unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

Been over this multiple times with people unawaredly regurgitating social media conspiracy theory spun out of "but x virologist says it came from human manufacture/a lab"

COVID: No, Coronavirus Wasn't Created In A Laboratory. Genetics Shows Why.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/09/15/co … -why-15029

Several months ago, there was speculation that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, was created in a Chinese bioweapons laboratory. It's not true, but the conspiracy theory has gained renewed interest following a paper by a Hong Kong scientist who claims that, indeed, the virus is man-made.

This conspiracy theory is particularly tempting for several reasons. First, China is a secretive, authoritarian country, and it wouldn't really be much of a surprise if the government had a bioweapons program. Second, China has suppressed research on the origins of the coronavirus. Third, SARS-CoV-2 is really weird for a respiratory virus, since it has the ability to spread throughout the body and damage other organs. Combined, many people see a conspiracy.

But circumstantial evidence doesn't make it true. Either the coronavirus naturally worked its way into the human population or, if a Chinese laboratory really was involved, the virus was probably being studied by researchers and accidentally infected one of them. (This would explain why China wants to cover up the origin of the virus; if it escaped from a lab, Chinese scientists would look incompetent.) There is simply insufficient reason to believe that malicious forces were at play. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, and the "man-made virus" theory fails that test.
But hey, don't let that stop you (or the guy who listens to alien conspiracies on the edge of their seat) from from developing independent conclusions for the sake of troll bigot humor in between complaining about your favorite restaurant's immigrant owner or your taxi driver.

The Trouble with Pre-Print Papers wrote:

In a fast moving world, the scientific method drags along at a snail's pace. To keep up with the changing times, many scientists are now posting papers online without any peer review. The upside is that this allows the quick dissemination of vital information during a time like now (i.e., the COVID pandemic). The downside is that it allows a lot of garbage to make international headlines, throwing us off into a wild goose chase.
Chinese virologist claims COVID was made in lab — but US studies don’t agree
https://nypost.com/2020/09/11/chinese-v … wuhan-lab/

China’s ‘bat woman’ says COVID-19 did not originate in Wuhan lab
https://nypost.com/2020/11/21/chinas-ba … wuhan-lab/
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Wow you've gone off the deep end.

Didn't say it was created in a lab.

Now that all the samples have been destroyed are you going to take Bat-Lady's word for it while she has a gun held to her head?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

It's just that "bat flu" put winkingly is kind of a stale troll/complaint at this point in time, don't you think. I think a better name would be "American superspreader flu."

But great job in picking up just the title to one of the links and rolling with that (and not even the one quoted at length) alone. A+ work, predictable.
uziq
Member
+492|3422
dilbert you were heavily insinuating that covid-19 was created or weaponized by the chinese. you have made several posts alluding to chinese labs.
uziq
Member
+492|3422

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

that hasn't happened. co2 emissions are still basically the same. lots of news articles on this point. more people will hop on planes as lockdown eases.
Apparently you're wrong again.

The global response to the Covid-19 pandemic has driven the biggest annual fall in CO2 emissions since World War Two, say researchers.

Their study indicates that emissions have declined by around 7% this year.

France and the UK saw the greatest falls, mainly due to severe shutdowns in response to a second wave of infections.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55261902

Of course it will rebound once travel junkies can fly and cruise again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55018581
Climate change: Covid pandemic has little impact on rise in CO2

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/11/1078322
Carbon dioxide levels hit new record; COVID impact ‘a tiny blip’, WMO says

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x
Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement

tl;dr: if we proceed with global-scale lockdowns, economy-destroying measures and huge immiseration for an entire year, we can reduce co2 emissions by maybe 7%. what did your original post say, again? that 'because more people can WFH, co2 emissions will fall'?

"turns out you're wrong ... bla blu blu". dilbert, I READ AND PUBLISH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALL FUCKING DAY LONG!

The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin is based on global average figures for 2019. Individual stations have shown that the upward trend continues in 2020. Monthly Average CO2 concentrations at the benchmark station of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, were 411.29 ppm in September 2020, up from 408.54 ppm in September 2019. At Cape Grim in Tasmania (Australia), the respective figures were 410.8 ppm in September 2020, up from 408.58 ppm in 2019.
https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wmocms/s3fs-public/ckeditor/files/2_5.png?20dxjU5MzyaUTMQxAEnpQ94OPnxe.x4j

i also linked all of that stuff unnamednewbie is alluding to, months ago, back when virologists were publishing research on the 'genealogy' of the covid-19 virus. it would be easy to see if it was bio-engineered in a lab and would have several tell-tale mutations/selections, etc, that would make it ideally engineered for human contagion (it mostly isn't that way). that's because I DO THE BIT AFTER THE ARXIV PRE-PRESS, which that article was critical of, that involves PUBLISHING PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH!

