Please add a 'climate' section.

Welcome to the forum

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Vitruvius
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Vitruvius »

BBC news have added 'climate' as a stand alone section, apart from the science section. Given the significance of the issue - I'd like to do the same thing here. "Cornoavirus discussion" has its own section, and that's not even an existential issue - unless you're an antivax, anti-masker, in which case, you'll almost certainly die - and your legacy will be a video on youtube, crying about how wrong you were, and encouraging other people to wear masks and get jabs! But I digress. Climate change is an existential issue, it's important, it's going to be a subject forever, has enormous implications across science, economics, politics; it deserves it's own section.
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:27 pm BBC news have added 'climate' as a stand alone section, apart from the science section.
How are the two related?

Does everything added by all media outlets 'have to be' added to philosophy discussions, or only some media outlets?
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:27 pm Given the significance of the issue - I'd like to do the same thing here.
What would you propose is even 'significant', and why?
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:27 pm "Cornoavirus discussion" has its own section, and that's not even an existential issue - unless you're an antivax, anti-masker, in which case, you'll almost certainly die - and your legacy will be a video on youtube, crying about how wrong you were, and encouraging other people to wear masks and get jabs!
Lol

The corona virus is NOT even close to being an existential issue to the majority and to the majority of those who do not get vaccinated nor wear a mask. To suggest that it is an existential issue is to say that the flu is an existential issue also.
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:27 pm But I digress. Climate change is an existential issue, it's important, it's going to be a subject forever, has enormous implications across science, economics, politics; it deserves it's own section.
'climate change' is NOT an existential issue in the way you are portraying it here.

And, claiming that " climate change is an existential issue, which is going to be a subject 'forever' " is a self-contradictory term.

'science' thrives on issues like the climate change issue.

'economics', or chasing after more money, is the cause of why the climate is warming due to human beings.

'politics' speaks for itself.
Vitruvius
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Vitruvius »

Thanks for you post. I'm going to assume that's a vote against climate as a stand alone section. My opinion excluded - that's one for/one against. I posted this proposal first in my thread in General Philosophy, entitled "Solving Climate Change" and Belinda thinks it's a good idea. So - one all; and if this were a democracy, that would mean something! It's not - and it doesn't, but gives an indication of the popular mood.

"How are the two related? Does everything added by all media outlets 'have to be' added to philosophy discussions, or only some media outlets?"

Is this one question, or two? Are you asking how science and climate change are related? Or are you asking how the fact BBC News added a climate section relates to my suggestion we do the same thing here?

"What would you propose is even 'significant', and why?"

Again. I'm at a loss. Are you asking what the word significant means?

"The corona virus is NOT even close to being an existential issue to the majority and to the majority of those who do not get vaccinated nor wear a mask. To suggest that it is an existential issue is to say that the flu is an existential issue also."

That sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. Did you accidentally repeat the words "to the majority?"

"'climate change' is NOT an existential issue in the way you are portraying it here."

Phew! And there was I - really worried for nothing!

"And, claiming that " climate change is an existential issue, which is going to be a subject 'forever' " is a self-contradictory term."

Your logic is irrefutable!

"'science' thrives on issues like the climate change issue."

I blame book lernin, communists, and faggots!

"'economics', or chasing after more money, is the cause of why the climate is warming due to human beings."

either that or it's all a chinese hoax, or it's the sun, or it's not happening at all, or the climate is always changing, or anything other than fossil fuels!

"'politics' speaks for itself."

Rather than for those it purports to represent? First thing you've said that's made sense!
Dubious
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Dubious »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:27 pm Climate change is an existential issue, it's important, it's going to be a subject forever, has enormous implications across science, economics, politics; it deserves it's own section.
Makes complete sense! Unfortunately, it will require more forest immolations, heat deaths, floods, etc., before it becomes as important as the sports section in most media outlets. In addition, climate change will be the catalyst to further disrupt the imbalances already inherent in the current geopolitical situation due to an ever-increasing lack of resources. That will compound the consequences globally forming its own existential crises.

Compared to what's coming, the coronavirus won't even amount to a footnote.
Vitruvius
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:27 pm Climate change is an existential issue, it's important, it's going to be a subject forever, has enormous implications across science, economics, politics; it deserves it's own section.
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:45 am Makes complete sense! Unfortunately, it will require more forest immolations, heat deaths, floods, etc., before it becomes as important as the sports section in most media outlets. In addition, climate change will be the catalyst to further disrupt the imbalances already inherent in the current geopolitical situation due to an ever-increasing lack of resources. That will compound the consequences globally forming its own existential crises. Compared to what's coming, the coronavirus won't even amount to a footnote.
I think RickLewis has done a David Cameron. Lost, and fucked off! Still.... I'm posting my argument in General Philosophy - competing with the likes of Veg and Age in particular, who get a huge kick deliberately creating shit-threads to drive my argument off the front page, because it's something I care about. The title of my thread is Solving Climate Change - as opposed to mitigating and adapting to climate change, I've suggested harnessing the limitless heat energy of magma to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle - while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels. I only need about £50bn - which in my view, is a very reasonable price to pay to reconcile green agendas with defending Liberty!
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am Thanks for you post. I'm going to assume that's a vote against climate as a stand alone section.

Your ASSUMPTION here could not be further from thee Truth of things.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am My opinion excluded - that's one for/one against. I posted this proposal first in my thread in General Philosophy, entitled "Solving Climate Change" and Belinda thinks it's a good idea. So - one all; and if this were a democracy, that would mean something! It's not - and it doesn't, but gives an indication of the popular mood.
What are you on about?

I have NEVER even suggested that your idea was not a good idea, let alone said it. I have just INFORMED you that your idea will NEVER 'solve climate change', and I explained the reasons WHY. You have just refused to LOOK AT that.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am "How are the two related? Does everything added by all media outlets 'have to be' added to philosophy discussions, or only some media outlets?"

Is this one question, or two?
Let us take a LOOK, and SEE.

There are two sentences with two questions marks. So, what this tells most people is that that is TWO questions.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am Are you asking how science and climate change are related? Or are you asking how the fact BBC News added a climate section relates to my suggestion we do the same thing here?
No, to your first question.

Yes, to your second question.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am "What would you propose is even 'significant', and why?"

Again. I'm at a loss. Are you asking what the word significant means?
NO. If I was, then I would ask a question, like; 'What does the word 'significant' mean, to you?'
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am "The corona virus is NOT even close to being an existential issue to the majority and to the majority of those who do not get vaccinated nor wear a mask. To suggest that it is an existential issue is to say that the flu is an existential issue also."

That sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. Did you accidentally repeat the words "to the majority?"
NO.

What part does not seem to make any sense, to you?

When, and if, you inform us of this, then we can make that sentence make sense to you.

The majority, of ALL human beings, can be a vastly different number than the majority of human beings who do not get vaccinated is, and they are two separate different groups of human beings. So, to distinguish between the two different numbers, and groups, of human beings is why I wrote that sentence, that way.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am "'climate change' is NOT an existential issue in the way you are portraying it here."

Phew! And there was I - really worried for nothing!
But you are still worried, correct?

If yes, then 'climate change' is still NOT an existential issue in the way that you are portraying it to be here.

But if no, then 'climate change' is still NOT an existential issue in the way that you are portraying it to be here.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am "And, claiming that " climate change is an existential issue, which is going to be a subject 'forever' " is a self-contradictory term."

Your logic is irrefutable!

"'science' thrives on issues like the climate change issue."

I blame book lernin, communists, and faggots!
Okay.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am "'economics', or chasing after more money, is the cause of why the climate is warming due to human beings."

either that or it's all a chinese hoax, or it's the sun, or it's not happening at all, or the climate is always changing, or anything other than fossil fuels!
Well the cause of human made 'climate change' is NONE of what you suggested here. So, we are back to human beings love of money (greed) is the cause of human made 'climate change'.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am "'politics' speaks for itself."

Rather than for those it purports to represent? First thing you've said that's made sense!
But you said previously that my 'logic is irrefutable!', in regards to one other thing I said previously, which would mean that that other previous thing would have made sense to you as well, correct?

If this is correct, then this last sentence of yours does not make sense or it is just incorrect.

Or, when you wrote, "your logic is irrefutable?" did you really not mean it?
Vitruvius
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:27 pm Climate change is an existential issue, it's important, it's going to be a subject forever, has enormous implications across science, economics, politics; it deserves it's own section.
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:45 am Makes complete sense! Unfortunately, it will require more forest immolations, heat deaths, floods, etc., before it becomes as important as the sports section in most media outlets. In addition, climate change will be the catalyst to further disrupt the imbalances already inherent in the current geopolitical situation due to an ever-increasing lack of resources. That will compound the consequences globally forming its own existential crises. Compared to what's coming, the coronavirus won't even amount to a footnote.
I think RickLewis has done a David Cameron. Lost, and fucked off! Still.... I'm posting my argument in General Philosophy - competing with the likes of Veg and Age in particular, who get a huge kick deliberately creating shit-threads to drive my argument off the front page, because it's something I care about. The title of my thread is Solving Climate Change - as opposed to mitigating and adapting to climate change, I've suggested harnessing the limitless heat energy of magma to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle - while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels. I only need about £50bn - which in my view, is a very reasonable price to pay to reconcile green agendas with defending Liberty!
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:05 am
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:27 pm Climate change is an existential issue, it's important, it's going to be a subject forever, has enormous implications across science, economics, politics; it deserves it's own section.
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:45 am Makes complete sense! Unfortunately, it will require more forest immolations, heat deaths, floods, etc., before it becomes as important as the sports section in most media outlets. In addition, climate change will be the catalyst to further disrupt the imbalances already inherent in the current geopolitical situation due to an ever-increasing lack of resources. That will compound the consequences globally forming its own existential crises. Compared to what's coming, the coronavirus won't even amount to a footnote.
I think RickLewis has done a David Cameron. Lost, and fucked off! Still.... I'm posting my argument in General Philosophy - competing with the likes of Veg and Age in particular, who get a huge kick deliberately creating shit-threads to drive my argument off the front page, because it's something I care about.
Until your "argument" is sound AND logic it will remain just a view, from your own viewpoint and perspective.

