changes to be made for the sake of grandchildren or anybody else – except, of course, for the owners of fossil fuel companies whose stock value is going to drop. They don't like that. They want to prevent that from happening.
And so, they are more than happy to see people spread that liethat in order to fight CO2 emissions and thus anthropogenic global warming we'll all have to take cold showers, make sacrifices, and make uncomfortable changes. The shift to wind and solar actually means the opposite: cheaper electricity without the damaging CO2 emissions. Hot showers (and AC in the summer) without having to feel guilty about adding to global warming.
The fossil-fuel industry doesn't want that because it ruins their earnings.
So ◊◊◊◊ the fossil-fuel industry and their climate-destroying lies.
I seriously doubt that Myriad is talking about the power used by imaginary LED lights. The aerodynamics of wind turbine blades is serious business.
Anyway, on a serious note:
Myriad, I think that you have probably given up on the austerity argument at this point.
However, many people out there are still pushing it, like this one guy on Bluesky, InTheMox.
Here with a bit of context:
InTheMoxPart Owner of Canada
also agree. i have no grandchildren and i am greatly relieved by that. so many people can’t make a connection between grandchildren having a future and making uncomfortable changes now
Can you see the trick of (or, possibly, the trap you fall into with) this argument?
Can you see why it's necessary to point out to these people (and the people who listen to them) that they don't have to make "uncomfortable changes" for the sake of their grandchildren? That it's completely unnecessary?
There are no uncomfortable changes to be made for the sake of grandchildren or anybody else – except, of course, for the owners of fossil fuel companies whose stock value is going to drop. They don't like that. They want to prevent that from happening.
And so, they are more than happy to see people spread that liethat in order to fight CO2 emissions and thus anthropogenic global warming we'll all have to take cold showers, make sacrifices, and make uncomfortable changes. The shift to wind and solar actually means the opposite: cheaper electricity without the damaging CO2 emissions. Hot showers (and AC in the summer) without having to feel guilty about adding to global warming.
The fossil-fuel industry doesn't want that because it ruins their earnings.
So ◊◊◊◊ the fossil-fuel industry and their climate-destroying lies.
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,680
It is true that we have to change, but the end result could be a whole lot better than what we have now.
People should stop talking about what we have to give up and instead talk about what we can get.
People should stop talking about what we have to give up and instead talk about what we can get.
And my point is that those of us who are in the middle of the transition to renewables are already doing better with what we have now! Why wouldn't we?!
It's a truth that scares the ◊◊◊◊ out of the fossil-fuel lobby and the politicians they pay.
'They are coming to make your life uncomfortable' is the argument of Trump and his cronies.
It's not the argument of climate scientists or climate activists.
As for Myriad, it's impossible to know if he argued for cold showers because he owns fossil-fuel stock or if he was seriously trying to make people do something that he thought would be good for the environment.
The effect of his argument would be the same no matter what his intentions might be.
Austerity for the masses is a conservative and/or fascist argument.
Trump wants to limit kids to three dolls and five pencils each. He's right. | Opinion (USA Today, May 6, 2025)
The author of the article isn't serious! If in doubt, there's this line:
But climate activists are supposed to be the ones who want to make ordinary people's lives uncomfortable!
Yeah, right!
It is quite common to hear the battle cry:
"People are unwilling to make sacrifices! That's why we are where we are, and that's why nothing can be done."
Ordinary people are actually much too willing to make sacrifices. It's their biggest mistake! It's not a problem of human nature, of selfishness.
Ordinary people shouldn't be willing to make sacrifices. Instead, they should make the people who actually make their lives (and potentially the lives of their children and grandchildren) miserable pay. They should make Big Oil pay. They should make Big Oil's stock worthless.
It's a truth that scares the ◊◊◊◊ out of the fossil-fuel lobby and the politicians they pay.
'They are coming to make your life uncomfortable' is the argument of Trump and his cronies.
It's not the argument of climate scientists or climate activists.
As for Myriad, it's impossible to know if he argued for cold showers because he owns fossil-fuel stock or if he was seriously trying to make people do something that he thought would be good for the environment.
The effect of his argument would be the same no matter what his intentions might be.
Austerity for the masses is a conservative and/or fascist argument.
Trump wants to limit kids to three dolls and five pencils each. He's right. | Opinion (USA Today, May 6, 2025)
The author of the article isn't serious! If in doubt, there's this line:
"This is a time of 'shared sacrifice,' say the people who aren't sacrificing"
And the most recent example:But climate activists are supposed to be the ones who want to make ordinary people's lives uncomfortable!
Yeah, right!
