2: A mere joke perpetrated by the elites

Humans play such a minimal role in it it's laughable. That being said, polluting our planet is bad and hurts it. Why are we doing it? Because the good technologies are hidden for now. Those methods are clean, infinite and free. The problem is then, how do you make a profit? Well that system's gotta go first.

I guess the bottom line is, stop blaming individuals when corporations are the one doing the most harm and get the new technologies out so we can stop bitching and moaning and fighting over it.

Humans play such a minimal role in it it's laughable.

That's your misinformed belief that contracts the vast majority of climate scientists. People that spend their whole life studying this issue. It doesn't matter what native they live in or school they work for, they all agree it's exacerbated by man. And you claim to know better? Based on what evidence?

Obviously you don't understand how the scientific method works if you this the scientific consensus is based on faith. It's based on models and a massive amount of data the corroborates those models.

Oh there was tampering. But it was from the Oil and Gas companies. You'd be a fool to think every country, every college researcher was on the take of your "monetary backers". Seriously who do you think has the most to gain by denying science. Follow the money.

I think arguing over it is a really moot point when all they need to do is get the technology out. Fix the root problem and all the other problems magically disappears

Definite existence is pretty much impossible to prove, else we'd be using them.

Tengri did drop us one design that could help us, but obviously, it requires cooperation from everyone, but we ain't there yet...

Design

Their manifesto

We're a long way from achieving the goals in the manifesto with the current climate... But the techonology design as some merit imo. We have done arrays of solar panels, but nothing like described here

We have done arrays of solar panels, but nothing like described here

No wonder.

"High Compressed Solar Light"

haha

Climate Change as a term is 100% accurate. Climates do change. Don't believe me try surviving on the molting lava earth was millons over years ago.

OUR OCEANS OUR DYING> stop. LISTEN. Global temperatures etc can be debated later. 80%+ of water ways are polluted. We must stop polluting our oceans, and water ways. The coral Reef is dead.

I would say it is the catalyst of the acidification in our oceans. But that catalyst happens all the time, and while should be reduced for obvious tech reasons isn't the same as dumping heavy toxins. Think disasters like fukishma. The reality is that will happen the more we rely on toxic harmful resources.

No there are multple sources to remove, and some how solve?

Nuclear waste - by fair the most pressing time wise. Look at the state of Washington the most radioactive state in america. Indeginious tribe were cleared out to dig in to the mountains. Creating nuclear waste resviors. (one of which collapsing a few weeks back). Most importantly after the 60's we were heavily dumping nuclear, and radioactive waste into the oceans. This was heavily stupid. The long term effect of nuclear waste is massive on any ecology.

Waste, byproduct handling - Look at Nestle, and other companies. They mishandle water production. There are no dumping regulations AT ALL on any plants in the state of texas, and else where. That must be fixed, and a no dumping policy must be adopted (should've been done years ago).

Lead, metals that are dangerous neurotoxins - Our lead water pipes suffer from this problem, and in the 50's we saw the fluoridation of public drinking water.

In short by reducing harmful metals, radioactive material, and dirty resources we will avoid killing all life on earth.

t would be a week of readjustment at must.

9 as far as climate change, I know the climate changes lol. But seriously a 2 for global warming, if TPTB are pushing for it, it is probably BS.

square root of -1

The term "Climate Change" is way too linguistically ambiguous a label to get consensus on. A more accurate label would be Anthropomorphic Environmental Destruction, and this would omit the Climate (a selective, incomplete causality in the totality of all causality) as the bellwether subject. It's like gauging how well global crops have done by asking about apple production. Incomplete and uncertainly linked at the best of times.

That decision might prove to be well-intentioned, but misguided.

People have been using the Climate Change label for a long time now, and there's no consensus at all. Which tells me that either the problem is intentionally obfuscated, too difficult for a clear resolution or simply misframed. Regardless, the fact that it continues indicates an intentional failure of cognition by the people perpetuating the storyline - and that's more of an indictment about our governance and collective problem solving as a general problem than the namesake theory is, wholistically speaking.

All of the above

A better question. I think that the elite do things that they honestly think are better for the planet, generally speaking. I feel that they have demonstrated this many times, not the latest being how China has integrated itself globally. I applaud their efforts in some of these things.

In terms of climate change, I think the elite feel that the carbon proxy is the best fit for implementing global policy change. I disagree. I don't disagree that we have a global issue in terms of development, consumption and environmental management - we do. I just disagree with how they're going about doing it. And I think that they're shooting themselves in the foot (possibly intentionally, who knows) by using such a poorly thought out proxy. It discredits them, frankly. Much better to just use plain terms.

The other thing that is consequential to the overt push for global climate change policy is the extra-strong willingness of the scientific (or should that read the paid (and who is paying them??) academic) community to bow down to it. This smells off in the strongest way. And it too, serves fundamentally to discredit these academics and the institutions which seemingly have been coopted by monied and power interests. It's as if the elite think it's preferable to have our social class of thinkers be knee-jerk, fear driven, consensus wanks than actual critical thinkers. And such a trend is truly disturbing. Of course, the lies will only last for so long, and they're being exposed as I write this. Which means there will be an inevitable backlash. The elite have simply bet on the wrong horse and tried to shoehorn their theory in. This is failing. Too bad for them and the consequences such a mistake will trigger.

So you interpret the pro-climate change agenda serving the interests of power-hungry elites as more likely than the anti-climate change agenda serving the interests of greedy elites?

Not at all. There are 2 camps. Both have elites in them.

I appreciate you dancing with me.

Here's the golden question.

