Cont: Global warming discussion V

[The Great Zaganza]

Just for clarification: you think it's easier to change the way billions of people live instead of the way a dozen companies do business?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

t took a while, but even my most stalwart objectors eventually come around and acknowledge that I was right all along. Even climate scientists are starting to agree that the whole avert 1.5C by 2030 was a pipe dream and politicians are starting to realize that adaptation and resilience are the way forward.

1.5C was only ever an arbitrary target to aim for, and 'adaptation and resilience' was always part of the plan.

Extinction Rebellion has packed it in after finally figuring out that their stupid stunts made the general public just want to get out of their cars to curbstomp them rather than save the planet. I haven't heard of Friday's for Future in years and...

Who ever cared about them? I want to curbstomp the people doing stupid stunts in gas cars.

Canadians are downgrading their concerns for climate if favour of more mundane issues like the cost of living under this new "carbon tax" that the closing of the Straits of Hormuz has brought about.

It's the same old story - when the going gets tough the weak chicken out. But that's OK, closing the Strait is still having the desired effect. Only another week to go...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Just for clarification: you think it's easier to change the way billions of people live instead of the way a dozen companies do business?

We should do both.

 

[dann]

Still standing by that report? Excellent, that means you agree with what I've been saying all along, that's it's the middle class lifestyle that causing the current climate crisis. It took a while, but even my most stalwart objectors eventually come around and acknowledge that I was right all along.

Congratulations! Your posts have reached the delusional levels of a Donald Trump speech. The only thing missing is that your "stalwart objectors" are big, strong men with tears in their eyes when they come up to you and tell you that you were "right all along."
It goes without saying that those stalwart objectors are as anonymous and non-existent as Trump's big, strong men, and so are your imaginary "climate scientists":

Even climate scientists are starting to agree that the whole avert 1.5C by 2030 was a pipe dream and politicians are starting to realize that adaptation and resilience are the way forward.

It is not at all difficult to find your politicians talking about "adaptation and resilience" IRL, but they aren't 'starting to realize' anything. They are to be found in the Trump and Carney administrations and were always paid by the fossil-fuel industry to say the same things.

Extinction Rebellion has packed it in after finally figuring out that their stupid stunts made the general public just want to get out of their cars to curbstomp them rather than save the planet. I haven't heard of Friday's for Future in years and...

No, Extinction Rebellion hasn't "packed it in." It's another one of your made-up claims. I have no idea what you hear about, but your post so far makes me think that it's mainly from the voices in your head.

Canadians are downgrading their concerns for climate if favour of more mundane issues like the cost of living under this new "carbon tax" that the closing of the Straits of Hormuz has brought about.

That Canadians, much like people everywhere else, are mainly concerned with the "cost of living," is to be expected. How could they not be?! That's what happens when a majority of people live paycheck to paycheck. It's not a choice.

Speaking of private jets, who could forget this. Fun bit starts at 2 minutes in.

Bill Maher is a one-trick pony, and his fans never get tired of his one-trick rants. (You're a one-trick pony, too, and I'll get back to your one trick before I finish this post!) It's a pity that Maher's fans are too dumb to notice his trick, and it's a pity that you haven't noticed it because it's the one that you keep repeating, which is why you always miss my point. You haven't even noticed the difference between what Maher criticizes and what I have been saying in this and the other climate thread for years. You also don't notice the similarities:

Maher: I don't know what will work [to fix the environment], but I know what didn't work: asking people to be good, trying to convince our citizens and other countries to use less and pollute less, sacrifice more. When you tell humans, 'If you do these environmentally friendly things, we can all continue to live,' their response is, 'What's in it for me?'
So just to be clear: I do still believe very much that climate change is an emergency, but I don't think we're going to win it by grocery shopping with a laundry bag [photo of woman with laundry bag], or banning the gas stoves [photo of a lit gas stove], or imagining a human can really drink this through a paper straw [photo of some kind of whipped-cream-achino with a cherry and a paper straw]. Scrolling on your phone can use more energy in a day than the refrigerator, but no one is going to give that up.

