Watch Greta Thunberg tear these corporate douchebags apart in the question round

[PC2]

This is just a willfully dishonest position to hold. It's a flat-out refusal to accept facts that you don't agree with.

There are experts in these fields. You refusing to understand that isn't an argument, it's an attempt to redefine your personal reality in the same way that anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers do. Who also claim the experts don't know what they're talking about, I'll note.

Well that sucks for you because society doesn't and never will let people like economists determine our economic policy solutions. Just like we won't let climate experts(data gatherers) determine climate solutions. It simply makes no sense to think an expert can know the answers as it relates to complex systems.

[Endus]

Well that sucks for you because society doesn't and never will let people like economists determine our economic policy solutions. Just like we won't let climate experts(data gatherers) determine climate solutions. It simply makes no sense to think an expert can know the answers as it relates to complex systems.

Policy experts aren't the same people as researchers working on data generation.

There are experts working in both economic policy and climate change adaptation and mitigation policy. They do have answers. Your refusal to even admit their existence is complete nonsense.

[PC2]

Policy experts aren't the same people as researchers working on data generation.

There are experts working in both economic policy and climate change adaptation and mitigation policy. They do have answers. Your refusal to even admit their existence is complete nonsense.

What answers? I've never seen any.

It's impossible to know how we ought to act in complex systems. Which is why we determine our government policy via democracy and not experts/technocracy.

[Shadowferal]

Climate change deniers are so cute when they realize how wrong they are.

[Saucexorzski]

Climate change deniers are so cute when they realize how wrong they are.

naw, they about as silly as the folks that think wealth redistribution and cutting back on energy production will solve the issue.

[Endus]

What answers? I've never seen any.

Then you've never made any effort to look.

https://www.csla-aapc.ca/primers
Primers 2-4 are focused on adaptation policy frameworks.

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ec...amework_en.pdf
Federal climate change adaptation policy framework for Canada.

https://www.adaptation-undp.org/reso...icy-frameworks
UN Development Programme adaptation frameworks.

And so on. Just some examples, by no means is that anywhere close to complete, since I'm not about to dump hundreds of documents.

Your argument is exactly as misguided as those of flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers.

[PC2]

Then you've never made any effort to look.

https://www.csla-aapc.ca/primers
Primers 2-4 are focused on adaptation policy frameworks.

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ec...amework_en.pdf
Federal climate change adaptation policy framework for Canada.

https://www.adaptation-undp.org/reso...icy-frameworks
UN Development Programme adaptation frameworks.

And so on. Just some examples, by no means is that anywhere close to complete, since I'm not about to dump hundreds of documents.

Your argument is exactly as misguided as those of flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers.

Those are based on adaptation so they're probably okay. The bad type of environmentalism is the type that focuses primarily on avoiding problems by banning and taxing things instead of adaptation and innovation.

Like I said before I don't have a problem with the vast majority of what Greta says, I only have a problem when she implies that restrictive policies are somehow a good idea.

[Shadowferal]

He has beliefs that certainly seem almost fundamentalism.

I guess mine does as well. I'm a devout tree-hugger.

[Endus]

Those are based on adaptation so they're probably okay.

Adaptation and mitigation are the policy responses to climate change, which you claimed didn't exist.

The bad type of environmentalism is the type that focuses primarily on avoiding problems by banning and taxing things instead of adaptation and innovation.

This is A> entirely subjective, and B> wildly mischaracterizes what climate change mitigation is about.

Like I said before I don't have a problem with the vast majority of what Greta says, I only have a problem when she implies that restrictive policies are somehow a good idea.

When the problem is "there's too much pee in this pool", Step 1 is "maybe stop peeing in the pool, then".

[PC2]

Adaptation and mitigation are the policy responses to climate change, which you claimed didn't exist.

This is A> entirely subjective, and B> wildly mischaracterizes what climate change mitigation is about.

Mitigation didn't seem to be the key point in those links though, which is good. CC could be mitigated by some tiny percentage number but it would be largely worthless for the West unless the developing world adopts similar policy.

