EU warns Donald Trump: Paris agreement on climate change is ‘irreversible and non-negotiable’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52258798]I don't understand why GD spent 2 days arguing this and always coming to that ignorant conclusion, being aware of the situation and wanting something to be done about it isn't some sort of alarmist inciting mass panic around the globe agenda, so ridiculous[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that at all, i'm saying that people should be realistic when they argue about the situation instead of using emotionally charged language when they talk about it. I get it, you're pissed off about the fact that people who have the power to do things about climate change won't do anything about it. That doesn't mean that you should throw rationality and realism to the wind while arguing about climate change.

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;52258829]I'm not saying that at all, i'm saying that people should be realistic when they argue about the situation instead of using emotionally charged language when they talk about it. I get it, you're pissed off about the fact that people who have the power to do things about climate change won't do anything about it. That doesn't mean that you should throw rationality and realism to the wind while arguing about climate change.[/QUOTE] To some people, the ends always justify the means. They don't care about their credibility.

I don't think anyone here had a meltdown over this nor is it a stretch to say that if we don't stop polluting so much, our quality of life will decrease, our planet will be affected beyond repair and eventually we won't have some of the luxuries that we have now due to our lack of action towards this issue. That is in no way an unrealistic or irrational or emotionally charged statement. [editline]22nd May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52258834]To some people, the ends always justify the means. They don't care about their credibility.[/QUOTE] When most of the world's governments gathered for a rare agreement between all of them, I believe we got an enormous credibility on the reality of this. You're the ones acting like the arguments here are blowing it out of proportion. They aren't, the problem IS out of proportion tho and it needs to be acted upon sooner than later.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52258834]To some people, the ends always justify the means. They don't care about their credibility.[/QUOTE] What is the ends? Protecting the planet from mass ecological damage? Human populations from flooding and forced migration?

The doubt in that a dangerous climate change isn't a threat and that there is lack of credibility on this issue isn't on us, it's on you for acting so cynical about it. You're the ones forcing the narrative that this is just an alarmist reactionary thing and that there's reason to be a contrarian. In fact, you might be one of the few in the entire world given that, and I'm going to mention it again, the Paris agreement happened and it is necessary.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52258834]To some people, the ends always justify the means. They don't care about their credibility.[/QUOTE] Sometimes practical matters outweigh principles.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52258879]The doubt in that a dangerous climate change isn't a threat and that there is lack of credibility on this issue isn't on us, it's on you for acting so cynical about it. You're the ones forcing the narrative that this is just an alarmist reactionary thing and that there's reason to be a contrarian.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's exactly the words I used. I totally didn't have the point that overexaggeration of the effects makes people not want to listen to you, and that there are people who do this in order to appeal to people's emotions instead of their logic, ruining the person's credibility....

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52258898]Yes, that's exactly the words I used. I totally didn't have the point that overexaggeration of the effects makes people not want to listen to you, and that there are people who do this in order to appeal to people's emotions instead of their logic, ruining the person's credibility....[/QUOTE] Where is this over-exaggeration of the effects? What kind of people are you talking about because there's always been a huge online presence on this issue, there seems to be a massive agreement among scientists that climate change is a real threat, something that has been known for decades but only now has become such a clear evident thing that even the governments around the world are acting to prevent further damage. This is a majority we are talking about here, so who are these people that need convincing? Is the stubborn ones, the cynical ones, the ones that just plain aren't clever enough to understand? People have heard the logic because that's how it was argued and they understood that there is credibility in this, thus giving creation to this massively important agreement. What you're saying is bullshit, it is you two who lack credibility. How many times does it need to be said? Let's stop going in circles.

This phenomenon is really interesting It seems that once something becomes common sense for a certain big part of the population, the spread of that information just stops regardless of evidence and in turn creates really polarized opposites It seems too hard for me to come up with a solution for this right now, this is probably not the first time in history this has happened though Maybe one could look at how abolishment of slavery/racism came along and at the struggles it had

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;52258748]So you guys all want to run around inciting mass panic, ok.[/QUOTE] keep strawmanning, you will surely achieve something if you keep responding with snipes instead of something with substance

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52258834]To some people, the ends always justify the means. They don't care about their credibility.[/QUOTE] The fuck does this mean? It's been explained 100 times over in this thread alone that even if the ends are not terrible suffering and destruction for millions (also explained in this thread, they are) the means will only create a better world for everyone.

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;52258384]My point was that I think people should use arguments based on facts instead of sensationalist exaggerations to bring their point across. As in, don't say something like "it'll turn the earth into an uninhabitable dust ball resembling Venus" something more like "it'll kill tens of thousands, flood coastal cities and cause an unprecedented economical crisis, but it won't be the end of all life as we know it" would be more appropriate imo.[/QUOTE] Tens of thousands is a gargantuan understatement. When the effects fully hit all the conservatives will be freaking out like its the second flood genesis.

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;52258829]I'm not saying that at all, i'm saying that people should be realistic when they argue about the situation instead of using emotionally charged language when they talk about it. I get it, you're pissed off about the fact that people who have the power to do things about climate change won't do anything about it. That doesn't mean that you should throw rationality and realism to the wind while arguing about climate change.[/QUOTE] If you wanna ignore everything said to you then do so but no one will listen to you either pal

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;52250921]Climate change alarmism is just as bad as climate change denial, it's something that shouldn't be ignored yes, but at the same time saying things like "it's gonna make the planet uninhabitable radda radda radda!" isn't helping things.[/QUOTE] Yeah becuase people shouldn't say true things if it makes other people uncomfortable.

I think hundreds of million to a billion dead is not unreasonable. Pollution already kills tens of thousands. Fisheries collapse, famine, and habitat loss are going to be devastating to developing countries. The famine in 2011 killed 260,000. Famine right now in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Nigeria is threatening millions and being called the worst UN disaster since WWII. There is no more food for these people.

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;52258748]So you guys all want to run around inciting mass panic, ok.[/QUOTE] Didn't actually respond to good and factual points after preaching about arguments from facts. Nice bait.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52258834]To some people, the ends always justify the means. They don't care about their credibility.[/QUOTE] Indeed, GoldenDargon does have a credibility problem because they're [I]heavily[/I] underestimated the impact this is going to have on the world. People who deny the severity of climate change really should pick up some academic materials and do some reading before they damage their credibility any further. [editline]21st May 2017[/editline] You're certainly not suggesting that the side that's backed by hundreds, if not thousands of scientific research papers, and which the majority of the scientific community agrees with, has a credibility problem right? That would be absurd, hahahaha...

"I'm sure the giant asteroid won't have THAT much of an impact, you're all just over-reacting."

I think its sort of hard to say that people are "over reacting" about climate change without sounding ignorant. The science is there, even if we are off by just a bit the effects will endanger and destroy millions if not a few billion lives. I mean its to the point where I wonder if I should even have kids. If we only have a bit of time left I don't feel I can justify bringing them into a world that would essentially collapse within mine/their lifetime. This needs to happen. I think Pat.Lithium hit it on the head with the fire analogy because its essentially what I have come to view it as. The long slow burn.

Well have you heard guys, trying to warn people that we could try and prevent the death of millions, the destroying of multiple extremely important cities and populated cities (like New York), the death of the ecosystems in our oceans (who needs fish to survive right?), the death of our agricultural system (who needs plants to survive right?) is just inciting mass panic. Next time I see somebody's house on fire I'll be sure not to tell him, or I may instill panic in him! That would be very rude.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52258898]Yes, that's exactly the words I used. I totally didn't have the point that overexaggeration of the effects makes people not want to listen to you, and that there are people who do this in order to appeal to people's emotions instead of their logic, ruining the person's credibility....[/QUOTE] But a lot of people use emotions rather than logic when it comes to their beliefs, that's why climate change denial is a thing in the first place. Do you believe logic is going to convince them?

The existence of anthropogenic climate change has scientific papers that have been peer-reviewed and have their results reproduced, published in reputable journals, dating back to the 1940s and 1950s. It's as much a scientific fact as the existence of air or Newtonian laws of physics, because the turnout has been completely in line with predicted patterns. It is not a subject up for debate. To reject it or question its validity is a rejection of reality as a whole. Anyone who rejects reality as a whole is an idiot, or clinically insane. The only proper way to refute the theory of anthropogenic climate change is to prove all those decades of research wrong (or at least point out a cause for reasonable doubt that can't be easily explained away), have that paper peer-reviewed, its results reproduced and published in a scientific journal, and thus start a real debate among scientists. (Hint: The ones paid off by companies that make their money from fossil fuels don't count.)