"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

[dann]

Apparently, the only way to think outside the electoral system must be to imitate Trump, so let's forget that Trump got himself elected thanks to that same electoral system!
And anybody who points out that the many alternatives to Trump have done as little to fight global warming as he did must be a Trump supporter.

Just a reminder:
No, Biden didn't just ban fracking (CNN, Jan 27, 2021)
Update: Biden Promised a Ban – He’s Doing the Opposite (Food and Water Watch, Sep 15, 2021)
Biden Fracking Ban At A Standstill Amid Global Energy Crisis (Earth.org, May 8, 2022)
Joe Biden Broke His 2020 Pledge on Fracking. Good. (Washington Monthly, Mar 7, 2023)
But, but, but ...

Don't worry! You'll still get to vote for him the next time, and on somebody like him the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and ...

 

[Myriad]

Apparently, the only way to think outside the electoral system must be to imitate Trump, so let's forget that Trump got himself elected thanks to that same electoral system!
And anybody who points out that the many alternatives to Trump have done as little to fight global warming as he did must be a Trump supporter.

Are you implying that merely thinking and acting outside the electoral system as Trump has since 2020 (regardless of what he did prior to that) isn't sufficient by itself to fight global climate change? Well, color me shocked! I suppose I should have asked you to be more specific, a few more than the half dozen times I did. Well, you know what they say about the definition of insanity.

At this point all I can tell you is what I used to tell clueless 9/11 Truthers who kept insisting they would only be happy with a (self-contradictory and unconstitutional) "new 9/11 investigation with subpoena power independent of government." Which is, conquer the US first, and then you can put whatever arrangement you have in mind into effect.

 

[dann]

Are you implying that merely thinking and acting outside the electoral system as Trump has since 2020 (regardless of what he did prior to that) isn't sufficient by itself to fight global climate change?

No, I'm not implying anything like your strawman. I am saying explicitly that you (and with you many others) refer to the electoral system as the place where all things start and end: 'Well, we did our best, didn't we?! We voted for Biden. What's a girl to do?! Thank God, there's always recycling and cold showers.'

Well, color me shocked!

Yes, that's the purpose a strawman serves.

I suppose I should have asked you to be more specific, a few more than the half dozen times I did. Well, you know what they say about the definition of insanity.

Yes, I do know. I just said it: The insane go voting every time, and they always expect a different outcome.

At this point all I can tell you is what I used to tell clueless 9/11 Truthers who kept insisting they would only be happy with a (self-contradictory and unconstitutional) "new 9/11 investigation with subpoena power independent of government." Which is, conquer the US first, and then you can put whatever arrangement you have in mind into effect.

Your anecdote doesn't surprise med since you were never serious about putting an end to global warming if the struggle against global warming didn't sync with your nationalism.
So global warming, US patriotism and symbolic gestures it is.

 

[Myriad]

Your anecdote doesn't surprise med since you were never serious about putting an end to global warming if the struggle against global warming didn't sync with your nationalism.
So global warming, US patriotism and symbolic gestures it is.

Make a case for a better system and a plausible course of action that brings that system about.

That's a prerequisite for persuading me, or anyone, to take those actions.

Persuade them or find a way to force them.

That's not me dictating alternatives. It's how cause and effect works.

 

[Myriad]

What's the reference for this? As someone who has been commuting for decades on New York MTA (NY City Transit, Metro-North) my experience is, the AC and heating almost always works. In fact, especially on the buses, if the AC fails the bus is usually taken out-of-service. Trains too, though they usually complete the trip first. No heat? Even in the bad old 1980s, I have very very rarely ever encountered a transit bus, subway or commuter train without heat. By the way, nowadays many train platforms have outdoor heating units and they work pretty well.

Seeing is believing. In Chicago-

[IMGW=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1474&pictureid=13652[/IMGW]

Myriad, where do you commute? What system?

Sorry, NYG, I almost missed this in all the excitement.

My commuter experience might be out of date. Philadelphia in the 70s and 80s, Boston area in the 80s and 90s. The train cars and buses were all decades old at the time, and their HVAC systems seemed impossibly difficult to maintain on a day to day basis. By now they must all have been replaced. Modern AC units do seem to follow a more "work perfectly until they break down irrevocably" pattern instead of the older "work adequately forever as long as they're overhauled every two months" plan. And yeah, the heating systems were more reliable than the AC, and on a crowded enough vehicle, it might not even matter.