You just want something here, and now appear to be blaming "others" for you not getting, what you want.
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:05 am The title of my thread is Solving Climate Change - as opposed to mitigating and adapting to climate change, I've suggested harnessing the limitless heat energy of magma to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle - while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels.
AND, you have already been informed that if you Truly want to 'solve' some thing, then you NEED to KNOW what caused that thing.

What you have suggested WILL only continue on with the CAUSE/S of human made 'climate change'. So, your suggestion is NOT a 'solution' AT ALL.

Until you LOOK AT this FACT, you will remain as CLOSED and as BLIND as you are now, when this is being written.
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:05 am I only need about £50bn - which in my view, is a very reasonable price to pay to reconcile green agendas with defending Liberty!
BUT, if NO one had the love of money, and thus EVERY one was NOT greedy, then the amount you would 'need' would only be a TINY fraction of that amount.
uwot
Posts: 5560
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by uwot »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:04 am.... I'm posting my argument in General Philosophy - competing with the likes of Veg and Age in particular... I only need about £50bn - which in my view, is a very reasonable price to pay to reconcile green agendas with defending Liberty!
If you succeed in doing so, do you think getting the better of vegetariantaxidermy and Age will impress people enough for them to donate £50 billion?
Vitruvius
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:04 am.... I'm posting my argument in General Philosophy - competing with the likes of Veg and Age in particular... I only need about £50bn - which in my view, is a very reasonable price to pay to reconcile green agendas with defending Liberty!
uwot wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:27 am If you succeed in doing so, do you think getting the better of vegetariantaxidermy and Age will impress people enough for them to donate £50 billion?
Not unusually, I'm misunderstood. I want a standalone climate section. Instead, I'm competing with ruiners like veg and age to hold the front page. Things on the front page get seen more, read and responded to more - it doesn't matter what the subject is. "Almost nothing is known about the brain" - a post that could have been adequately addressed with a rolling eyes emoji and a wiki link, took my thread down time and time again, for months.

I'm trying to prevent a wrongful approach to climate change that will send humankind down a path to geopolitical and economic instability, widespread poverty, massive overpopulation, mass migration, environmental destruction and war.

Nothing is known about the brain? Not even if such a thing exists!
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:06 am
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:04 am.... I'm posting my argument in General Philosophy - competing with the likes of Veg and Age in particular... I only need about £50bn - which in my view, is a very reasonable price to pay to reconcile green agendas with defending Liberty!
uwot wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:27 am If you succeed in doing so, do you think getting the better of vegetariantaxidermy and Age will impress people enough for them to donate £50 billion?
Not unusually, I'm misunderstood. I want a standalone climate section.
WHY?

What do you think one standalone climate section in one extremely insignificant forum on the internet achieve exactly?
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:06 am Instead, I'm competing with ruiners like veg and age to hold the front page.
The only thing I am 'ruining' is YOUR BELIEF that you HAVE the 'solution' to 'climate change'.

If you are NOT OPEN to even considering that your idea could be flawed in someway, then you just BELIEVING your idea is perfect does NOT make it perfect, at all.
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:06 am Things on the front page get seen more, read and responded to more - it doesn't matter what the subject is. "Almost nothing is known about the brain" - a post that could have been adequately addressed with a rolling eyes emoji and a wiki link, took my thread down time and time again, for months.
Okay. But I have NO idea NOR clue how these things are linked, if they are.
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:06 am I'm trying to prevent a wrongful approach to climate change that will send humankind down a path to geopolitical and economic instability, widespread poverty, massive overpopulation, mass migration, environmental destruction and war.
But this HAS already happened, and IS occurring. Preventing what is ALREADY occurring is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

But what CAUSED, and is CAUSING, this downhill spiral if CHANGED can PREVENT reduce the speed and start a climb back up to what is Right and Good in Life.
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:06 am Nothing is known about the brain? Not even if such a thing exists!
Here we have two statements, with question marks at both of their ends.
Vitruvius
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Please add a 'climate' section.

Post by Vitruvius »

Status of the Magma Energy Project
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Dunn, J. C.
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/m/ma ... gy+project

p.s. A quad is a quadrillion BTU. Global energy demand is approx 500 quad.

I suggest developing magma energy as a global good initially, with the energy used specifically for carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling - while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels. This is an image of the 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire.

Image
Post Reply