It is quite common to hear the battle cry:
"People are unwilling to make sacrifices! That's why we are where we are, and that's why nothing can be done."
Ordinary people are actually much too willing to make sacrifices. It's their biggest mistake! It's not a problem of human nature, of selfishness.
Ordinary people shouldn't be willing to make sacrifices. Instead, they should make the people who actually make their lives (and potentially the lives of their children and grandchildren) miserable pay. They should make Big Oil pay. They should make Big Oil's stock worthless.
Last edited:
Austerity update:
Russia is trying out some austerity, of a similar kind as it's been inflicting on Ukraine. Petroleum production and consumption there are way down. We'll see how that works out for them. Maybe it'll be the opportunity they've been waiting for to all switch to solar panels and electric vehicles. Because that's really easy to do and doesn't require massive amounts of capital.
The corporate owners of Las Vegas have decided that pricing average tourists out of the place and catering only to the rich is better for their bottom line. This is a positive development environmentally, reducing carbon from highway traffic from LA and from airline trips.
There's no difference whatsoever between parents or the government limiting a little girl to three dolls, and a grown woman limiting herself to 20 Stanley cups. Either one would cripple the consumer economy. Of course, no one cares about the cups since that was last year's thing. "In the end the whole world bought one/all were gone/by which time we merchandisers/had moved on." - Chess
Dann continues to lie about what I've actually said about cold showers. I continue to take cold showers, they continue to feel great, my formerly lifelong affliction with eczema continues to be in full remission, and I continue to be able to enjoy swimming when the air or water is too cold for most others to enjoy (which is most of the time, here in New England).
I think a lot of people who exercise, diet, study, or practice skills when they could be out shopping and consuming would be surprised to learn that they, too, were engaging in economically destructive austerity. Going into debt to buy overpriced poor quality fast food and overpriced kids' toys for them to "collect" and never play with is important to show the greedly oligarchs that you're not about to be tricked into giving up your convenience or your kids' well-being. Never mind that they're the ones profiting from both the overpriced products and the debt. Cooking your own food or buying fewer labubus would be austerity, just playing into their hands!
Russia is trying out some austerity, of a similar kind as it's been inflicting on Ukraine. Petroleum production and consumption there are way down. We'll see how that works out for them. Maybe it'll be the opportunity they've been waiting for to all switch to solar panels and electric vehicles. Because that's really easy to do and doesn't require massive amounts of capital.
The corporate owners of Las Vegas have decided that pricing average tourists out of the place and catering only to the rich is better for their bottom line. This is a positive development environmentally, reducing carbon from highway traffic from LA and from airline trips.
There's no difference whatsoever between parents or the government limiting a little girl to three dolls, and a grown woman limiting herself to 20 Stanley cups. Either one would cripple the consumer economy. Of course, no one cares about the cups since that was last year's thing. "In the end the whole world bought one/all were gone/by which time we merchandisers/had moved on." - Chess
Dann continues to lie about what I've actually said about cold showers. I continue to take cold showers, they continue to feel great, my formerly lifelong affliction with eczema continues to be in full remission, and I continue to be able to enjoy swimming when the air or water is too cold for most others to enjoy (which is most of the time, here in New England).
I think a lot of people who exercise, diet, study, or practice skills when they could be out shopping and consuming would be surprised to learn that they, too, were engaging in economically destructive austerity. Going into debt to buy overpriced poor quality fast food and overpriced kids' toys for them to "collect" and never play with is important to show the greedly oligarchs that you're not about to be tricked into giving up your convenience or your kids' well-being. Never mind that they're the ones profiting from both the overpriced products and the debt. Cooking your own food or buying fewer labubus would be austerity, just playing into their hands!
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,680
the people who should make biggest sacrifice wouldn't even notice it - after 2 mansions a supercar and a yacht, every extra is pathological hoarding, not wealth.
That's what the 90% say about the 10%. Good to see the 10% passing the buck and kicking the responsibility upstairs.
I wonder if the 1% complain about the 0.1? Bet they do and the natural progression is to kick it all the way to the top and hold Elon Musk personally responsible for climate change.
World's Richest 10% Are Costing Earth Trillions, Study Finds
We've heard that the world's wealthiest 10 percent are disproportionately responsible for environmental damage.
www.sciencealert.com
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,680
Everyone should kick the responsibility upstairs until there is nothing further up.
That's where the power and money is.
Once they have been relieved of both and no longer on top, you can go after the layer below.
This is the way to get the biggest support and the biggest result for the least effort.
It's very obvious
That's where the power and money is.
Once they have been relieved of both and no longer on top, you can go after the layer below.
This is the way to get the biggest support and the biggest result for the least effort.