I haven't seen a heated outdoor train platform, in my occasional intra-city rail ridership since then. Nice that you have those (though of course, on topic, they're certainly not heated in winter with solar and wind power).

 

[varwoche]

Oh, I finally see what you're getting at! "Thinking outside the electoral system"... who's been publicly doing that, and acting upon those thoughts, recently? It's so obvious. You've been hinting all along that the solution to global climate change is Donald Trump. I don't recall him building any solar or wind farms, or burying much carbon anywhere, or legislating against the fossil fuel industry, but if thinking outside the electoral system is the key, no one's done that or encouraged others to do that more than Trump. Falsely claiming elections were rigged, trying to get the 2020 election results overturned, inciting riots in the capital; he's certainly walked the walk. Plus, the record speaks for itself: the final year of Trump's term in office saw the biggest drop in greenhouse gas emissions worldwide in history.

I still wonder why you had to be so cryptic about this. It's okay to support Trump openly, if that's what floats your boat.

I don't think so. But seeing as dann's presentation is clear as mud, who knows? As in the Santos thread they linked to, I suspect this is merely another opportunity to trot out a hobby horse, that being communism as a solution to the world's problems.

 

[dann]

Make a case for a better system and a plausible course of action that brings that system about.

Why would I do that?! This is a thread about global warming. I have argued and used examples to show how the current electoral system is used as an argument against effective measures against global warming. I also did it in the other climate thread when arguments like this were presented against measures to end global warming:

And politicians want to get voted in next election.

It's an argument you share with many others.

That's a prerequisite for persuading me, or anyone, to take those actions.

Persuade you to take which actions?! And why would I try to persuade you to take any kind of action? You seem to be content with voting for people who promise to do something about global warming, and when they don't, you encourage people to vote for them again. I don't think I can persuade you to do anything.

Persuade them or find a way to force them.

Persuade whom? Persuade them to do what? And why would I try to force them to do anything? I am not a big fan of forcing people to do anything.

That's not me dictating alternatives. It's how cause and effect works.

No, it isn't. You are also not the dictator of cause and effect.

 

[dann]

I don't think so. But seeing as dann's presentation is clear as mud, who knows? As in the Santos thread they linked to, I suspect this is merely another opportunity to trot out a hobby horse, that being communism as a solution to the world's problems.

Where exactly did I bring up communism in any of those threads? The other thread is about the elected representative George Santos, who was still an elected representative the last time I looked. And this thread is about global warming. The theme of elections wasn't introduced by me in any of the threads. I just showed how elections aren't the means to end global warming. On the contrary.

Why do you now try to derail the thread with a discussion of communism?!

 

[Myriad]

Why would I do that?! This is a thread about global warming.

Because without your doing that, your arguments are barely distinguishable from those of a coal-rolling Republican-voting all-American redneck. "My consumption isn't enough to matter." "Al Gore doesn't practice what he preaches, why should I?" "Climate change is just a made-up excuse for the elites to stick it to the little guy, again." "You're not the boss of me."

Your motivations for so arguing might be different (maybe; you don't seem to like it when other speculate on your motivations, so I won't). But the advice comes out the same: go ahead and consume, or else you're being a sucker.

My advice is far more challenging: individuals should reduce their dependency on the products of government and corporate industry, especially for frivolous high-energy luxuries, by reducing their consumption thereof. We have a population of addicts and instead of daydreaming about all the dealers having a change of heart and making better cleaner smack free for everyone, how about we get off the **** first. The slogan "less energy, stimulation, and stuff" (aka LESS), popular among certain segments of the slightly saner fringe, expresses this. That would allow voters to be less motivated to make compromising choices in the interest of keeping the "good times" rolling. To be fair, it's probably just as much a pipe dream as whatever solution it is you're not telling, but at least I can put it into words to be discussed.

I have argued and used examples to show how the current electoral system is used as an argument against effective measures against global warming.

So what? I value the effective measures, not the argument about why they didn't happen. Unless the argument about why they didn't happen suggests ways to make them happen despite those reasons. Which yours doesn't.

I also did it in the other climate thread when arguments like this were presented against measures to end global warming: It's an argument you share with many others.

