The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[DBT]

And you are? A politician? Constantly back-pedaling, justifying why the campaign promises never come to pass, but hey, a new paving on the back country road (that just so happens to lead to your your weekend residence) is really pretty much the same as a new highway linking the country's two largest cities, isn't it?

As I explained in my following remarks, sufficient steps to avoid an environmental/ecological/economic disaster are not being taken, hence it is not a question of if a disaster will happen, but when.

That may be what you believe, but it is not what you said.

Given our current attitude of business as usual, it will happen, no if's, buts or maybe's, it will happen.

If we happen pull the finger out in time and take meaningful action, we can mitigate the crisis, maybe even ride it out without too much trouble... but most probably won't avert it altogether.

Now stop telling me what I meant by my remark.

I'm not. Just reminding you what you said.

You misrepresent whatever I say. You turn a brief remark to your own advantage and purpose, then ignore all explanations that follow. A poor effort.

 

[Jokodo]

And you are? A politician? Constantly back-pedaling, justifying why the campaign promises never come to pass, but hey, a new paving on the back country road (that just so happens to lead to your your weekend residence) is really pretty much the same as a new highway linking the country's two largest cities, isn't it?



That may be what you believe, but it is not what you said.



I'm not. Just reminding you what you said.

You misrepresent whatever I say. You turn a brief remark to your own advantage and purpose, then ignore all explanations that follow. A poor effort.

Did you or did you not say "there is no if"?

You get to explain that you didn't actually mean what you said, or to even change your mind. You don't get b to blame me for doing so.

 

[steve_bank]

I listened to an anthropologist speak on a PBS show on why civilizations collapse. She made a study of past civilizations.

Civilizations grow based on a paradigm, a view of how things work. At some point the old paradigms cannot deal with increasing complexity. You can change leadership but they all come from the same cultural pool.

Overuse of resources, costly conflicts. The system breaks down.

We are seeing it today. Congress is ideologfical on both sides, unable to se any alternatives. Meanwhile the border situation gets worse, water is not being addressed, Infrastructure re is decaying.

The UK has suspended parliament. The self rule democracy experiments of the last 200 years are failing. Authoritarian China is risng.

The Amazon destruction can accelerate climate change. G7 made a paltry 20 million offer to help. Brazil says no thanks, they are an independent country and does what it wants.

We are unable to deral with climate change. The soico economic paradigm precludes it, profit above all things. If it can be exploited it will. Pompeio said with the opening up of the Artic due to warming, why not exploit it? That says it all.

 

[DBT]

And you are? A politician? Constantly back-pedaling, justifying why the campaign promises never come to pass, but hey, a new paving on the back country road (that just so happens to lead to your your weekend residence) is really pretty much the same as a new highway linking the country's two largest cities, isn't it?



That may be what you believe, but it is not what you said.



I'm not. Just reminding you what you said.

You misrepresent whatever I say. You turn a brief remark to your own advantage and purpose, then ignore all explanations that follow. A poor effort.

Did you or did you not say "there is no if"?

You get to explain that you didn't actually mean what you said, or to even change your mind. You don't get b to blame me for doing so.

You act like frustrated Barrister in a court of law, you seize on the wording of a sentence, an element of rhetoric, and accept no clarification or explanation, locked tight as a drum in your assumption of truth....so any further explanation is seen as 'back peddling'

I explained precisely what I meant by my initial remark: that if sufficient steps to avoid an environmental/ecological/economic disaster are not taken, it is not a question of if a disaster will happen, but when. And as it appears that sufficient measures are not being taken, a disaster of some proportion appears to be inevitable, not a question of if but when.

That is what I meant. My initial remark was brief and rhetorical. This is not back peddling, it is explaining and expanding on what I meant. If you can't consider or accept explanations or amendments relating to wording, there is nothing more I can do.

 

[Jokodo]

Did you or did you not say "there is no if"?

You get to explain that you didn't actually mean what you said, or to even change your mind. You don't get b to blame me for doing so.

You act like frustrated Barrister in a court of law, you seize on the wording of a sentence, an element of rhetoric, and accept no clarification or explanation, locked tight as a drum in your assumption of truth....so any further explanation is seen as 'back peddling'

I explained precisely what I meant by my initial remark: that if sufficient steps to avoid an environmental/ecological/economic disaster are not taken, it is not a question of if a disaster will happen, but when. And as it appears that sufficient measures are not being taken, a disaster of some proportion appears to be inevitable, not a question of if but when.

That is what I meant. My initial remark was brief and rhetorical. This is not back peddling, it is explaining and expanding on what I meant. If you can't consider or accept explanations or amendments relating to wording, there is nothing more I can do.

Again, I understand and accept you are saying this is what you meant, but it keeps not being what you said. "There's nothing we can do" and "we don't seem to be doing nearly enough" are very different things to say. In terms of the action plan that can be derived, they're effectively opposites: one is a call to inaction

 

[DBT]

Did you or did you not say "there is no if"?

You get to explain that you didn't actually mean what you said, or to even change your mind. You don't get b to blame me for doing so.

You act like frustrated Barrister in a court of law, you seize on the wording of a sentence, an element of rhetoric, and accept no clarification or explanation, locked tight as a drum in your assumption of truth....so any further explanation is seen as 'back peddling'

I explained precisely what I meant by my initial remark: that if sufficient steps to avoid an environmental/ecological/economic disaster are not taken, it is not a question of if a disaster will happen, but when. And as it appears that sufficient measures are not being taken, a disaster of some proportion appears to be inevitable, not a question of if but when.

That is what I meant. My initial remark was brief and rhetorical. This is not back peddling, it is explaining and expanding on what I meant. If you can't consider or accept explanations or amendments relating to wording, there is nothing more I can do.

Again, I understand and accept you are saying this is what you meant, but it keeps not being what you said. "There's nothing we can do" and "we don't seem to be doing nearly enough" are very different things to say. In terms of the action plan that can be derived, they're effectively opposites: one is a call to inaction

I know what what I meant better than you, after all, I was the one who said it.

Then I explainend remark without 'back tracking.'

Nor did I say 'there is nothing we can do.'

We can do plenty of things that would help, but are we doing enough? I'd say that the prevailing attitude is ''business as usual'' with a veneer of concern and inadequate measures being taken to prevent disastrous climate change, keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees.

I'd say that we are not doing enough.

Hence my remark, it is not a question of when the shit hits the fan, but when.

Hopefully a miracle of transformation in the minds of policy makers and business leaders comes about and drastic action will be taken in time.

 

[Jokodo]

Again, I understand and accept you are saying this is what you meant, but it keeps not being what you said. "There's nothing we can do" and "we don't seem to be doing nearly enough" are very different things to say. In terms of the action plan that can be derived, they're effectively opposites: one is a call to inaction

I know what what I meant better than you, after all, I was the one who said it.

I assume as much. I can't mind read. I can however read, and it's clearly not what you wrote.

 

[DBT]

Again, I understand and accept you are saying this is what you meant, but it keeps not being what you said. "There's nothing we can do" and "we don't seem to be doing nearly enough" are very different things to say. In terms of the action plan that can be derived, they're effectively opposites: one is a call to inaction

I know what what I meant better than you, after all, I was the one who said it.

I assume as much. I can't mind read. I can however read, and it's clearly not what you wrote.

You read through the filter of your own proclivities, your interpretation filtered through your needs and wants, you see what you want to see and disregard the rest. Your initial assumption locked, fixed, unchangable, consequently anything that is subsequently said or explained cannot be considered or accepted because it does not relate to your initial false assumption of truth. Cheers.

 

[fromderinside]

...and through this discussion failure both of you expect results?

 

[Jokodo]

I assume as much. I can't mind read. I can however read, and it's clearly not what you wrote.

You read through the filter of your own proclivities, your interpretation filtered through your needs and wants, you see what you want to see and disregard the rest. Your initial assumption locked, fixed, unchangable, consequently anything that is subsequently said or explained cannot be considered or accepted because it does not relate to your initial false assumption of truth. Cheers.

Sure, insults will change the facts of what you wrote. Not.

 

[DBT]

I assume as much. I can't mind read. I can however read, and it's clearly not what you wrote.

You read through the filter of your own proclivities, your interpretation filtered through your needs and wants, you see what you want to see and disregard the rest. Your initial assumption locked, fixed, unchangable, consequently anything that is subsequently said or explained cannot be considered or accepted because it does not relate to your initial false assumption of truth. Cheers.

Sure, insults will change the facts of what you wrote. Not.

It can certainly be interpreted as insulting, or you could take my remark as constructive criticism, a remark to help you understand the nature of your response, firstly interpreting a brief remark in a way that suits your own proclivities, needs, wants....then failing to accept any explanation or clarification because it does not suit your initial assumption.

You feel the insult from your side, but fail to see how your false assumption of truth and failure to consider any further explanation may be insulting for your opponent....who is forced to bring your unreasonable and intractable position to your attention, which is never comfortable.

Cheers.

 

[steve_bank]

'Fiddling while Rome burns' comes to mind...

 

[DBT]

'Fiddling while Rome burns' comes to mind...

It seems that some folks are not aware of scale of the envirnmental, climate change problem on the horizon, and that not enough is being done to prevent it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's actually of no great importance. Long before the sun goes red giant the Earth will have become uninhabitable. We have only about 50 million more years of stable conditions, then the mercury will start creeping up. By a billion years the Earth will be a boiling-hot (that is, if there's any water left to boil) basically lifeless ball--and that's the optimistic picture. The pessimistic one is too much water remaining, at that point you get another Venus.

Where are you getting 50 million years? The best estimates I know are anywhere between 300 and 600 million years. Still a lot sooner than the red giant state, but still...

50 million is when the compensation reaches it's limit and the mercury starts to creep up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Extinction is the rule rather than the exception on this and most likely millions other planets in the cosmos. Why would Homo Sapiens be a special exception?