It's very obvious
I apologize for the length of this post, but y'all know how it is, i.e. Brandolini's law (Wikipedia) – not to be confused with Brangelina's law, which is something else entirely and, according to Google AI, something I just made up.
However, what has been happening (and not happening) in the USA shows that the problem really isn't that it requires "massive amounts of capital."
On the contrary, massive amounts of capital are being invested in persuading private companies to invest in fossil fuels (like "Beautiful Clean Coal") instead of in solar and wind. Companies are being paid massive amounts to accomplish this. This is accompanied by lies about the alleged inefficiency and costs of wind and solar, which may be what have misled you to portray the "switch to solar panels and electric vehicles" as requiring massive amounts of capital.
IRL, wind and solar, once installed, make electricity a hell or a lot cheaper, which is supposed to the be-all and end-all" of capitalism. In the USA, however, this is not how capitalism works.
As I said in post 2,326:
In Denmark, in contrast to the USA, the switch to wind and solar has actually been "really easy to do." I personally haven't had to lift a finger to make it happen, and I don't know anybody who has.
By the way, do you have a fact sheet about how much Stanley cups and plastic dolls contribute to global warming? I mean, it would be interesting in the context of this thread, wouldn't it?
Or is it just meant to make ordinary people's consumption seem frivolous and unnecessary? By the way, I don't think people living paycheck-to-paycheck buy an awful lot of Stanley cups.
No, they shouldn't! Nobody is preventing you from taking cold showers, as many as you want,nobody wants you to stop taking cold showers, but don't try to force your cold-shower regiment on everybody else, who doesn't want them!
I have shown you the facts about electricity and renewables in Denmark! Our hot showers do very little (and very soon nothing at all) to increase global warming because our water is made hot by means of renewables.
Overpriced? How do you measure if something is priced right or overpriced? You don't! It's simply your moralistic way of condemning (always ordinary) people's consumption. They don't go into debt because they can't pay hospital bills or because the housing market is owned by extortionists finding ever new ways to increase rent.
Exercising, dieting, studying or practicing skills has nothing at all to do with "engaging in economically destructive austerity." They are all marketable products directed at consumers whose lives as wage slaves make them sick unless they spend some of their 'free' time compensating for what life in capitalism does to them.
In this thread and in the one about the obesity epidemic I have shown how infrastructure contributes to making people's lives miiserable and how little it takes to change that. I have shown how riding a bike can me made appealing. In most places, it isn't. But you don't care about this because you are obsessed with blaming people for not wanting to expose themselves to uncomfortable and unappealing kinds of life and exercise.
Your anti-consumerism is fascism pretending to be (kind of) progressive: People shouldn't want to have comfortable lives. They should be willing to sacrifice their low-level consumption – because that, according to you, is "economically destructive," which, I assume, is your very weird brand of 'anti-establishmentism', which nevertheless manages to align with Trump's anti-consumerism and anti-affordability slogans, be it about dolls or complaints about ordinary (= poor) people's selfishness and unwillingness to sacrifice their few creature comforts.
What toys do rich people buy? (ToySeek, May 29, 2024)
6 Most Expensive Things the Rich Buy for Their Kids (AOL, May 19, 2024)
TOP 5 MOST EXPENSIVE KIDS TOYS (Infinite on YouTube, Dec 16, 2016 – 7:48 min.)
Your post oozes of resentment and sarcasm, and it's devoid of facts. You are not even trying to be specific. I have no idea what your reference to the Ukraine war is supposed to mean or how it's supposed to be relevant in this context. As for the last sentence, which is obviously sarcastic, it shows that your whole point (and probably not just in this post) is to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables like wind and solar look insurmountable and imply that I have made it look too easy.
However, what has been happening (and not happening) in the USA shows that the problem really isn't that it requires "massive amounts of capital."
On the contrary, massive amounts of capital are being invested in persuading private companies to invest in fossil fuels (like "Beautiful Clean Coal") instead of in solar and wind. Companies are being paid massive amounts to accomplish this. This is accompanied by lies about the alleged inefficiency and costs of wind and solar, which may be what have misled you to portray the "switch to solar panels and electric vehicles" as requiring massive amounts of capital.
IRL, wind and solar, once installed, make electricity a hell or a lot cheaper, which is supposed to the be-all and end-all" of capitalism. In the USA, however, this is not how capitalism works.
As I said in post 2,326:
In the USA, the current version of capitalism is to bribe politicians to subsidize whatever it is you want to sell – to the detriment of the consumers. And it seems to be working extremely well for the bribers as well as the bribees but not for 99 percent of the population.
