Cont: Global warming discussion V

arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
arthwollipot said:
Would it be bad if I did? Anyway, I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you could quote chapter and verse?
Click to expand...
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.)
arthwollipot said:
I'm not ignoring that, I'm just denying the reductionism. A corporate entity does not behave solely according to the individual wills of individual people.

As Kay said to Jay "A person is smart -people are dumb panicky animals and you know it."

Groups of people - especially when confronted with market pressure - do not behave like individual people behave.

If you're still confused about what I'm saying, it's because you are motivated to misunderstand. Stop thinking in terms of individual motivations and start thinking about collectives, and you'll begin to see what I'm talking about. A collective does not behave like an individual does.
Click to expand...

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 said:
You realise that was a movie quote, right?
Click to expand...

Which you used as an argument against my claim that many people acting independently could achieve a cumulative effect.
arthwollipot said:
Also, how about that last paragraph?
Click to expand...
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?
 
"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?
 
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?
 
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).
 
dann said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 said:
You continue to misrepresent me. That's not very nice.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

Cosmic Yak said:
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.
arthwollipot said:
But that's the thing. Not only does everyone have to contribute (which as Roger points out is a problem), even if everyone does, the measurable difference will betiny compared to the big industrial polluters. Not nothing, sure, but tiny.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Cosmic Yak said:
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.
Click to expand...
arthwollipot said:
I'm not ignoring that, I'm just denying the reductionism. A corporate entity does not behave solely according to the individual wills of individual people.

As Kay said to Jay "A person is smart - people are dumb panicky animals and you know it."

Groups of people - especially when confronted with market pressure - do not behave like individual people behave.

If you're still confused about what I'm saying, it's because you are motivated to misunderstand. Stop thinking in terms of individual motivations and start thinking aboutcollectives, and you'll begin to see what I'm talking about. Acollective does not behave like an individual does.
Click to expand...
Cosmic Yak said:
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.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
Unless the oil and gas industry can be shut down, unless we can find new ways of producing steel and concrete (which our civilisation absolutely depends upon) that don't dump billions of tons of CO2, unless we can develop new unpolluting ways of sustaining the global travel and distribution industries that we have become accustomed to, the problem will not go away.

Do your personal bit, absolutely. It will make you feel better. But it won't solve the problem.
Click to expand...
Cosmic Yak said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Myriad said:
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).
Click to expand...
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:
Har du også undret dig? (tvmidtvest.dk, June 5, 2025)
Solen er så rød, mor - og for tiden er den ekstrarød.
Det har flere fynboer lagt mærke til og fotograferet.
Årsagen til den kraftige røde sol skyldes, at omfattende skovbrande den seneste tid har raseret store områder af Canada. Det skriver TV 2 Vejret.
Click to expand...
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 ☀️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom