Stupid sh#t people have posted
- Thread starter JJ Husker
- Start date
JJ Husker
Donor
JJ Husker
Donor
I doubt I’ll be around in 20 years to be held accountable. Much like you won’t be around long enough to be held accountable for your science denying view of climate change. I will guarantee though that your grandkids won’t be happy about your climate destroying enablement attitude. Heck, possibly even your children. It won’t take the complete destruction of the GBR to see that happen.
“I doubt I’ll be around in 20 years to be held accountable. Much like you won’t be around long enough to be held accountable for your science denying view of climate change. I will guarantee though that your grandkids won’t be happy about your climate destroying enablement attitude. Heck, possibly even your children. It won’t take the complete destruction of the GBR to see that happen.”
guaranteeing something that can’t be guaranteed. The epitome of what this thread is about. By the thread creator no less :facepalm: . Well done
guaranteeing something that can’t be guaranteed. The epitome of what this thread is about. By the thread creator no less :facepalm: . Well done
JJ Husker
Donor
It’s not stupid to realize certain behaviors have likely consequences. But I don’t expect you to accept that, it’s that bit of reality that got your initial post put in here to begin with. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. No harm no foul. If you’re wrong, the climate suffers, the world is a worse place for future generations and possibly your heirs are pissed at people just like you.
You’re right, I may not be able to guarantee that. For all I know your grandkids may end up science denying, evidence ignoring persons just like you. But I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they’ll end up better.
Lorewarn
New member
Even if this is true, who cares? If natural climate change is changing to a point that will cause immense suffering and destruction for human beings, we better figure out how to adapt to it. Doesn't really matter if it's our fault or not.
The Earth will be fine. We might not be.
It’s ignorant to say I don’t accept behaviors have consequence. You just try really really hard to make up statements about me that are patently false. Only you know why, but it’s certainly silly. To go so far as saying my kids you haven’t met and their kids who haven’t been born won’t be happy with the extent of man made climate change I believe it is delusional at best.
But bringing in my kids and future grandkids into the discussion in order to make is more personal and to say how they feel about me is quite a$$h@!e move. Congrats! Hope getting that out of your system made you feel better for the day.
I have three kids old enough to make their own decisions in life and non disagree with my assessment that their is some man made effects on global climate but not nearly to the extent alarmist like you make it out to be. They all three drive gas powered cars, gasp, and one of them is a new challenger that gets less than 20 miles a gallon, eeeeekk. His plan in life is to be an investment Titan with his own plane and a few vacation houses and some really nice cars. I know, head in the clouds type stuff, but I noticed owning a Tesla to save the environment wasn’t on his list. Daughter just wants to live a normal life and be a player in the fashion industry. She likes companies with good ESG plans and is a good steward of the environment as we all are in my family. #3 just wants to drive his hand me down car and kick a$$ in football and baseball. Hugging trees, agreeing with the D platform saying we have 12-15 years left (2 years ago) until we are past the point of no return isn’t really on his thought process. #4 just wants to go the swimming pool and get back to her friends in first grade. She may hate me later in life but I doubt it since I’m her self proclaimed “cuddle buddy”
It does matter in that D’s are demanding we change our entire economic system based on a theory that man is changing the climate so much that in 12-15 years we are beyond the point of no return.
I think we all will be happy to get more efficient energy processes and in due time, mankind will figure out how to make them economically viable. Let’s just give it time and stop the alarmism. That energy change is going to happen. Staying on fossil fuels until it happens naturally (or with a small push from Gov in the form of subsidies, which is already happening) is just fine, Earth will be just fine, and so will humankind. If we are not, it will be because of some nuclear war, a pathogen, asteroid, or mass volcanic eruptions type event. Not from me or my brethren driving our gas cars.
Lorewarn
New member
Fine is incredibly suggestive when it comes to humanity.
If the definition of the word is "not extinct" (which it seems is close to whatever working definition you're using since all your examples are in the realm of extinction level threats), sure, odds are good we'll be fine. But if fine includes some amount of good living conditions for more people over time, climate change is a real threat to that. Famine, flooding, natural disasters, wars over resources or resource scarcity/cost due to wars, etc. can and will all get worse as climate change continues to deviate from where we want it, and those events make the lives of millions far less than fine.
There's no reason to have any problem with alarmism when it comes to preventing possible tragedies by doing things that ought to be done regardless.
Ivor van Heerden spent years trying to get government officials to heed his warnings that New Orleans was at serious risk for a huge tragedy in the event of a slow moving category 3 hurricane. He kept trying to tell FEMA to have pre-emptive evacuation plans in place for the hundreds of thousands of elderly, people without vehicles, homeless, etc. He told the federal government the wetlands needed to be rebuilt long-term, and he predicted that the levees would fail unless the gov immediately earmarked ~$15 billion to have them engineered correctly.
So, in essence, he was an alarmist that was demanding radical change by the government, claiming that there wasn't time to wait. Fits the model caricature you're criticizing to a T.
Then Katrina happened. 1,800 dead, $125 billion in damages, tens of millions of gallons of oil spilled, 600,000 households displaced. A lot of that was preventable by man even if man didn't cause the hurricane.
If the definition of the word is "not extinct" (which it seems is close to whatever working definition you're using since all your examples are in the realm of extinction level threats), sure, odds are good we'll be fine. But if fine includes some amount of good living conditions for more people over time, climate change is a real threat to that. Famine, flooding, natural disasters, wars over resources or resource scarcity/cost due to wars, etc. can and will all get worse as climate change continues to deviate from where we want it, and those events make the lives of millions far less than fine.
There's no reason to have any problem with alarmism when it comes to preventing possible tragedies by doing things that ought to be done regardless.
Ivor van Heerden spent years trying to get government officials to heed his warnings that New Orleans was at serious risk for a huge tragedy in the event of a slow moving category 3 hurricane. He kept trying to tell FEMA to have pre-emptive evacuation plans in place for the hundreds of thousands of elderly, people without vehicles, homeless, etc. He told the federal government the wetlands needed to be rebuilt long-term, and he predicted that the levees would fail unless the gov immediately earmarked ~$15 billion to have them engineered correctly.
So, in essence, he was an alarmist that was demanding radical change by the government, claiming that there wasn't time to wait. Fits the model caricature you're criticizing to a T.
Then Katrina happened. 1,800 dead, $125 billion in damages, tens of millions of gallons of oil spilled, 600,000 households displaced. A lot of that was preventable by man even if man didn't cause the hurricane.
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker
Donor
Jesus…you made it way more personal than I did. By your “grandkids” I figuratively meant future generations but yeah that possibly includes your actual grandkids. Don’t take these things so literally or personally. The point was, if we don’t change what we’re doing to the planet, sooner rather than later, future generations are going to be thinking WTF about us.
I’m about the furthest thing from an environmental alarmist you’ll ever find…..unless believing and trusting the overwhelming consensus of science is “alarmist” to you.
Last edited by a moderator:
ZRod
Active member
How are they demanding our entire economic system change?
And 12 to 15 more years of current emissions would be pretty damn bad for the climate. We already have more fires , drought, more hurricanes, etc.