In Denmark, in contrast to the USA, the switch to wind and solar has actually been "really easy to do." I personally haven't had to lift a finger to make it happen, and I don't know anybody who has.
The Great Zaganza already commented on this piece of cynicism, but it's typical of you to always approve of whatever it is that may makes things difficult for everybody who isn't rich.
Yes, advertising (nowadays supported by the niche industry of influencers) makes people buy ridiculous, ugly ◊◊◊◊, which you want to present as the problem – unlike the mega-yachts and private jets of the Epstein class.
By the way, do you have a fact sheet about how much Stanley cups and plastic dolls contribute to global warming? I mean, it would be interesting in the context of this thread, wouldn't it?
Or is it just meant to make ordinary people's consumption seem frivolous and unnecessary? By the way, I don't think people living paycheck-to-paycheck buy an awful lot of Stanley cups.
Good for you, but you don't seem to understand that your enjoyment of cold showers doesn't translate to the rest of the population, so what's the point other than: 'Well, if I like it, so should everybody else!'
No, they shouldn't! Nobody is preventing you from taking cold showers, as many as you want,nobody wants you to stop taking cold showers, but don't try to force your cold-shower regiment on everybody else, who doesn't want them!
I have shown you the facts about electricity and renewables in Denmark! Our hot showers do very little (and very soon nothing at all) to increase global warming because our water is made hot by means of renewables.
Overpriced? How do you measure if something is priced right or overpriced? You don't! It's simply your moralistic way of condemning (always ordinary) people's consumption. They don't go into debt because they can't pay hospital bills or because the housing market is owned by extortionists finding ever new ways to increase rent.
Exercising, dieting, studying or practicing skills has nothing at all to do with "engaging in economically destructive austerity." They are all marketable products directed at consumers whose lives as wage slaves make them sick unless they spend some of their 'free' time compensating for what life in capitalism does to them.
In this thread and in the one about the obesity epidemic I have shown how infrastructure contributes to making people's lives miiserable and how little it takes to change that. I have shown how riding a bike can me made appealing. In most places, it isn't. But you don't care about this because you are obsessed with blaming people for not wanting to expose themselves to uncomfortable and unappealing kinds of life and exercise.
Your anti-consumerism is fascism pretending to be (kind of) progressive: People shouldn't want to have comfortable lives. They should be willing to sacrifice their low-level consumption – because that, according to you, is "economically destructive," which, I assume, is your very weird brand of 'anti-establishmentism', which nevertheless manages to align with Trump's anti-consumerism and anti-affordability slogans, be it about dolls or complaints about ordinary (= poor) people's selfishness and unwillingness to sacrifice their few creature comforts.
What toys do rich people buy? (ToySeek, May 29, 2024)
6 Most Expensive Things the Rich Buy for Their Kids (AOL, May 19, 2024)
TOP 5 MOST EXPENSIVE KIDS TOYS (Infinite on YouTube, Dec 16, 2016 – 7:48 min.)
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,680
I, personally, find it a bit pathetic when people think they need to defend the Rich& Powerful.
I think it's the both a Right and an Obligation in a free society to ◊◊◊◊ on the Rich and Powerful as much as possible at every opportunity, because we no longer have mandatory Court Jesters or slaves whispering to them that they are only human.
It is a public service for the Rich and Powerful to remind them that their are things all their money can't buy.
This current crops of rich douchbags is the worst, looking for personal immortality instead of through massive works of philanthropy.
I truly am not jealous - I think Musk lives a sad, pathetic life. When you have hundreds of billions but have to lie about your gaming skills, whatever you are doing is clearly not making you happy or gives you a sense of accomplishment.
Musk could easily safe Venice or the Maldives from the effects of climate change, or massively reduced global child poverty and hunger, and he would get statues everywhere and generations of babies named after him.
Instead he thinks his legacy will be assured by having a breeding farm of women he had artificially inseminated.
Who in the world who is not in an existential risk would want to swap with that?
I think it's the both a Right and an Obligation in a free society to ◊◊◊◊ on the Rich and Powerful as much as possible at every opportunity, because we no longer have mandatory Court Jesters or slaves whispering to them that they are only human.
It is a public service for the Rich and Powerful to remind them that their are things all their money can't buy.
This current crops of rich douchbags is the worst, looking for personal immortality instead of through massive works of philanthropy.
I truly am not jealous - I think Musk lives a sad, pathetic life. When you have hundreds of billions but have to lie about your gaming skills, whatever you are doing is clearly not making you happy or gives you a sense of accomplishment.
Musk could easily safe Venice or the Maldives from the effects of climate change, or massively reduced global child poverty and hunger, and he would get statues everywhere and generations of babies named after him.