I think most of the people in this thread got the point, so this is just for you:
1) Notice who has been preaching sacrifice and austerity in this thread!
2) Notice who has been criticizing the idea!
3) Notice what I have said instead – and what Maher doesn't say because he explicitly doesn't know "what will work."
4) Because unlike Bill Maher, I do know what will work and have pointed it out again and again: Transport and infrastructure need to be changed, so CO₂ emissions can be put to an end in a way in which ordinary people's lives aren't disrupted.
And it is actually happening! It is being done! The results are in! "Using girly vegan wind and solar" works! And so does adapting infrastructure to people instead of to cars!
Reducing CO₂ emissions in general: posts 2,170.
Power grid: posts 2,166, 2,167.
Traffic: post 2,189.

Maher thinks he is clever (and so do you) when he points out that people (obviously) aren't idealists and don't want to "sacrifice more" – as if he's the only person on earth who's found that out. It's a point where I can agree with him. I can even agree with him about shopping bags, gas stoves (to some extent) and plastic straws. They are the kind of environmental 'solutions' that politicians and Big Oil love because they solve nothing at all. They are meant to distract environmentalists from dealing with what really matters and has an actual impact.
But unlike Maher, I say what can be done, what should be done, and I show examples of it already being done. Unlike Maher, I tell environmentally concerned people why they shouldn't let themselves be caught up in the misdirection and gaslighting of Big Oil and the politicians they corrupt.
Bill Maher, instead, pokes fun at people for even trying.
Which, of course, is why you love Bill Maher.
However, your love for Bill Maher doesn't include a love for this statement of his:
"I do still believe very much that climate change is an emergency."
This is where I think the majority of people in this thread agree with Bill Maher and disagree with you.
And this is where you prefer to stay in denial.


ETA:
I forgot this one from Maher:
After poking fun at people who are concerned about reusable shopping bags, gas stoves an plastic straws, he comes up with this:

We all must be aware by now that what buying everything from Amazon does to the environment. [Shows several photos of empty cardboard boxes from Amazon.]
But do we stop?
No! The verdict is in! Humans are not good people.

That is the moral of his narrative! Human nature is to blame!
A very popular moral for people arguing against doing anything about the problem!

 

[dann]

Just for clarification: you think it's easier to change the way billions of people live instead of the way a dozen companies do business?

We should do both.

Stout doesn't want to change the way people live.
He wants the extraction, selling and consumption of fossil fuels to continue or, if possible, increase.
That's what he's been arguing for the whole time.
And that's why he loves Bill Maher.

 

[dann]

Kristian G. Andersen on bsky, June 23, 2026
Trump revealed that the outgoing UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, failed to take his advice to rip out his nation's off-shore wind turbines and instead drill for oil. "I think he's a lovely man, but I said, 'You're really messing up energy: you have windmills all over the place.'"

There is more Trump nonsense in the post, e.g. about the Reflecting Pool, but not relevant to this thread.
Wind turbines are beautiful. They should have two long lines of them, one on each side of the pool. Will any presidential candidate pick it up as a campaign promise?

 

[dann]

Europe’s Soaring Heat and the Great Air Conditioning Dilemma (World Resources Institute, June 3, 2026)
Europe’s cities can beat extreme heat by combining efficient air con with passive cooling to reduce emissions and energy use.
(...)
The cycle of rising heat, greater demand for cooling and growing emissions can be broken. Here, we look at data on Europe’s rising urban heat and explore how cities can adapt by pairing efficient, low-carbon air conditioning with long-term passive cooling solutions such as green roofs, reflective materials, tree planting and climate-smart building design.

 

[Stout]

Just for clarification: you think it's easier to change the way billions of people live instead of the way a dozen companies do business?

Far easier to complain that somebody should so something while gobbling up fossil fuels, for sure.

The easy approach has worked out so well, hasn't it?

Fossil fuel CO₂ emissions hit record high in 2025

The critical annual update revealing the latest trends in global carbon emissions

globalcarbonbudget.org

 

[Stout]

No, Extinction Rebellion hasn't "packed it in." It's another one of your made-up claims. I have no idea what you hear about, but your post so far makes me think that it's mainly from the voices in your head.