Good for you. If I'm interested in arguments in another thread, I'll post in that thread.

 

[varwoche]

Where exactly did I bring up communism in any of those threads? The other thread is about the elected representative George Santos, who was still an elected representative the last time I looked. And this thread is about global warming. The theme of elections wasn't introduced by me in any of the threads. I just showed how elections aren't the means to end global warming. On the contrary.

Why do you now try to derail the thread with a discussion of communism?!

Not discussing communism -- just trying to unravel your opaque presentation. By all means, sharpen your pencil and then readers won't have to figure out what you're going on about.

 

[Samson]

40 years ago Carl Sagan spoke to congress and explained exactly what would happen if we burn fossil fuels.
Then it happened. An extraordinary, prescient and articulate delivery.

https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

 

[dann]

Sagan was great, but in this case not as extraordinary and prescient as you think. He was almost a whole century late.

Meet Svante Arsenius:

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming (Lenntech)

As for the verification, meet James Hansen: ‘We are damned fools’: scientist who sounded climate alarm in 80s warns of worse to come (TheGuardian, July 19, 2023).
Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate (NYT, June 24, 1988)

But as we all know by now, the U.S. Congress and seven U.S. presidents have been in denial of this verified fact for the past 35 years. I don't know about all the important stuff that kept them preoccupied. Cuban brain-zapping rayguns, UFO sightings and other alien encounters are fairly recent diversions.
This was five years ago:

James Hansen is known as the "Father of Global Warming", chiefly because of his 1988 testimony before the U.S. Senate, in which he announced that "... the greenhouse effect has been detected, and is changing our climate now."
30 years later, Peter Sinclair asked senior climate scientists how those predictions have held up.
James Hansen's 1988 testimony after 30 years. How did he do? (Yale Climate Connections on YouTube, June 20, 2018 - 5:27 min.)

 

[dann]

Not discussing communism -- just trying to unravel your opaque presentation. By all means, sharpen your pencil and then readers won't have to figure out what you're going on about.

Congratulations to varwoche.
He is the thirteenth ISF poster to reveal to the world that the guy with Karl Marx and Bertolt Brecht in his sig line is an actual communist. The prize goes to varwoche for sparing readers from having to figure out what I'm going on about. Any and all of my arguments about climate change and other issues can be ignored from now on thanks to varwoche's amazing powers in the field of ad hominem!

 

[dann]

Energy addiction

One poster outs me as a devious communist, another outs me as a MAGA Republican:

Because without your doing that, your arguments are barely distinguishable from those of a coal-rolling Republican-voting all-American redneck. "My consumption isn't enough to matter." "Al Gore doesn't practice what he preaches, why should I?" "Climate change is just a made-up excuse for the elites to stick it to the little guy, again." "You're not the boss of me."

I hate it when people blame their difficulties with making distinctions on the object that they are barely able to distinguish from its opposite. Myriad seems to think that his alleged difficulty is an argument for those two opposites being alike, so when I criticize his alleged attempts at doing something about global warming, be it bicycling, recycling bottles or voting for politicians who don't do what they promised to do, it is somehow the same thing as being in denial of global warming like "a coal-rolling Republican-voting all-American redneck."

And after this variation of the ad hominem theme, Myriad can forget all about having made it all up himself:

Your motivations for so arguing might be different (maybe; you don't seem to like it when other speculate on your motivations, so I won't). But the advice comes out the same: go ahead and consume, or else you're being a sucker.

My motivations for so arguing!!! Myriad is the one who presented MAGA arguments as if they were mine. He has continually misrepresented my arguments and does so once again. I am supposed to have said (or at least meant): "go ahead and consume, or else you're being a sucker," even though I have made it clear from the start that the point isn't consumption of energy, it's production of energy. If the source of that energy is solar and wind, it doesn't matter how much energy you consume: It doesn't emit CO₂ - very much unlike the energy consumed if it is produced by burning fossil fuels.