In effectively solving the environmental crisis as you see it, what is to be done? Or does removing the power of the elites, in both camps, take full priority?

I don't think it has anything to do with who's in what role. I think it's a systems issue not an actor issue.

Personally I see loads of things that we can collectively do right now that would create jobs, increase social bonds, create new industry that will make us go entirely renewable/sustainable. Things like green roofs, locally produced food, local bike delivery, changing the design of our road systems to work on one-way turn right only principles, removing plastic from packaging and going to something sustainable like hemp. We're post-industrialization now. All the systems we have in place are legacy from the heyday of industrialization. We don't need them anymore. We can move away from planned obsolescence towards good design, and do this in a way that keeps the population capable and invested. We don't do this even though people want it. Well eventually the willpower will defeat the banks/terrain/"avenues of least resistance" and people will do it anyway. Such is nature.

I can only speak for my hometown Toronto. Here policy is controlled by monied interests and lobbyists who get in on the policy level (muni, provincial, etc) and stifle good ideas. Every fucking time. These clowns want to be the only Heroes on the block, and they're not that smart, so we get shitty Heroes. I'd fix this by transparency of design language of policy. Pretty easy to do if you understand how to model things via language. If you don't, you'll probably fuck it up. The key point here is leveraging the scale of the cohort and you can only do that if they can parse the language. Our language of gov is not easily parsed.

How can we root language back in the nourishing soils of Truth?

Use the decorator pattern, writ large. All the best languages are fractally phi. So take the best one from the computer domain, lisp, and use this general design plus idioms to define a way on categorizing information. Have sentences of these descriptors (machine parsable, btw) layer out descriptions of the whole thing they're describing. Human readable. Narrative-y. Unambiguous. Maps to different languages in that you can just use the language-specific key/idiom name for your model/type/prototype (because what I'm suggesting is a meta language), and you have unambiguous internationalization. Narratives can be versioned, and thus you have full backwards and forwards compatibility. Meaning you mutate your language in a well-defined way and know where you were every step of the way. Solves ALL of our mechanical bureaucratic shit. We even have proof that this is the best way to model things via the design of books - which to date are the single best way of describing things humans have come up with. Use tech to auto-complete this shit and you have super fast data input. Create a wikipedia like canonical repo of models/stereotypes/recipes. Boom. Solves the human language problem, at least as it relates to accuracy and contract.

Is this primarily your own conceptualization

my own observation

is their further material specific to this that I can read up on?

Look into how object oriented inheritance scales complexity outwardly in a combinatoric/geometric fashion vs how modelling vs composition is linear. This is the core design failure of hierarchical/"fractally divisive" design. Look into the examples of books and language and how they are constructed. Observe that phi languages on their own like Finnish and German accumulate terms and get super long and unwieldy. Then observe how idiomatic/truncated languages like Jamaican Patois short form things and are the equivalent of compilation in computer language terms compared to the phi languages being interpreted. Then observe how sentences are built, and words. Then look at computer languages that are phi-y and how effective/lasting they've been compared to other computer languages. Then look at the architecture of non-phonetic languages like kanji and you'll see the decorator applied in a visual sense. Then look at the architecture of ancient monoliths, many of which are very phi. The examples of this design pattern are everywhere, in plain sight. People just don't know what they're looking at.

I think that whether or not human impact is altering the earth's climate isn't the real issue here. It's an economic agenda dressed up as an environmental agenda and to be honest I'm pretty suprised that this sub in particular can't see that.

To implement a new economic development model, that has never been tried or tested before, and to do it within a time frame. The UN top dog on climate change is the source for that info. Why is the head of UNFCCC talking about replacing the economic development model that has been in place since the industrial revolution?

A new economic model built on the notion that the collective is more important than the individual? Fuck that.

The individuals concern for the collective should be voluntary. Always.

Absolutely not. What you're suggesting sounds like a nightmare and there's no way of spinning it to sound otherwise. Only the individual can determine whether something is in their interest.

It's the only system that serves the rights of the individual.

The only system that has existed and we've ever known. The right for an individual to live their life however they see fit as long as they don't interfere with anyone else doing the same. The UN seem to be heading down the path of something similar to technocracy, an energy/resource based economy. And to that I say that they can fuck clean off

1

It's a genius scheme to break the stranglehold petroleum has on the energy sector. It can also provide the mechanism for the first global tax.

The base data is flawed and has been manipulated. All of the current global climate change impact studies Governments are funding are based on a flawed conclusion from flawed data. Go look at the study grants EPA are offering. It's 500K - 999K to study the impact of man made global climate change on X.

Here's an article from March 2017. https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html "For the first time, model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate."

They just studied the sun's impact on climate change for the FIRST TIME in 2016-2017. For the first time, and even these knuckle heads were assuming man made global warming. That's all you have to know about climate change. They just recently looked at the thing that actually warms the earth to see if maybe it's doing something to warm the earth. And their conclusion is, man is warming the earth, but luckily the sun is not warming it as much anymore. pffft.

1.

I would guess a 3 or so

This is an extremely nuanced issue. I don't pretend to know either way. Is climate change real? Is it man-made? If it is, then do we contribute to it in a significant way? If we do, is it the average person who needs to completely change their lifestyle? Or is it large industry and corporate culture that is mostly to blame. The questions go on.

I think with answers to a few of those questions then there are definitely others that we can safely surmise the answers to.

But basically, the only thing I do know for a fact is that the base data was cooked. Of that, there is no question. While not definitive evidence, it absolutely presents a huge problem for the climate change movement - one which they won't even acknowledge.