arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Sorry. I kind of glaze over your posts because I find them hard to read. No offense intended.
Cont: Global warming discussion V
- Thread starter lobosrul5
- Start date
I will link more to Simple Wiki from now on.
What's up, Canada?!
A federal election campaign without a climate plan (The Globe and Mail, April 23, 2025)
Canada Pension Plan Investments drops net-zero target after initially aiming for 2050 (CBC, May 21, 2025)
Inflation rate drops to 1.7% in April, driven by lower energy prices after carbon tax removal (CBC, May 20, 2025)
Alberta to use Sovereignty Act to push back on proposed federal emissions cap (CBC, Nov 26, 2024)
It looks like you might as well become the 51st state.
Canada Is Giving Up On Climate Change (Steve Boots on YouTube, May 29, 2025 - 5:52 min.)
Per capita CO2 emissions
A federal election campaign without a climate plan (The Globe and Mail, April 23, 2025)
Canada Pension Plan Investments drops net-zero target after initially aiming for 2050 (CBC, May 21, 2025)
Inflation rate drops to 1.7% in April, driven by lower energy prices after carbon tax removal (CBC, May 20, 2025)
Alberta to use Sovereignty Act to push back on proposed federal emissions cap (CBC, Nov 26, 2024)
It looks like you might as well become the 51st state.
Canada Is Giving Up On Climate Change (Steve Boots on YouTube, May 29, 2025 - 5:52 min.)
Per capita CO2 emissions
Last edited:
In one year, half of the world's population got 30 extra days of fatal weather phenomenon
Last year, about four billion people got at least one extra month of heat wave in addition to what's usual
Climate Change and the Escalation of Global Extreme Heat (Climate Central, May 29, 2025)
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
There has been a plan for decades. Stop voting against it.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Well, of course it's not that simple. In some countries they are, and in others they are not. The overall trend is for cleaner energy and reduced emissions. However, I've realised that the cynics on this thread will never change their minds when given solid evidence, so I won't bother linking to any data.
It's all those super lefty ultra liberal Canadians shoving their fat little faces into the fossil fuel trough only to come up for air, do a little whining about climate change then go back for seconds.
It is that simple, really. You can fap to as much data as you want but it doesn't change the fact that the current approach is a total, utter, miserable failure.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The approach is fine. The problem is the politics.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
So the facts lie? Or you have 'alternative facts'? Or you just reject the facts because they contradict your cynical apathy?
I'd ask you to support your claim about this 'failure', but that would mean using data, an approach you reject. As I said, people like you will never change their minds as a result of evidence.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Again, in some countries and not others. The UK's greenhouse gas emissions, for example, are lower than they were in the 90s.
Oh, wait. Am I "fapping about data" again?
The only data point that matters is the one that shows global emissions increasing.Again, in some countries and not others. The UK's greenhouse gas emissions, for example, are lower than they were in the 90s.
Oh, wait. Am I "fapping about data" again?
So what the UK's emissions went down a little. It's nowhere enough, and nowhere near fast enough to hit these loudly proclaimed climate targets. But, hey, if thinking happy thoughts and sending positive vibes gets it done for you them maybe we should try joining hands and try to chant the carbon away.
Speaking of loud proclamations. How are those reparation payments to developing nations coming along? You know, the ones that CoP 29 shorted the developing world's requests on. Hint, that data is the centerfold in this month's issue of Climatehouse magazine.
Even climate activists have given up, but I'm sure they'll get back to it as soon as this Palestine thing is sorted out.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The activists are being sued for billions.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
So you want to talk about data now? OK, that's progress, at least.
That was one example. I could give more, but I'm still unsure whether you're interested in facts or just in reinforcing your feelsies.
I will simply point out that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Ludicrous strawman.
No idea. Why don't you tell us?
Oh, and 'data'? Fapping again, Stout?
Not everything is about Greta Thunberg, you know- and there's a dedicated thread for her, if you want to discuss that particular activist.
Well, when you have thousands of scientists writing thousands of reports and passing them on to thousands of politicians and activists all telling us we need to do something about this climate emergency and they still can't fix it then it's time to listen to the wisdom of Mr. Stout.
Mr. Stout says in a Yoda type voice. If you care about carbon emissions and saving the planet, then quit burning fossil fuels. Yes, you may have to forgo that trip to Bali, of that trip to anywhere you can't ride a bicycle to. Maybe you'll have to give up that mass consumer lifestyle but one thing's for certain, this wagging your lips then patting yourselves on the back for "raising awareness" sure as hell ain't working.
Ever wonder why the carbon emissions for these CoPs are a closely guarded secret?
Mr. Stout says in a Yoda type voice. If you care about carbon emissions and saving the planet, then quit burning fossil fuels. Yes, you may have to forgo that trip to Bali, of that trip to anywhere you can't ride a bicycle to. Maybe you'll have to give up that mass consumer lifestyle but one thing's for certain, this wagging your lips then patting yourselves on the back for "raising awareness" sure as hell ain't working.