Last edited by uziq (2020-12-10 22:59:23)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

The exhausting part is, I could post all that and more in some of my other circles, and then get troll logic thrown back in my face: "not ideal for humans? Just further evidence the Chinese biowarfare labs were being sneaky about it!"

/facewall
Larssen
Member
+99|1857

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

that hasn't happened. co2 emissions are still basically the same. lots of news articles on this point. more people will hop on planes as lockdown eases.
Apparently you're wrong again.

The global response to the Covid-19 pandemic has driven the biggest annual fall in CO2 emissions since World War Two, say researchers.

Their study indicates that emissions have declined by around 7% this year.

France and the UK saw the greatest falls, mainly due to severe shutdowns in response to a second wave of infections.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55261902

Of course it will rebound once travel junkies can fly and cruise again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55018581
Climate change: Covid pandemic has little impact on rise in CO2

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/11/1078322
Carbon dioxide levels hit new record; COVID impact ‘a tiny blip’, WMO says

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x
Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement

tl;dr: if we proceed with global-scale lockdowns, economy-destroying measures and huge immiseration for an entire year, we can reduce co2 emissions by maybe 7%. what did your original post say, again? that 'because more people can WFH, co2 emissions will fall'?

"turns out you're wrong ... bla blu blu". dilbert, I READ AND PUBLISH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALL FUCKING DAY LONG!

The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin is based on global average figures for 2019. Individual stations have shown that the upward trend continues in 2020. Monthly Average CO2 concentrations at the benchmark station of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, were 411.29 ppm in September 2020, up from 408.54 ppm in September 2019. At Cape Grim in Tasmania (Australia), the respective figures were 410.8 ppm in September 2020, up from 408.58 ppm in 2019.
https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wmocms/s3fs-public/ckeditor/files/2_5.png?20dxjU5MzyaUTMQxAEnpQ94OPnxe.x4j

i also linked all of that stuff unnamednewbie is alluding to, months ago, back when virologists were publishing research on the 'genealogy' of the covid-19 virus. it would be easy to see if it was bio-engineered in a lab and would have several tell-tale mutations/selections, etc, that would make it ideally engineered for human contagion (it mostly isn't that way). that's because I DO THE BIT AFTER THE ARXIV PRE-PRESS, which that article was critical of, that involves PUBLISHING PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH!
In another sense doesn't this kinda prove leisure travel has a negligble impact on CO2 emissions? Or even work travel.

Logistics traffic hasn't slowed down and I suppose that's the source of majority of travel emissions.
uziq
Member
+492|3422
many virologists based at US institutions were saying right from the get-go that there's no evidence whatsoever of covid-19 being man made. but still dilbert knows best. the trade tensions between australia and china gives him a unique insight into virology which those rube scientists don't have!!!
uziq
Member
+492|3422
larssen, logistics traffic did slow down a huge amount during the global lockdown. a huge number of factories were shut down and freight out of china slowed down to a trickle.

but, yes, as my first response to dilbert said, a few more western white-collar workers WFH is not going to 'reduce co2 emissions'.

the thing with leisure travel is just how disproportionate it is. 0.1% of the world's population are responsible for 99% of travel emissions. that's a real problem, but, yes, taking a holiday at a local camping site is not going to fix climate change.

Last edited by uziq (2020-12-10 23:07:57)

Larssen
Member
+99|1857

uziq wrote:

larssen, logistics traffic did slow down a huge amount during the global lockdown. a huge number of factories were shut down and freight out of china slowed down to a trickle.

but, yes, as my first response to dilbert said, a few more western white-collar workers WFH is not going to 'reduce co2 emissions'.

the thing with leisure travel is just how disproportionate it is. 0.1% of the world's population are responsible for 99% of travel emissions. that's a real problem, but, yes, taking a holiday at a local camping site is not going to fix climate change.
I can't find the source anymore but I thought it was more like the richest 1 or 2% globally who were responsible for the majority of travel emissions. Which, if you live in a rich western country, likely includes all of us.

Still the flights I've taken over the years pale compared to business execs and consultants who often hop on planes every other day.

Even so I've always been of the opinion that chastising people for travelling is the wrong way to go about it. Of course there's such a thing as moderation like with all things in life, i.e. don't be one of those people who wants to participate in '100 countries in a year' challenges, avoid completely unecessary business trips, but that still leaves lots of 'necessary' air traffic.