It's estimated that up to 5 billion lifeforms have lived and died out on Earth.
More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to have died out. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.
Extinction - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Extinction

Just because most species go extinct doesn't mean we want to join them.

 

[lpetrich]

The Misogyny of Climate Deniers | The New Republic - "Why do right-wing men hate Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez so much? Researchers have some troubling answers to that question."

Climate skeptic Bjørn Lomborg has built his global brand on keeping his cool. “Cool it,” his best-selling book told those worried about the warming planet. For some reason, however, he seems to have difficulty sticking to the blasé tone when it comes to a 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden.

Lomborg has repeatedly mocked and criticized Greta Thunberg, the prominent young activist who has been sailing across the Atlantic to attend the UN’s Youth Climate Summit and other meetings in the U.S. In June, he tweeted out a cartoon that implied Greta was only useful to climate activists because being young made her unassailable—in four years, it joked, she’d be replaced with someone younger still. Earlier in the year, he’d asked why the World Economic Forum was listening to her at all, and approvingly shared a Quillette article which called Thunberg a fanatic and “absolutist” and which argued adults had a duty to correct her childlike naiveté.

...
As Thunberg approached America, she was followed by a tsunami of male rage. On her first day of sailing, a multi-millionaire Brexit activist tweeted that he wished a freak accident would destroy her boat. A conservative Australian columnist called her a “deeply disturbed messiah of the global warming movement,” while the British far-right activist David Vance attacked the “sheer petulance of this arrogant child.”

In the U.S., former Trump staffer Steve Milloy recently called Thunberg a “teenage puppet,” and claimed that “the world laughs at this Greta charade,” while a widely shared far-right meme showed Trump tipping The Statue of Liberty to crush her boat. We can expect a surge of similar attacks in the U.S. as she arrives in New York this week.

What might be going on here?

Researchers at Sweden’s Chalmers University of Technology, which recently launched the world’s first academic research center to study climate denialism, have for years been examining a link between climate deniers and the anti-feminist far-right.

In 2014, Jonas Anshelm and Martin Hultman of Chalmers published a paper analyzing the language of a focus group of climate skeptics. The common themes in the group, they said, were striking: “for climate skeptics … it was not the environment that was threatened, it was a certain kind of modern industrial society built and dominated by their form of masculinity.”

Both in Europe and in the US.

The rise of Thunberg and Ocasio-Cortez has generated a predictable backlash among conservative men. In the U.S., Ocasio-Cortez has become an obsession on right-wing media. Fox News mentioned her an average of 76 times a day during her first month in Congress. Now, Greta Thunberg is becoming a similar target for European nationalists. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party seems to have coordinated their attacks on Thunberg with the right-wing European Institute for Climate and Energy think tank.

 

[Jokodo]

Sure, insults will change the facts of what you wrote. Not.

It can certainly be interpreted as insulting, or you could take my remark as constructive criticism, a remark to help you understand the nature of your response, firstly interpreting a brief remark in a way that suits your own proclivities, needs, wants....then failing to accept any explanation or clarification because it does not suit your initial assumption.

You feel the insult from your side, but fail to see how your false assumption of truth and failure to consider any further explanation may be insulting for your opponent....who is forced to bring your unreasonable and intractable position to your attention, which is never comfortable.

Cheers.

Would that be the "false assumption of truth" or the "unreasonable and intractable position" that "there is no if" can be reasonably interpreted to mean "there is no if"?

How many times have I by now said that I understand your explanation that this isn't what you meant? How does this square with your insistence that I'm failing to "consider any further explanation"? I have considered further explanations. They don't change the facts of what you wrote, and they don't make it so that my reaction to what you wrote (not what you meant, I can't mind read so I can only react to what I see) was anything but reasonable. Your attempt to make it look like it wasn't is sleazy.

 

[Jokodo]

That's actually of no great importance. Long before the sun goes red giant the Earth will have become uninhabitable. We have only about 50 million more years of stable conditions, then the mercury will start creeping up. By a billion years the Earth will be a boiling-hot (that is, if there's any water left to boil) basically lifeless ball--and that's the optimistic picture. The pessimistic one is too much water remaining, at that point you get another Venus.

Where are you getting 50 million years? The best estimates I know are anywhere between 300 and 600 million years. Still a lot sooner than the red giant state, but still...

50 million is when the compensation reaches it's limit and the mercury starts to creep up.

Ah, OK, I misunderstood. You did actually say that.

 

[steve_bank]

We appear to be failing the Dewing Test.

Ants and cockroaches are the supreme winners.

 

[DBT]

I have considered further explanations. They don't change the facts of what you wrote, and they don't make it so that my reaction to what you wrote (not what you meant, I can't mind read so I can only react to what I see) was anything but reasonable. Your attempt to make it look like it wasn't is sleazy.

There's your problem. What I wrote was a brief off the cuff remark. You seize upon the wording of that remark without asking what I meant and worry over it like pup with a bone, or a desperate Lawyer, like the wording is the final draft, once said it's locked in for life and any further explanation is futile. You need to lighten up and get out of your Philadelphia Lawyer Mode.