Instead he thinks his legacy will be assured by having a breeding farm of women he had artificially inseminated.
Who in the world who is not in an existential risk would want to swap with that?
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,680
and it is hilarious that people still think we should look for money anywhere but in the pockets of the super, mega and ultra rich.
There is a direct, obvious causation between countries getting poorer and individuals getting richer.
That this can only be a one-way street is a mind-boggling level of successful propaganda.
There is a direct, obvious causation between countries getting poorer and individuals getting richer.
That this can only be a one-way street is a mind-boggling level of successful propaganda.
Ah, REVOLUTION!!!!
What kind of revolution are we talking about here?
A storm the Capitol, eat the rich type?
Or a gobble up fossil fuels while complaining about Taylor Swift's jet on Facebook type?
While waiting for "someone to do something" I figure I'll just fire up the Dodge Ram, head out to pick up a bunch of thick juicy rib eyes for the propane barbecue. move the air conditioner outside and have a kick ass barbecue safe in the knowledge that nothing I'm doing, or the other 100 million people doing the same thing are in any way responsible for climate change.
I'll even wear my Che Guevara shirt. Viva la revolución
The funny thing is that Myriad never directly defends "the Rich& Powerful." In every post, he attacks the poor instead.
It's the eternal self-contradictory message that poor people spend too much money and consume too much – always popular with the upper classes and those who align themselves with the upper classes, i.e. those who dream of being them.
It's the message that Oscar Wilde turned upside down with his aphoristic parody: Work is the curse of the drinking classes.
'If it weren't for all the frivolous spending of poor people, they could live perfectly happy lives of healthy austerity. They should be exercising, dieting, studying, or practicing skills instead of spending all the money they don't have on things they like. Just like me.´
It's the reason why it's also impossible for guys like Myriad and Stout to come to terms with the fact that the circumstances people's lives play out under have anything to do with what they do. Everything is a sign of the moral depravity of the poor. When they don't ride bikes to work, it's not because it isn't a healthy and comfortable option. They should defy those circumstances, the danger of ruthless drivers, get on those bikes and prove that they are alpha males and not vegan girlie men!
But since they don't, it just goes to show how unworthy of any and all considerations they are.
And now the poor and powerless are also the ones who are ruining the planet with their unrestrained spending sprees.
It's the eternal self-contradictory message that poor people spend too much money and consume too much – always popular with the upper classes and those who align themselves with the upper classes, i.e. those who dream of being them.
It's the message that Oscar Wilde turned upside down with his aphoristic parody: Work is the curse of the drinking classes.
'If it weren't for all the frivolous spending of poor people, they could live perfectly happy lives of healthy austerity. They should be exercising, dieting, studying, or practicing skills instead of spending all the money they don't have on things they like. Just like me.´
It's the reason why it's also impossible for guys like Myriad and Stout to come to terms with the fact that the circumstances people's lives play out under have anything to do with what they do. Everything is a sign of the moral depravity of the poor. When they don't ride bikes to work, it's not because it isn't a healthy and comfortable option. They should defy those circumstances, the danger of ruthless drivers, get on those bikes and prove that they are alpha males and not vegan girlie men!
But since they don't, it just goes to show how unworthy of any and all considerations they are.
And now the poor and powerless are also the ones who are ruining the planet with their unrestrained spending sprees.
It's not how communism works either, considering China is slapping up coal fired plants like they're Legos. Something about grid reliability and energy security, so I hear.
I sent that to the goose stepping fascist bastards behind Buy Nothing Day. Many lulz were had.
Oh look! Giant inflatable Halloween decorations are on sale on Amazon. Better throw out last years, and buy new ones lest the neighbours start to think I'm right wing.
By "the poor" do you mean the 10%?
Around here, people don't ride bikes because they don't want to. Despite hundreds of kilometers of AAA bike lanes being built for them. Don't get me wrong here, I quite enjoy having these nice new bike lanes all to myself and, to be honest, sometimes I even get a little miffed when I see someone else riding on MY road.
Around here, people don't ride bikes because they don't want to. Despite hundreds of kilometers of AAA bike lanes being built for them. Don't get me wrong here, I quite enjoy having these nice new bike lanes all to myself and, to be honest, sometimes I even get a little miffed when I see someone else riding on MY road.
And yet China was never anywhere near Australia, Canada and the USA in this respect.
Yes, Buy Nothing Day is the kind of impactless gesture that even mass media can embrace, pretending that it is consumption of goods and not the way in which those goods are produced that's the problem.
Because nothing says Radical Left and Antifa like giant inflatadsble halloween decorations!
Tell ICE so they know what they should be on the lookout for!