When the problem is "there's too much pee in this pool", Step 1 is "maybe stop peeing in the pool, then".

No, because you can't get out of the pool in this metaphor. Which is fine because the world happens to have a diverse array of resources which we could use to solve just about any problem.

[Kumorii]

When the problem is "there's too much pee in this pool", Step 1 is "maybe stop peeing in the pool, then".

Step 1 is building more toilets and make them more accessible.

Stop peeing in the pool is the goal, not the means.

[Shadowferal]

Yeah but when someone says we can solve any problem...and has yet to show just exactly how that works, he's not about solutions. He's only about bullshit rhetoric.

[PC2]

Yeah but when someone says we can solve any problem...

The alternative is to give up when problems arise.

But yeah, I don't see any reason why people can't fix anything. Perhaps if there was some massive asteroid hurling straight for Earth then maybe we could not solve that in 2019. But the odds of that happening is very low.

and has yet to show just exactly how that works, he's not about solutions.

Geo-engineering and Carbon sequestration is my guess.

[Yadryonych]

Geo-engineering and carbon sequestration is my guess.

How about cannibalism instead? Or general degradation in form of banning planes and food? That's all they got so far.

[Endus]

Mitigation didn't seem to be the key point in those links though, which is good.

Except that it is, and you're not reading them.

Mitigation is absolutely critical, because there's ongoing harm being done, and the first step to reducing that harm is to mitigate how much harm we're creating every year.

This is basic fucking stuff. You're engaging in blindly partisan demagoguery because you don't like the facts.

CC could be mitigated by some tiny percentage number but it would be largely worthless for the West unless the developing world adopts similar policy.

This is simply objectively false. At this point, I'm not even sure you understand what "mitigation" even means, in this context.

No, because you can't get out of the pool in this metaphor.

You don't get to rework the metaphor, just because it works against you.

You can get out of the pool. You just don't want to.

Which is fine because the world happens to have a diverse array of resources which we could use to solve just about any problem.

See Shadowferal's post. You're not talking about solutions. You're talking about avoiding solutions because the magical future will fix everything forever because magic ta-da.

You literally never offer a workable solution. You always hand-wave anything we could do, with the idea that there's some innovation right around the corner that will fix it all magically. Despite not having any idea what that could be. That's nonsense. It isn't an argument. It's just an attempt to shut down climate change policy efforts, for your own political goals, which involve allowing damage to continue unabated for some reason.

[Fargus]

Her delivery, namely the fact she chose to deliver her arguments with a sixteen year old mouth?

Yes, you buffoon. Her delivery. Written for her on a script.

Stamping your feet and yelling out how dare you, chastising those who you are trying to convince is not a very good method of persuasion. That's the fucking point. Her age just amplifies that.

The lame, pissy, triggered ad hominem attacks on Greta are precisely what the titular douchebags are getting dragged for. Don't know why you find that hard to understand.

Completely irrelevant to the point I'm making here.

[Ghostpanther]

He has beliefs that certainly seem almost fundamentalism.

I guess mine does as well. I'm a devout tree-hugger.

One of the best ways to reduce plastic pollution, is to harvest trees. Make products from them instead. It is a renewable resource.

[Burgerberg]

One of the best ways to reduce plastic pollution, is to harvest trees. Make products from them instead. It is a renewable resource.

I keep on confusing you with Shadowferal for some reason. Must be the black panther avatar.

[Ghostpanther]

I keep on confusing you with Shadowferal for some reason. Must be the black panther avatar.

Lol. Np. His avatar has more to do with Stars Wars than WoW. But he appears to be a nice guy. One you can disagree with and he does not resort to insults or condescending tone.

But seriously. Trees can benefit mankind in many ways and should be used to help us reduce unnecessary and harmful pollution. The US has about 75% of the woodland we had when the first settlers came here.

[Sylvandoh]

There actually is an instant solution. Everyone stop eating meat now. Just immediately. Just give it up.
Thats the real poluter. But big bucks going on there though, cant be talkin bout that.

Even better yet: if they're not going to stop, let's make them stop. Let's hunt meat eaters down and coerce them into stopping… or else!