At this point, I have to assume that Myriad deliberately ignores this not-at-all minor detail before he goes on to compare my arguments with those of MAGA with which they have nothing whatsoever in common. To Myriad, it doesn't matter how energy is produced. People have to be challenged to reduce "their consumption thereof." People who like to consume energy are either consumers of "frivolous high-energy luxuries" or addicts because Myriad's idealist idea of saving the world from global warming, i.e. CO₂ emission, is to deprive the energy producers of consumption. Energy itself isn't merely a modern convenience and necessity. It's an actual drug:

My advice is far more challenging: individuals should reduce their dependency on the products of government and corporate industry, especially for frivolous high-energy luxuries, by reducing their consumption thereof. We have a population of addicts and instead of daydreaming about all the dealers having a change of heart and making better cleaner smack free for everyone, how about we get off the **** first. The slogan "less energy, stimulation, and stuff" (aka LESS), popular among certain segments of the slightly saner fringe, expresses this. That would allow voters to be less motivated to make compromising choices in the interest of keeping the "good times" rolling. To be fair, it's probably just as much a pipe dream as whatever solution it is you're not telling, but at least I can put it into words to be discussed.

Sacrifices and austerity presented as the solution to the greenhouse effect, which kind of explains why cold showers appear to play such an important role in Myriad's agenda.
And for the umpteenth time he tells lie that I'm not telling him what the solution is when the problem is that he doesn't like any solution that doesn't include his regiment of austerity. I have not only said it again and again, other people have mentioned how it actually works in the real world and not in Myriad's pipe-dream world:

Also, I'm now using an app that tells me when the electricity price is low because a surplus of green energy is produced (sunny, windy days), and then I try to defer my dishwasher and washing machine running to those times. But that could be automated with available technology in no time.

I don't think Hans sounds like an electricity junkie. And since we are in for a couple of stormy days in the very near future, I hope that his dishwasher and laundry basket are already full to the brim.

So what? I value the effective measures, not the argument about why they didn't happen. Unless the argument about why they didn't happen suggests ways to make them happen despite those reasons. Which yours doesn't.

I actually like effective measures and not the excuses for why they didn't happen, but Myriad doesn't like it when those excuses are criticized. And the effective measures did happen. And they are still happening, and they should be happening much faster than they are. They just didn't happen where Myriad lives, apparently.

And now that we have returned to the theme of ineffective measures, for instance voting for people who aren't bound by any promises they make: In post 462, he forgot about this part of the post he replied to:

No, Biden didn't just ban fracking (CNN, Jan 27, 2021)
Update: Biden Promised a Ban – He’s Doing the Opposite (Food and Water Watch, Sep 15, 2021)
Biden Fracking Ban At A Standstill Amid Global Energy Crisis (Earth.org, May 8, 2022)
Joe Biden Broke His 2020 Pledge on Fracking. Good. (Washington Monthly, Mar 7, 2023)
But, but, but ...

Don't worry! You'll still get to vote for him the next time, and on somebody like him the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and ...

I don't wonder why he forgot about this.

 

[Checkmite]

At this point, I have to assume that Myriad deliberately ignores this not-at-all minor detail before he goes on to compare my arguments with those of MAGA with which they have nothing whatsoever in common.

They do have one thing in common though, which is the assertion that personal actions to reduce one's own energy consumption or "carbon footprint" are unnecessary, pointless, and at any rate simply unhelpful. A "MAGA Republican" would absolutely tell Myriad that doing things like walking or using a bicycle instead of driving or using ICE-powered transit all the time, and other measures of reducing personal energy consumption that are motivated by a desire to reduce environmental impact, are a silly waste of time.

Sure, the logic is quite different - in your case an assertion that such efforts would never amount to enough of a difference to meaningfully change anything, and in their case an assertion that there's nothing that actually needs changing - but your respective prescriptions, where the rubber meets the road so to speak, are identical: don't bother trying to drive or consume less.

 

[dann]

Your attempt to summarize my argument is disingenuous.

Myriad is the one who presented MAGA arguments as if they were mine. He has continually misrepresented my arguments and does so once again. I am supposed to have said (or at least meant): "go ahead and consume, or else you're being a sucker," even though I have made it clear from the start that the point isn't consumption of energy, it's production of energy. If the source of that energy is solar and wind, it doesn't matter how much energy you consume: It doesn't emit CO2 - very much unlike the energy consumed if it is produced by burning fossil fuels.

At this point, I have to assume that Myriad deliberately ignores this not-at-all minor detail before he goes on to compare my arguments with those of MAGA with which they have nothing whatsoever in common. To Myriad, it doesn't matter how energy is produced. People have to be challenged to reduce "their consumption thereof." People who like to consume energy are either consumers of "frivolous high-energy luxuries" or addicts because Myriad's idealist idea of saving the world from global warming, i.e. CO₂ emission, is to deprive the energy producers of consumption. Energy itself isn't merely a modern convenience and necessity. It's an actual drug:

I assume that you deliberately ignore my argument the same way he does.

 

[dann]

Sorry, I didn't notice this one till now:

Do you think international agreements like the Paris accords help move the world in the right direction? Certainly who we voted for had an impact on whether we participated.

Hmmm ...

If global heating continues at current rate of 2.7C, losses will be greater with 68% of glaciers disappearing
Half the planet’s glaciers will have melted by 2100 even if humanity sticks to goals set out in the Paris climate agreement, according to research that finds the scale and impacts of glacial loss are greater than previously thought. At least half of that loss will happen in the next 30 years.
Researchers found 49% of glaciers would disappear under the most optimistic scenario of 1.5C of warming. However, if global heating continued under the current scenario of 2.7C of warming, losses would be more significant, with 68% of glaciers disappearing, according to the paper, published in Science. There would be almost no glaciers left in central Europe, western Canada and the US by the end of the next century if this happened.
Half of glaciers will be gone by 2100 even under Paris 1.5C accord, study finds (TheGuardian, Jan 5, 2023)

That would be a no to the idea that the Paris Agreement helps move the world in the right direction, especially now when glaciers seem to melt at a much faster pace than predicted, so you will have to elaborate on what you mean when you talk about "international agreements like the Paris accords."

 

[Doubt]

Congratulations to varwoche.
He is the thirteenth ISF poster to reveal to the world that the guy with Karl Marx and Bertolt Brecht in his sig line is an actual communist. The prize goes to varwoche for sparing readers from having to figure out what I'm going on about. Any and all of my arguments about climate change and other issues can be ignored from now on thanks to varwoche's amazing powers in the field of ad hominem!

I have not read the walls of text that have been going on here for some time now. I have looked at parts of your posts and can see why people have a problem with them.

At this point, rather than writing a wall of text, try writing a relatively short post that does sum up your position. I did note the one recent post where you quoted yourself talking about where production is the problem and not consumption. That is a good start.

Approach it like a reporter and in one, not long post:

What is the real problem. (As noted above, you have done this. Cut and paste as needed.)
Where. Might not need that one since we are talking about a global problem.
Why current approaches don't address the problem.
When. Not sure what you should use there, but this is for you to decide.
How. This seems to be the sticking point with most reading your posts. If you think this requires a different political system than what is in place now, then say so.

The people arguing with you are not stupid. I'm not stupid. Most are not going to pick through a series of posts that are a wall of text to pick out the parts that matter. Keep it short and to the point. Don't get bogged down in the details. At least not until you have made a concise argument.

 

[Myriad]

One poster outs me as a devious communist, another outs me as a MAGA Republican:

I did not say anything about what you are or are not. Please stop personalizing the argument that way. I said that the advice you give about disregarding personal consumption and justifying consumption via class issues is the same as a typical MAGA Republican's.

I hate it when people blame their difficulties with making distinctions on the object that they are barely able to distinguish from its opposite. Myriad seems to think that his alleged difficulty is an argument for those two opposites being alike, so when I criticize his alleged attempts at doing something about global warming, be it bicycling, recycling bottles or voting for politicians who don't do what they promised to do, it is somehow the same thing as being in denial of global warming like "a coal-rolling Republican-voting all-American redneck."

Your advice to individuals regarding personal consumption is not opposite to that of a typical MAGA Republican. It's the same, or very similar.

Here's how I characterized your position as being similar to the coal-rollers', and some of the things you've said that justify that characterization:

"My consumption isn't enough to matter."

Much the same way that conscientious (!) objectors don't do anything to stop war, your personal (and other people's personal) sacrifice (or contribution ... whatever) to stop (or diminish) CO2 emission doesn't do anything to actually stop it. It is nothing but virtue signaling...

The answer is obviously A. It's very obvious. Pretending that it's up to individuals to 'reduce their carbon footprint' taking cold showers and biking is counter-productive because it's a bloody lie.