There's got to be a way to incentivise quicker adoption of sustainable energy consumption in flight and seafaring. I don't think limiting people's mobility and flight shaming (popular in scandinavia) are at all realistic. It also annoys me greatly when people pontificate their smug superiority because of their diet, consumption or travelling habits as though individual actions will do anything to address a systemic issue like climate change

/rant
uziq
Member
+492|3422
you are completely right and that's what the figures bear out. dilbert is advocating behavioural change and largely blaming holiday-makers, which is just ridiculous. of course cruises are hugely wasteful, but people restricting themselves to local holidays isn't going to solve climate change.

similarly, the last year has shown that, even if people make insane sacrifices to their economic wellbeing (and mental health), emissions fall by 4-7%. small beer.

we need systematic change not behavioural nudges.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

dilbert you were heavily insinuating that covid-19 was created or weaponized by the chinese. you have made several posts alluding to chinese labs.
What I've said consistently is its very likely it was being studied in the Wuhan lab and escaped due to woeful safety procedures and a nearby wet market being the spreader.

With the benefit of hindsight about the future for the chinese economy, and the knowledge that the chinese went aggressively apeshit when other countries restricted travel from china while they were severely locking themselves down I think there's some possibility that it was deliberate.

What I'm sure of is the next pandemic could well be a deliberate act on the part of China when they have their own vaccine ready.
Its literally the easiest way to take over the world.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

I can't find the source anymore but I thought it was more like the richest 1 or 2% globally who were responsible for the majority of travel emissions. Which, if you live in a rich western country, likely includes all of us.

Still the flights I've taken over the years pale compared to business execs and consultants who often hop on planes every other day.

Even so I've always been of the opinion that chastising people for travelling is the wrong way to go about it. Of course there's such a thing as moderation like with all things in life, i.e. don't be one of those people who wants to participate in '100 countries in a year' challenges, avoid completely unecessary business trips, but that still leaves lots of 'necessary' air traffic.

There's got to be a way to incentivise quicker adoption of sustainable energy consumption in flight and seafaring. I don't think limiting people's mobility and flight shaming (popular in scandinavia) are at all realistic. It also annoys me greatly when people pontificate their smug superiority because of their diet, consumption or travelling habits as though individual actions will do anything to address a systemic issue like climate change

/rant
Yes we must do something, just as long as no-one's lifestyle has to change at all.

I don't think I've made a single business trip which was really necessary, and I've done about half the trips I could have if I wanted. Avoided India, avoided China, avoided Malaysia, avoided a good number of trips to the US. I did pretty well everything I needed to by fax and phone. Email made it even easier.

Its exactly individual actions which will solve it, not some magical technological fix which enables everyone to carry on as normal.
Typically technological fixes solve nothing, they just enable even greater consumption.

The problem is people like you who are willing to do nothing because you won't see the point, and the other 99% of the world who want your lazy consumptive lifestyle too and don't see why they shouldn't.

/rant
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3422
dilbert: australia should continue to be one of the world’s great exporters of fossil fuels. it benefits my quality of life directly. anyway, india and china are doing it.

dilbert: the problem is people like you don’t want to make any changes to your quality of life ...
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
India and China are burning the stuff, I'd be fine with not exporting coal - my state doesn't.

Meanwhile my state is doing great, in significant part thanks to individuals putting solar panels on their homes, and we shut down our coal plant.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SAenergytransition2019.jpg
https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austr … ext-79597/
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3422
good to hear. doesn’t change the fact that your national economy is mainlining fossil fuels into its arteries like a scarred and pockmarked junkie.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Britain still produces five times as much oil, the UK isn't exactly clean.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
BVC
Member
+325|6665
Just checking in.

America, I'm honestly scared for you. On 9 December more people died from Covid in your country in one single day than died in 9/11, and we on this forum know how 9/11 affected the world.

I'm honestly concerned that you as a nation seem more concerned with punching yourself in the dick than doing the same to...whoever else.  Is this the second civil war? Who knows.

Get well soon.
uziq
Member
+492|3422

Dilbert_X wrote:

Britain still produces five times as much oil, the UK isn't exactly clean.
i'm not accusing australia of unique hypocrisy. i'm saying your own politics and personal prejudices could do with a little consistency. i am totally in support of the UK decarbonizing and any 'green new deal'. you seem to be awfully cathected about the power politics and regional rivalries at play. you're more interested in sticking it to the chinese or blaming the indians half the time. it's just silly tit-for-tat stuff.

Last edited by uziq (2020-12-11 04:42:23)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Great, now you tell the Indians to stop buying our coal and setting it on fire.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3422
the picture is very clear: despite what you said, an almost total cessation and lockdown in this year has shown that co2 emissions do not drop. a worldwide economic shutdown, which is going to have a heavy toll and ramifications for the next 10-15 years, felt generationally, achieved a TEMPORARY 4-7% reduction in emissions. it's not enough. co2 levels have continued to rise from 2019 to 2020. we need some big and systematic thinking on this subject, not behavioural finger-pointing and moralism, which seems to be your preferred method. no amount of shaming individuals is going to change this picture. everyone stayed inside for 4 months of 2020 ffs and it hasn't done squat. your 'WFH' scenario isn't going to achieve anything, either, as i've said.