WE QUIT - Extinction Rebellion UK

As we ring in the new year, we make a controversial resolution to temporarily shift away from public disruption as a primary tactic. We recognise and celebrate the power of disruption to raise the alarm and believe that constantly evolving tactics is a necessary approach.

extinctionrebellion.uk

 

[dann]

Do you know what temporarily shifting away from a tactic means?
"Packing it in" is very far from a correct way to paraphrase it.

 

[dann]

Far easier to complain that somebody should so something while gobbling up fossil fuels, for sure.
The easy approach has worked out so well, hasn't it?

Fossil fuel CO₂ emissions hit record high in 2025

The critical annual update revealing the latest trends in global carbon emissions

globalcarbonbudget.org

Like I said in post 2,285:

Stout doesn't want to change the way people live.
He wants the extraction, selling and consumption of fossil fuels to continue or, if possible, increase.
That's what he's been arguing for the whole time.
And that's why he loves Bill Maher.

 

[Stout]

Do you know what temporarily shifting away from a tactic means?
"Packing it in" is very far from a correct way to paraphrase it.

Nah, man, it's over. Granted it wasn't anywhere near as hilarious as Friday's For Future Auckland declaring themselves Nazis and packing it, in but WE QUIT means...we quit, with all the rest just being an attempt to hang onto the brand.

Like I said in post 2,285:

I ignored it the first time, as I ignored all the Commieslop because I figured you wrote it when you were in the middle of having a stroke. If that's the best you can come up with after all these years of my arguing in favour of austerity no wonder climate activism has been a miserable failure.

 

[The Atheist]

Wind turbines are beautiful.

I support alternative power 100%, but suggesting that wind turbines are anything but an equal blight to the eyes as lines of overhead power cables is simply perverse.

New Zealand draws millions of tourists a year who want to take photos of our natural beauty. None of them want turbines in the shot - they are as ugly as sin itself.

 

[Steve]

I support alternative power 100%, but suggesting that wind turbines are anything but an equal blight to the eyes as lines of overhead power cables is simply perverse.

New Zealand draws millions of tourists a year who want to take photos of our natural beauty. None of them want turbines in the shot - they are as ugly as sin itself.

Not as ugly as a nice brown haze everywhere you look.

 

[GlennB]

I support alternative power 100%, but suggesting that wind turbines are anything but an equal blight to the eyes as lines of overhead power cables is simply perverse.

New Zealand draws millions of tourists a year who want to take photos of our natural beauty. None of them want turbines in the shot - they are as ugly as sin itself.

Do you have shallow(ish) off-coast areas? Build them there, maybe?

Personally I like the sight of lines of wind turbines out at sea.

 

[The Atheist]

Do you have shallow(ish) off-coast areas? Build them there, maybe?

Personally I like the sight of lines of wind turbines out at sea.

No, we have fairly deep water around us and while a couple of sites have been proposed, the damage to seabeds will make it hard to get going. I agree it's a great place for them if you have the right geography.

 

[dann]

I support alternative power 100%, but suggesting that wind turbines are anything but an equal blight to the eyes as lines of overhead power cables is simply perverse.

New Zealand draws millions of tourists a year who want to take photos of our natural beauty. None of them want turbines in the shot - they are as ugly as sin itself.

You are making it up Trumpian-style again like when he is talking about visitors to his Scottish golf course.
It is too bloody obvious that you are both lying.

 

[dann]

From the Trump's Second Term thread:

The unsuccessful countries use wind

Trump: China uses coal. The unsuccessful countries use wind. China. Those beautiful windmills that blow round and round and don't do anything except cost you money every time it goes around, you lose $10. Every country that uses wind is a disaster.

Video in link

 

[The Atheist]

You are making it up Trumpian-style again like when he is talking about visitors to his Scottish golf course.

Yet again, you prove your ignorance.

New Zealand has over 3.5 million international visitors a year: https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/visitor-arrivals-pass-3-5-million/

Almost all come here to see our scenery.

Maybe you should actually learn a thing or two instead of idiotic and incorrect knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Pixel42]

I support alternative power 100%, but suggesting that wind turbines are anything but an equal blight to the eyes as lines of overhead power cables is simply perverse.

That's not the appropriate comparison, though, is it? Are they an equal blight to the eyes as coal, gas, oil or nuclear power stations?