Ever wonder why the carbon emissions for these CoPs are a closely guarded secret?
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Well, now I'm confused. You appear to be saying that we should, as individuals, take steps to reduce our contributions to global warming by changing our lifestyles. I have been assured, most vigorously, by arthwollipot, that our individual actions won't make any difference at all.
What's a yak to do? Who should I believe?
As an aside, I am awaiting the furious reaction to the phrase 'saving the planet' that I received when I used it.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
That doesn't mean you shouldn't do them. The only way they can possibly make a difference is if everybody does them. No single raindrop is responsible for the flood.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
You said before that if we acted together, it would lead to panic, and it would never work. Have you now changed your mind?
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Would it be bad if I did? Anyway, I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you could quote chapter and verse?
Yes, this is correct. If the amount of people supposedly concerned about climate change actually considered their lifestyle's impacts on climate then acted on those considerations we'd be in a far better position than we are today. All this complaining about the government and corporations is just an easy CoP out, it looks good, but it hasn't accomplished anything past the bandaid-on-a-brain-tumor scale.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
We had a long, long conversation over this issue. It started on page 30 of this thread (YMMV, if I recall: not everyone has the same page numbers, for some weird reason I can't remember. You can just go a couple of pages back from this quote to see where we began.)
I said that if we act as indivuduals, then there will be a cumulative effect, as more and more people start doing the same thing. You rejected that idea, as can been seen here. "People are dumb, panicky animals". I asked you why you thought that more people making individual choices would lead to panic, rather than a positive cumulative effect. I do not recall getting a clear answer from you.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
You realise that was a movie quote, right?
Also, how about that last paragraph?
Also, how about that last paragraph?
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Which you used as an argument against my claim that many people acting independently could achieve a cumulative effect.
What about it? You argued strenuously over several pages that no cumulative effect could possibly happen. If you've changed your mind about this, I would be very happy. Have you?
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
No, I did not. I suggest you read it again.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Yes, you did. No, I'm not going to read it again. You said what you said, and I'm not playing this game.
Explorer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,501
"Humans need to sweat to survive in warm conditions, and that’s only possible if the combination of temperature and humidity – known as the wet-bulb temperature – stays below around 35°C. According to a 2012 study by scientists at MIT, this limit could be reached globally if our planet warms by around 12°C. Fortunately, few scientists think global warming will do this in the foreseeable future."
(BBC Science Focus: https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet...earth-get-before-its-uninhabitable-for-humans).
An avenue of discussion?
(BBC Science Focus: https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet...earth-get-before-its-uninhabitable-for-humans).
An avenue of discussion?
Last edited:
Meanwhile, Canada is going to become "an energy superpower" and drill, baby, drill:
'Grand bargain': Alberta Premier Danielle Smith 'encouraged' by federal government's change of tone when it comes to energy ()June 2, 2025
"You simply wouldn't have a policy of leaving a 9 trillion dollar asset in the ground."
Can somebody please calculate how many cold showers it will take to make up for that, and tell us how exactly those individual drops will make that 9 trillion dollar asset stay in the grorund?
'Grand bargain': Alberta Premier Danielle Smith 'encouraged' by federal government's change of tone when it comes to energy ()June 2, 2025
"You simply wouldn't have a policy of leaving a 9 trillion dollar asset in the ground."
Can somebody please calculate how many cold showers it will take to make up for that, and tell us how exactly those individual drops will make that 9 trillion dollar asset stay in the grorund?
I'm still not seeing any proposal that isn't one of these two:
1. Individual voluntary action
2. "Make me [or fill in name] the dictator so I [they] can coerce the correct collective action from governments, industry, and individuals."
The second choice is usually offered in disguise. For example, few people remember that's basically what the Club of Rome was arguing for when they published the famous The Limits to Growth. In that case, not a dictator exactly, but a panel of elite experts overseeing everything (big difference).
1. Individual voluntary action
2. "Make me [or fill in name] the dictator so I [they] can coerce the correct collective action from governments, industry, and individuals."
The second choice is usually offered in disguise. For example, few people remember that's basically what the Club of Rome was arguing for when they published the famous The Limits to Growth. In that case, not a dictator exactly, but a panel of elite experts overseeing everything (big difference).
Lots. Lots and lots of showers. They're digging up all that oil just for you so you can have those hot showers. Whenever you want and for as long as you want. Multiple hot showers every day. You can even run your shower on extra hot and fill up your bathroom with steam for that Roman bath feel if that's what your into. Glorious, endless, hot water for the masses and oh how those masses relish it.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
You continue to misrepresent me. That's not very nice.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
And the movie was quoting Robert Heinlein (IIRC).
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
No, I'm not. Let's recap on how we got here.
We started with the idea that we, as individuals, could take action to mitigate climate change.
