Comments by "Michael RCH" (@michaelrch) on "“At a certain point, I got very frightened by climate” - Adam McKay" video.

I read an article in the LA Times that described finding out how serious the climate emergency is being like Neo taking the red pill in The Matrix. Once you have seen the reality of it, you cannot unsee it, and the world forever looks very different. It's a profoundly uncomfortable truth, but one that we have to fully accept and then drive action to respond to.
7
@davidrobertsemail Is that what you think is required to deal with climate change? Sure, flying needs to be reduced a lot for now, and I don't fly. But there are solutions for transportation, energy and agriculture that we can use sustainably. Are you still in the "environmentalists want to take us back to the Stone Age" mentality? That's very badly misinformed. Indeed the surest route to destroying our civilisation is to let climate change happen unabated.
4
@davidrobertsemail no, I haven't flown anywhere for 6 years. I drive an EV. I don't eat animal products, my energy is all renewable. But honestly I wonder why bother to argue in this way. You probably didn't listen to the interview but you are making demands about my action when you obviously don't even agree that there is a problem to solve do you? If you were even vaguely interested in a good faith discussion you would know that this is mostly a problem of collective action, not personal action. There are some exceptions to that but when it comes to where the emissions come from, 71% of emissions come from 100 corporations. This isn't going to get fixed by personal action. Do you think climate change doesn't exist, or that we aren't the cause, or that it's no problem or that it's a problem but "who cares, I'll be dead by then"?
4
@belkentens well, I am mostly worried, sad and frustrated. But yes, I'm angry at those in power who are knowingly destroying my childrens' future.
4
So intentional self delusion to avoid reality? That's one response I guess.
4
@davidrobertsemail > I think you are virtue signaling. Buddy, you were asking. I answered. But as I said, personal action is only a small part of the solution here. > EVs are bad for the planet. They are much less bad than the alternative. If I coudl only use public transport, I would but it is not practical for me and my family. > As are renewables. Renewables are all completely unreliable snd imported from coal powered China. No industry is "good" for the planet. The question is whether it is sustainable. The research shows that renewables pay back the amount of carbon they require in their manufacture in about 2 years vs fossil fuels like coal, oil or gas. And that is getting better as the renewables get better and the processes to produce them get cleaner and themselves use low-carbon energy. > Those politicians and celebrities that you agree with all fly everywhere and drive fancy cars and have massive homes. I dont care what celebrities do or think. I care what the science shows. The scientists who work on climate science and and are generally unknown. If you actaully do hear them speak honestly, they are genuinely terrified of what they know is happening. > If they believed in manbearpig they wouldn’t do any of those things. Bad example dont you think. South Park effectively admitted they were totally wrong with Manbearpig and made a follow-up where Manbearpig exists and slaughters half the town. > The whole climate change summit in Scotland could have been done on zoom. Instead 800 private jets flew there. And it was a giganatic waste of time becuase the politicians in power are bought and paid for by the oil industry. I know. The whole thing sucked completely. But even the carbon from those flights is a drop in the ocean compared to what we are doing elsewhere. We have already but over 2,000,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere and we add another 40,000,000,000 tonnes every year. > If it’s the end of the world why are they behaving like that? Because they are corrupt, sociopathic f*ckheads who don't care if you or I live or die.
3
Either you don't know the extent of what is happening or you do know and you're a nihilist sociopath.
3
@belkentens why would they want that? I oppose them and I oppose all their values. They want me to feel content and happy so I casually ignore their abuses. That seems to be your situation. Sometimes it is appropriate to feel bad. Only psychopaths don't get that.
3
@belkentens You have lost track of your own argument. Do they want be angry as you said first or happy as you said second. A psychopath is someone who cannot feel empathy for the welfare of other people and gets off on power over others. If you are happy in the prospect of terrible suffering for literally billions of helpless innocent people, and indeed would rather being about the conditions for that misery, I think the boot fits. I think you aren't really capable of a rational conversation about this so I'll be leaving it here.
3
Give an example.
3
So I can be lied to by industry shills? That won't make me feel better.
3
@jpfrank4228 Lomborg has no hard science training, only political science. He is frequently contradicting himself and peer reviewed science. He's full of it. You can read a summary of his grotty record - it's all documented. Google Lomborg Desmog Schellenberger poses as an environmentalist but has no track record as one. He has a lot of links to the nuclear lobby and takes money from them. His training is in sociology, not a hard science and certainly not atmospheric physics or climate science. Again, Desmog have a write on him that demonstrates that his takes on climate are completely at odds with the science. If you actually think these guys know more about the state of the climate than the 1000s of scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying it, and had their 1000s of papers published in the most prestigious peer reviewed journals then I can't help you. You have to look at how you are assessing what you accept as true and false.
3
@iawy8264 I was Christian for a tragically long time. I suspect I know more about the Gospels than you. That's what happens to a lot of ex Christians when they realise it's false. You spend a long time figuring out how badly you were duped. It's interesting stuff from a literally and theological point of view. But thinking it describes real events is objectively unhinged.
