Well, you keep acting as though your indulging in it makes you somehow better than other people. Like I said, if this “catharsis” is what you enjoy, knock yourself out; it’s no less permissible than any other form of useless Pit ranting.
But when you smugly contrast your pointless ranting and fuming with other people’s alleged “do[ing] nothing”, it sure sounds as though you’re trying to claim that your self-righteous Pit ranting is actually useful in some way. And that claim is not at all persuasive.
Try reading the fucking thread again, moron – it’s other posters who suggested that I’m just ranting and not actually doing anything about the problem of climate change, as if that’s a prerequisite for starting a thread in the pit.
I was referring to your own post #11, where you said:
Sure sounds like you’re conceitedly contrasting your allegedly “good” and country-founding “rage” with other posters’ frivolous “do nothing” app play. As though your self-congratulatory “reminders” about the necessity for “committing” to “something important” are actually useful for any purpose but stroking your own ego.
By that point the thread has gone so far off topic – thanks to other posters’ thread shitting - that we’re now talking about multiple issues in the same thread.
But in reference to #11, everything I said was true and said in earnest. I speak truth.
Feeling rage is the easy part, the part not requiring commitment or pretty much any actual effort. Turning that rage into anything helpful or positive, that’s where you never deliver.
From my observation of group dynamics here over the years, what you described is the mechanism through which people are removed from the SDMB by particularly militant members. It is specially ironic considering that part of the process invariably includes labelling the target as a troll.
You are missing another contingent there, the people that know Climate Change is real (or at least say so) who do things ostensibly framed as solving the problem, which they know damn well will not, and rake in the profits anyway. For example “Green” bio fuel.
Alt fuels aren’t really all that big of a help, cars with low emission standards & more electric trains are the way to address climate change. It seems like after 20 years the shipping industry is finally making some changes to address how polluting the world’s collection of freighters are. Alt Fuels have to deal with reliance on foreign oil. Reduced commuting would help and some fields have increased telecommuting. Also seeing in NJ at least an increase in town centers where new housing is built with stores on the ground floor and in short walking distance to a train station.
More solar & wind are also big helps. Bringing their own problems the natural gas electric plants do help with climate change but fracking has a whole load of issues.
Nuke is good for climate change but still comes with so many other problems that it might not be worth it.
Reducing electric use can really help. The change to LEDs from incandescent bulbs is helping to reduce electric consumption. We have made a lot of progress on appliances getting significantly more efficient. Even computers have shifted to less power hungry solutions like laptops and pads. So this is one area that has really improved.
We can also reduce the waste electricity in our aging distribution system, but this one is tough.
Greenhouse gas recovery from power plants would help.
Political revolution derives from strong emotion, especially Rage. It was extreme emotion that led the French people to throw off the yoke of the Bourbon Kings. It was strong and active emotion which led to the vigorous demonstrations that resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But when angry young people tried to push an OWS movement, Americans — including Dopers — reacted with “One of the OWSers said something stupid. Ha ha!” When asahi posts here the response is “Oh, another asahi rant. I’d rather click on Facebook and see if Aunt Ethel has got her cat spayed yet.”
And when Trump is re-elected the reaction here will be “Don’t blame you. Don’t blame me. Blame some other fellow behind a tree.”
Didn’t Gandhi advocated sitting on your ass and doing nothing until the other side caves? I don’t know if he was drunk at the time, but he did seem a bit smug.
Some people don’t think humans are at fault for climate change because they don’t think climate change is real.
Why some people think climate change is bullshit: Because some climate change advocates (not the right word) use all kinds of weasel words to describe its effects. Along with using some rather improbable results. Example:
All right, what’s going on here? What do they mean by “averages”? Do they mean this year, 2019, Bettles had 11 nights a year that dropped below minus-40?
Let’s look at that second paragraph. “In 1950, Bettles averaged closer to 20 nights a year…” How much closer? 12 nights would be closer to 20 than 11 is. So would 18. How did they average these cold nights, for the year 1950? Couldn’t they have just counted them? Why even average them, if you’re citing a specific year?
And then this:
First, “a nonprofit climate research and journalism organization…” No. Maybe climate research, but not journalism.
Second, “…estimates [Alaska] has spiked by more than four degrees…” Four degrees is a spike?
Okay, that’s probably Celsius degrees which means it’s actually more like…seven degrees F. “…rapidly melting ice and redefining life for Alaska residents.”
Okay. Alaska is a cold state. Let’s just say, if your average temperature is, say, 19 degrees, and it spikes and goes up to 26 degrees–I’m talking Fahrenheit here by the way–how is that going to rapidly melt ice? What kind of snowflakes do they have up there anyway, that melt at 26 degrees?
And they weren’t talking 19 degrees. Right now, in Barrow, Alaska, it’s -4. And snowing. If you add seven degrees, that’s +3. That’s not gonna do much. Unless, you know, special snowflakes.
The quoted parts actually came from an article about a cold snap in Alaska, by the way.
Since we’re in the Pit, let me say that this is the most ignorant SDMB post I’ve read this week. Almost every sentence is wrong, but I’ll content myself with the lead-in and its “weasel words.”
Here are quotes from three different writers. Who is weaselly? Who is forthright? #1
#2
#3
My reactions? To #1, I say: “Perhaps … perhaps … perhaps ??? Weasel, weasel. Spit it out!Take a stand.” #2 is much more self-assured and convincing. #3? Spot-on!