You dishonestly reframed that argument as meaning one single individual in the entire world. You were called out on that, and had to hastily retract. You then went on to say that the effect of individual actions would be so tiny that it would make no difference at all. I replied that of course, the actions of a few would not, but there would be a cumulative effect if many people did the same thing.
Once again, you dishonestly reframed that argument. Rather than addressing my point about cumulative effects, you chose instead to talk about collective action, which is where your quote about people being dumb panicky animals came in. Despite my numerous attempts to get you to address my actual words, you continued to strawman me. To this day, by the way, you have still not explained what that quote means or how it is relevant to the discussion.
You went on to say that collective action would also have so tiny an impact that it would again make no difference at all, because what needed to change was industry. This, despite you yourself posting about how the cumulative effect of people switching to solar power in Australia had actually made a significant impact. I also posted about how industry was changing as a result of pressure from people, citing examples of shareholders in oil companies, and changes in the construction industry. You ignored those examples completely.
Fast-forward to the present day. You conveniently forgot what you'd said before, and continue to deny that you've said the things that you have, in fact, said- and then have the temerity to accuse me of continuing to misrepresent you. No, Arth: you are misrepresenting yourself, and that is what is not nice.
As a final point, your continued refusal to explain exactly what you are trying to say, and your denial of your previous comments, are self-defeating. If you want to be understood, then explain yourself. Thus far, you've only yourself to blame.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I have already fully explained myself, and I have no intention of doing so yet again. You have dishonestly reframed my words to suit your personal biases, and I will not respond to that kind of maliciousness.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Maliciousness? Rubbish. Oh, and don't make this personal. Anyone here can read over this thread, from the link I posted earlier, and see what I said was exactly accurate.
And, yet again, you angrily refuse to explain yourself whilst angrily complaining you're being misunderstood. Can you see why this is not working for you?
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I explained myself quite adequately in our earlier exchanges. Yes, sometimes I change my mind. Yes, sometimes I don't express myself as clearly as I otherwise might. You took some words that I said, said that I was saying something that I wasn't intending to say, ignored all explanations and clarifications that I made, and have held your first misinterpretation against me ever since! You even explicitly refused to re-read anything I've already written, instead preferring to rely on your flawed memory and the interpretation that you formed the time. And now, you think I'm "angry". I'm not angry, I'm disappointed, and somewhat offended that you have given yourself an excuse to keep this irrational grudge for this long.
Go back and re-read what I actually said, including any clarification I may have made, or ◊◊◊◊ off. I have no further interest in continuing this discussion with you.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Just to demonstrate how I have not "maliciously reframed" Arth's posts, here is what I said, alongside what Arth said- his exact quotes, with links for anyone to check.
As I think I have demonstrated, there has been no malicious reframing at all, just a transparent attempt to bluster a way out of a tight spot.
You don't see what you don't want to see. That has been the problem with your participation in this thread and the other one.
You continue to claim that the cold-shower solution will put an end to excessive CO2 emissions even though environmentalists have repeatedly shown that it doesn't work.
I have referred to examples from Denmark again and again, solutions that are being implemented and have already been implemented, but you choose to ignore them.
Recently, I have referenced what China has accomplished, which you will no doubt dismiss as your proposal #2 instead of acknowledging what China has actually specifically done and is still doing.
It is so easy (intellectually speaking) to fanatically praise asceticism as the solution to global warming and ignore all the ways in which comfortable and healthy living is actually possible without having to give up creature comforts. You actually support the MAGA lie that the woke environmentalists are coming to take away people's stoves, cars and hot showers because they don't want people to have comfortable lives.
The lie is obvious: Hot showers don't contribute to global warming if the power used to heat the water is generated by means of solar panels and wind turbines instead of fossil fuels.
It's not the lack of a dictator that makes America drill, baby, drill. On the contrary, your current dictator is the one who promotes it.
The alternative to capitalism isn't dictatorship or asceticism. You may not have noticed, but MAGA has already begun to embrace asceticism, but maybe you didn't hear Donny 'Two-Dolls' Trump talk about it. He is far from the only one!
I bet you don't see the irony of giving Stout's recent post a
. What he is implying with his "Glorious, endless, hot water for the masses and oh how those masses relish it" is that the only way for the masses to get hot water is by using fossil fuels to heat it.It isn't! Consumption isn't what causes CO2 emissions, in general. (Cars, for instance, are an exception to that rule.) It's a question of how the products you consume are produced. Even the product is hot water. Currently, far too many of those products are produced by means of power generated by burning fossil fuels.
But stay in denial of this if it's where you feel most comfortable.
ETA: Why don't you as an individual consider what you can do about your drill-baby-drill president and his we-can-do-both predecessor.
They have both been very bad for the climate and your cold showers don't bother them in the least.
Last edited:
Did you also wonder?
The sun is so red, mother* - and it is currently extra red.
Four people on the island of Fyn noticed it and took photos.
The powerfully red sun is caused by extensive wildfires that have been raging in large areas of Canada recently, according to TV2 Weather.
* From an old Danish nursery rhyme
Photos