2
@jameswhiteley6843 You mean elites aren't plundering the masses under a fossil fuel economy? It sure seems like they are. And we know what naturally induced climate change looks like. It looks like the planet drifting very slowly into an ice age in 16,000 years. Instead we are seeing the fastest warming every observed in the entire geological record of the planet. It seems weird that you deny man made climate change when literally ALL the major fossil fuels companies publicly acknowledge it. 🤔
2
Along with the monster sleeping under your bed no doubt...
1
@roberthorne9597 Once you've had a nuclear winter, you can pretty much guarantee that ends humanity as well... So many ways to imminently end our species. Which one to choose....
1
@roberthorne9597 This stuff has been the subject of a lot of research for a very long time. Most models show that once one side fires anything nuclear, even a battlefield tactical nuke, the war escalates very rapidly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOU2ci31b5M
1
9:00 the critical reaction to this movie was the perfect illustration of its entire point. Kinda tragic but it only serves to validate the film even more.
1
@sonofsomerset1695 You know that solar radiation hitting the earth has actually fallen over the last 40 years right? That's as global average temperature has risen nearly 1C. I think you are the arrogant one for thinking that you understand this and the entire scientific community doesn't.
1
@sonofsomerset1695 If that's true then you will be able to cite me dozens of peer reviewed published papers that contradict the consensus. Off you go and find one. I won't be holding my breath...
1
@sonofsomerset1695 Is that your way of admitting you can't find any peer reviewed studies that support your position? It's honestly a bit tragic to have fallen for the fossil fuel industry's misinformation so badly that you are still be denying something that all the fossil fuel companies have actually admitted publicly for years now.
1
@sonofsomerset1695 You pick a real piece of work to believe there. It's a common human trait to only need one tiny piece of insubstantial evidence to carry on believing something you want to believe, while a mountain of overwhelming evidence cannot make you believe something you don't want to. Your denial is like a religious belief - immune to reason. As I said, not only does the scientific community have extremely conclusive evidence that you are sadly wrong, but the fossil fuel industry has explicitly admitted its products have caused rapid climate change, even while their paid shills continue to dissemble and lie on their behalf. Try it. Google Exxon statement climate change. Or Chevron statement climate change. Or Shell statement climate change. Etc etc. they literally all take the scientifically proven position. Which is only to be expected given it was their own science which conclusively demonstrated the effects of their products back in the 70s and 80s.
1
@sonofsomerset1695 No, I just read what NASA scientists write in their scientific studies. This isn't hard stuff. The principles of atmospheric warming due to greenhouse gases like CO2 has been known about since the mid-19th century. In 1859, Tyndall showed that gases including carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb heat. You can literally demonstrate this in a lab. You fill a chamber with CO2 and shine infrared radiation into it. The CO2 absorbs and scatters back the infrared and the gas heats up. This is precisely what is happening in our atmosphere. Light comes from the sun in all wavelengths. When it hits the Earth, the surface absorbs much of that radiation and warms up, meaning it radiates back much more Infrared than other wavelengths. Warm objects look bright to an infrared camera for the same reason. Then that IR is emitted off towards space from the surface. But some fraction of it is blocked by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (like CO2, methane, water vapour and others). The CO2 molecules absorb IR and scatter it, meaning much of that IR never makes it to space. The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more IR gets absorbed in the lower atmosphere, which warms up as a consequence. This also has the predictable result that the upper atmosphere does not receive as much IR (because it got absorbed lower down) so it cools down. And again, that is precisely what has been observed. As the lower atmosphere has warmed, the upper atmosphere has cooled. Again, the consensus on this is no accident or conspiracy. It's not just solid theory. The theory has been verified in many many 1000s of studies over many decades by scientists all over the world, including those who work for the fossil fuel industry. I don't accept the science on climate because I am smart. And I don't accept it because I want it to be true. I really desperately don't want it to be true. I accept it because I owe it to myself and my kids to be honest with myself and not ignore such a terribly important fact of the world we live in.
1
@sonofsomerset1695 If you actually accepted that I was right on the science, you wouldn't use such tired and pointless arguments against action. You would realise that it's imperative that we do everything we can as fast as possible and bring everyone with us that we can. I don't know if you have noticed, but the use of fossil fuels is not exactly affordable. Clean energy is not just safer and less damaging to the climate - it's cheaper. And to add insult to injury, the oil and gas companies that are making out like bandits while our fuel bills go through the roof paid little to no tax for the last few years, even as they made billions in profits. The system is rigged in their favour. They made it that way. Those with power and money use it to get more power and money. That has been the fossil fuel industry for a century or more. And we are all paying the price. The disruption from using fossil fuels now is a drop in the ocean compared to what is coming with 2-3C more global heating.
1
@sonofsomerset1695 Sorry. There is too much wrong there for me to wade into. I give up. Have a good day.
1
@jpfrank4228 Glad I could be of help. Sorry about being snarky at the end. The number of people prepared to have an honest discussion of this topic online, especially on YT, is vanishingly small, so I usually just assume I'm being trolled! Apologies.
1