Last edited by uziq (2020-12-11 04:43:01)

uziq
Member
+492|3422

Dilbert_X wrote:

Great, now you tell the Indians to stop buying our coal and setting it on fire.
a lot of this is quite silly stuff, but some of the general ideas are very salient.

the worldwide system needs to pivot. the power and prestige of nations currently resides on their position within a global petro-economy. this is what i'm getting at when i accuse you of hypocrisy for your finger-wagging over individual behaviour: you also presumably want to belong to a nation that is profiting and sailing high globally from this stuff. nobody wants to release their claims and stakes on fossil fuels because it's literally 'the global game' at the moment, and the poker chips are all made of carbon.

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3689
Got a NYT alert that the commercial real estate that used to house corporations in NYC is now being considered by the owners to be transformed to residential housing. Mixed feelings about that.

On the one hand, more housing is always good. Workers formerly tied to the city could move to the countryside and put less stress on public transportation and open more housing opportunities in cities. On the other hand this is basically White Flight 2.0 and I expect it will go just as well for the people left in cities as it did before.

I am very supportive of more government help to low income people but I am not naive enough to think that the vast black and brown minorities of NYC area are suddenly going to become Wakanda people once they get cheaper housing. It all almost justifies Republican social spending until you realize that the GOP isn't going to shift any of the support earmarked for low income minorities to the middle class. The lost support will just go to the rich instead.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3689

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Great, now you tell the Indians to stop buying our coal and setting it on fire.
a lot of this is quite silly stuff, but some of the general ideas are very salient.

the worldwide system needs to pivot. the power and prestige of nations currently resides on their position within a global petro-economy. this is what i'm getting at when i accuse you of hypocrisy for your finger-wagging over individual behaviour: you also presumably want to belong to a nation that is profiting and sailing high globally from this stuff. nobody wants to release their claims and stakes on fossil fuels because it's literally 'the global game' at the moment, and the poker chips are all made of carbon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX3M8Ka9vUA
I don't like "Third Industrial Revolution" talk. I don't think we are at the third industrial revolution until we unlock the Cold Fusion tech tree and limitless cheap energy modifiers.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Larssen
Member
+99|1857

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

I can't find the source anymore but I thought it was more like the richest 1 or 2% globally who were responsible for the majority of travel emissions. Which, if you live in a rich western country, likely includes all of us.

Still the flights I've taken over the years pale compared to business execs and consultants who often hop on planes every other day.

Even so I've always been of the opinion that chastising people for travelling is the wrong way to go about it. Of course there's such a thing as moderation like with all things in life, i.e. don't be one of those people who wants to participate in '100 countries in a year' challenges, avoid completely unecessary business trips, but that still leaves lots of 'necessary' air traffic.

There's got to be a way to incentivise quicker adoption of sustainable energy consumption in flight and seafaring. I don't think limiting people's mobility and flight shaming (popular in scandinavia) are at all realistic. It also annoys me greatly when people pontificate their smug superiority because of their diet, consumption or travelling habits as though individual actions will do anything to address a systemic issue like climate change

/rant
Yes we must do something, just as long as no-one's lifestyle has to change at all.

I don't think I've made a single business trip which was really necessary, and I've done about half the trips I could have if I wanted. Avoided India, avoided China, avoided Malaysia, avoided a good number of trips to the US. I did pretty well everything I needed to by fax and phone. Email made it even easier.

Its exactly individual actions which will solve it, not some magical technological fix which enables everyone to carry on as normal.
Typically technological fixes solve nothing, they just enable even greater consumption.

The problem is people like you who are willing to do nothing because you won't see the point, and the other 99% of the world who want your lazy consumptive lifestyle too and don't see why they shouldn't.

/rant
The clothes you wear are most likely produced in china, the soy you eat comes from brazil, the wheat you consume from the united states, the computer and phone you're typing on a result of extensive mining operations and a complex logistics chain through multiple regions. I'm sure you have a car, or a bike. I'm sure you live in a house, the construction process of which also involves plenty CO2 emissions. Our economy and way of life has been structured in such a way that just by living, Dilbert, you're already contributing to global warming every single day.

Now some people want to go the extra mile and go absolutely batshit on personal sustainability, from the products they buy to how their house is built, solar panel rooftops, vegan diets etc. But for how many is that a realistic option? If you didn't realise, always going to the artisanal baker/butcher and buying all your stuff locally produced is expensive as fuck. How is a median income household with a kid or two going to afford that? Is average joe busdriver supposed to spend his entire income here?

This idea that your personal diet and travelling habits, or consumption habits in general really, AT ALL compensate for the greenhouse gas emission dependency of the entire economic system is deluded. I haven't even touched on the emissions generated by business in their dealing with other private sector parties...

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard