SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The world's fossil fuel companies risk wasting billions of dollars of investment by not taking global action to fight climate change seriously, according to the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Fatih Birol, who will take the top job at the IEA in September and is one of the world's most influential voices on energy, warned that companies making this mistake would also miss out on investment opportunities in clean energy.
...
The World Bank and Bank of England have already warned of the serious risk climate action poses to trillions of dollars of fossil fuel investments and the G20 is investigating the risks. The think-tank Carbon Tracker has estimated that over $1tn (£0.6tn) of oil investments and $280bn of gas investments would be left uneconomic if the world's governments succeed in their pledge to limitglobal warming to 2C.
The warnings are based on policy proposals that are entirely creatures of human decisions rather than hard economic realities. Then again, all demand is ultimately the product of human decisions.
Original Submission
(Score: 2, Disagree) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:22PM
Lemme guess - the "sources" for "scientific" [sic] "dubunkings" is ... skepticalscience.com? Yea, no conflict of interest there.
Frankly, the field has become so swamped with religious-like fervor it's impossible to take anyone that claims "relevant credentials" seriously. It's like going to a Catholic Priest to discuss the logical inconsistencies in the bible. They won't question the bible (anthropogenic catastrophic climate change), they will only dismiss your concerns, or call you "faithless" if you continue to argue.
At this point there is no way to question the models / theories / "consensus", even for those with "relevant credentials" (plenty of examples of people with those credentials losing their livelihood for coming up with inconvenient issues). Meanwhile, Bill Nye raking in the dough as the "go-to expert" for the mainstream media.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:40PM
Let me ask you something:
Do you think comparing a celebrity science analyst* sometimes chosen by media outlets, is fair to compare to the idiots you've personally chosen to suck onto like a leech, regurgitating unsubstantiated or purposefully misleading talking points of your own volition. You could stop. You really could. And you're making poor Bradley13 look bad by showing the kinda attitudes that defend his position.
Now, look, my main source for new information on climate change is research papers, not some blog, and you can pretend that's pretense on my part, lying to you like your conspiracy theory demands so many fucking people are doing. But you'd be wrong. You're wrong about alot.
*who at least has a background in science education
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:11PM
Do you think comparing a celebrity science analyst* [*who at least has a background in science education]
He has a bachelor's in mechanical engineering. And he's an actor / spokesman / comedian. You can call that having a "background in science education" if you want to - I guess if you're a member of the church, people will jump up to defend your credentials, while if you're not, having multiple Phd's in physics and biochemistry means you're "unqualified" to discuss climate science.
to compare to the idiots you've personally chosen to suck onto like a leech, regurgitating unsubstantiated or purposefully misleading talking points of your own volition.
What the fuck are you going on about? This is bullshit - I follow no one, much less "suck onto like a leech". You're just acting like a moronic jackass making some assumption about anyone I may be associating with - because YOU DON'T KNOW. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not a member of your church of the grand climate change drum beaters, so I must be one of those people. Really indicative of the type of shallow bias that your ilk typically displays. Fuck off with this shit, asshole.
Now, look, my main source for new information on climate change is research papers
My sources are also research papers, not some blog, which you might have found out if you had bothered to ask a question instead of jumping to conclusions like some giant douchebag.
, not some blog, and you can pretend that's pretense on my part
It does seem like pretense on your part, considering your failure to actually read what people say instead of making assumptions and personal attacks, and that you failed to actually link to any "debunking" papers instead of just making the claim.
lying to you like your conspiracy theory demands so many fucking people are doing.
More of this bullshit. I'm not buying your religion, so I'm a "conspiracy theorist" (a.k.a. heretic), and you're ready to burn me at the stake. You know what I did in that post? I suggested that a very complex theory might need examination. That's what science does. Yet in your over-the-top ignorance all you can do is leap to your religion's go-to reaction and try to label me anti-science. Guess what? That's what you're demonstrating: anti-science. Idiot.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:31PM
+1 touché? Fuck that.
I'm not gonna moderate you, but this is a shitty series of non points. You can't cite a single paper that endorses anything said by Morano, who I should remind you you're defending here (going as far as pretending Bill Fucking Nye wasn't a famous science educator for silly debate points WTF?).
You're sad, and your "no I'm an outsider who's being oppressed by the establishment but don't call me a conspiracy theorist" spiel is real tired. You don't know shit about climatology, and if you'd read a single paper from the past year, I'll eat my goddamn hat.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:06PM
pretending Bill Fucking Nye wasn't a famous science educator
Because he's not - he's an entertainer. A spokesman. A talking head. Nothing more. That you raise his credentials to something else says more about you than anything. You're a victim of television media. Brian Miur is your source. George Stephanopolis is your trusted commentator.
You can't cite a single paper that endorses anything said by Morano
I don't really know anything about this Morano person that seems to have stimulated your hatred, I never mentioned him, defended him, or care what he says. Maybe you're attempting some sort of straw man argument, but it fails to address anything.
Frankly, I'm surprised you can manage to even read SoylentNews, I'm pretty sure it's the extent of your reading, you sound like a television zombie, which is probably what you are. You probably should go ahead and eat your hat - I doubt you know what else to do with it otherwise. Your reading comprehension is so bad, your boots are probably still full of piss because you couldn't figure out how to pour it out from the instructions written on the heel.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:09PM
You know that intellectual condecision only really works when you're not arguing an incredibly anti-intellectual factually incorrect position, right? "You're so dumb, I bet you believe in algebra" is the level you're operating here. Just a PSA.
And... thanks for not even remotely following the conversation you participated in.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:58AM
Thanks for demonstrating my point - and all the other disciples moderating here on SN. My point is that it's useless to discuss it, because if you try to question anything, you just get shouted down. And that's the only reaction from anyone, name-calling and shouting down. Algebra is not a belief system, it's a tool. Science is not a religion, it's a methodology / process. There is no "science" left in AGW / Catastrophic Climate Disruption anymore. There is nothing about it that can be questioned. You all have proven that point.
Here's your chosen spokesman, "Bill Nye: People are the problem" [youtube.com]
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:31AM
You can question it all you want; you have freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean that you won't receive criticism, or that you'll hear the answers you want to hear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:03AM
Yeah, dont hope for too much sense from this dude, you're arguing with a mystic, see...
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7872&cid=195032 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:56PM
I'm arguing with a goddamn moron who thinks he's smart. It's the worst.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:37PM
Educating people about science for the last THIRTY years tends to count as a background in science education, my book.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:57PM
Educating people about science for the last THIRTY years tends to count as a background in science education, my book.
Saying what Bill Nye The Science Guy does is "Educating people about science" is exactly the same as saying what Count von Count does is "Educating people about math".
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:25PM
As in "literally a factually true statement"?
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:40AM
No, as in "Babysitting experience is not a qualification for teaching post-graduate university courses," to say nothing for being considered an expert in the field. Learning numbers is not "math", and dropping tennis balls on the floor to see how gravity works is not the same as explaining the concepts behind the double-slit particle/wave experiment.
Do you millennials even know the difference between television and real life?
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:04AM
Do you millennials even know the difference between television and real life?
Yep, on TV you can montage past all the hard work and skip straight to post-graduate university math courses.
In real life you need to learn how to count first.