"Al Gore doesn't practice what he preaches, why should I?"

Sorting one's garbage and only taking cold showers for a year is cancelled out a thousand times every minute his [Bill Maher's] private jet is in the air.

It is nothing but virtue signaling, a way of feeling good about yourself - while letting ******** like Bill Maher continue to contribute to the greenhouse effect on a scale that cancels out whatever it is you take pride in doing.

"Climate change is just a made-up excuse for the elites to stick it to the little guy, again."

Some people in this kind of society get rich by exploiting the working classes and the planet while blaming everything and everybody else, which is nothing but diversion tactics. The poor don't get poor because environmentalists are forcing restrictions on the unfortunate capitalists who would much rather pay poor people a living wage if it weren't for those restrictions.
The connection that you imagine isn't there! And you know the ones who placed this idea in your head! They paid consultants to come up with it.

Okay, to be fair, you and the coal roller disagree on the "made-up" part. That hardly makes your arguments opposite.

"You're not the boss of me."

(in response to a statement that one can either reuse water bottles, or not do so)

What made you the dictator of alternatives around here?!

And now you have appointed yourself the dictator of logic as well as of alternatives.

"Go ahead and consume, or else you're being a sucker."

What doesn't help is things like taking cold showers while letting the billionaires take weekend trips in private jets, i.e. pretending that the things that ordinary people can do mininize their own personal 'carbon footprint' while the big-boot owners are trampling all over them.

Big Oil and their shills have messed with our minds to the extent where even environmentalists (actual environmentalists, not the ones paid by Big Oil) equate environmentalism with austerity.

My motivations for so arguing!!! Myriad is the one who presented MAGA arguments as if they were mine. He has continually misrepresented my arguments and does so once again. I am supposed to have said (or at least meant): "go ahead and consume, or else you're being a sucker," even though I have made it clear from the start that the point isn't consumption of energy, it's production of energy. If the source of that energy is solar and wind, it doesn't matter how much energy you consume: It doesn't emit CO₂ - very much unlike the energy consumed if it is produced by burning fossil fuels.

I didn't discuss your motivations for so arguing. I don't care about your motivations, only the resulting distinctly MAGA-like arguments.

The source of the energy you sometimes use is not only solar and wind. Those solar and wind facilities are not built without using fossil fuels. They're not maintained without using fossil fuels. They do produce more energy than the fossil fuel energy used to build and maintain them. What they are accomplishing is getting more electricity from the amount of fossil fuels they cost over their life cycle. Kind of like using an LED instead of an incandescent light bulb or candle for producing light. Which is very good, but it does not make the electricity or its usage fossil-fuel-free. The electricity they produce could in theory be used to build more solar and wind plants, but currently it's not, because it's being used for things like your nice hot showers instead.

Energy itself isn't merely a modern convenience and necessity. It's an actual drug:

I believe you are capable of understanding simple metaphor, even when you pretend not to.

I don't think Hans sounds like an electricity junkie. And since we are in for a couple of stormy days in the very near future, I hope that his dishwasher and laundry basket are already full to the brim.

Hans is making a sacrifice and practicing austerity, by using an additional tool and paying additional attention so that his usage aligns with the availability of excess renewable energy, reducing his carbon output. That's less convenient than just running his appliances whenever he feels like. Doing some extra work, like bicycling instead of driving. Exactly the kind of thing you've called useless virtue-signaling. Have you forgotten how Bill Maher's private plane makes all such measures by us mere proles irrelevant?

And now that we have returned to the theme of ineffective measures, for instance voting for people who aren't bound by any promises they make: In post 462, he forgot about this part of the post he replied to:

I don't wonder why he forgot about this.

You can keep returning to the theme of voting if you must. I have never called voting an effective measure against climate change. With stunning dishonestly, you just keep implying that I have. Apparently because that's the straw man you want to keep bashing.

 

[varwoche]

When trying to imagine solutions, it seems that a lot of people, e.g. dann, are hindered by binary thinking. If a particular measure doesn't fully solve the problem, screw it. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

That doesn't mean I'm optimistic. Seeing as we don't live in dann's utopian vision of a benevolent dictatorship where a wise, compassionate ruler mandates a solution, we'll need bold technological breakthroughs to avoid catastrophe. In the meantime, we mitigate as best we can.