SoleInvictus

but this is like saying saber tooth cats evolved into house cats.

I'm pretty sure my house cat believes this is true, evidence to the contrary be damned.

Briefly, they're wrong. I responded in detail above.

You are correct, what we're burning as fossil fuels is largely the remains of millions of years of vegetative and microbial life, altered due to heat, pressure, and time. Millions of years of time.

All that carbon making up those organisms was fixed from the atmosphere. While biological functions have been busy fixing CO2, volcanoes, the Earth's mantle, and even some geochemical processes release CO2. If not for biological fixation, the atmosphere's CO2 content would be higher.

Actually there is a serious risk that Earth turns into Venus.

I'm sorry, but no. There's not. Not only is there not a serious risk, there's not even a slight chance. Even if we burned every drop of oil and bit of coal and released all the methane deposits, the earth still wouldn't even be close to reaching the conditions required for runaway greenhouse effect. Not for about 2 billion years, when it's estimated the sun's output will have increased sufficiently to vaporize much of our oceans.

I get that climate change is serious - my graduate thesis centered around it and carbon cycling - but please don't spread bullshit. We have enough issues to deal with already without making up more. Please fact check yourself and others.

Relevant articles you should read:

Scoping of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report Cross Cutting Issues

Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climates

The Runaway Greenhouse: implications for future climate change, geoengineering and planetary atmospheres

Can Increased Atmospheric CO2 Levels Trigger a Runaway Greenhouse?

Put bluntly, most of the logic in the argument I'm replying to sounds good but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It presents two false dichotomies as explanation for issues with capitalism. Hence the first paragraph, explaining why those associations are false.

Then I address Norway in the second paragraph, which is given as an example of "good capitalism".

What I am reading from your comment is: Norway is not perfect, therefor the argument you were replying to is invalid or diminished. Might not be what you intended, but that's what it reads like

I'm not sure how you're getting that. I asked my coworker to give it a read without explaining my thesis and they don't see it either. You don't explain why, so I'm at a loss.

I don't think oppression of the global south is a valid criticism of Norway.

Why not? You again don't explain why, so again I'm unsure what you intend beyond "your writing sucks and you're wrong". Give me some substance I can actually respond to!

Dare I say it: you two are possibly both correct. Human behavior is complex and multifactorial. More than one or two drivers can influence behavior.

Capitalism and being an oligarchy are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive, nor is the presence or absence of competition neither mutually inclusive or exclusive of oppression of others for gain. One could argue, though, that capitalism tends to eventually lead to oligarchies and, as the graphic suggests, oppression for gain as these are both strategies to maximize gain and the capitalist operator with the most gain can use that gain to further increase future gain, and so on. This can lead to the systematic selection for oligarchic, oppressive capitalists.

Norway is rich, like many other countries, due to its economic oppression of the global South. While its distribution of that wealth is more equitable than the United States, it still relies on the same system of oppression to accrue disproportionate wealth.

Yowza, getting banned for that is ridiculous.

Uhhh... Wait a minute. You got banned over the comment about Turkey potentially coming to Palestine's aid?

I'm solidly a millennial and I think it's hilarious. I also enjoy Smiling Friends so maybe I just like bizarre humor.

Not the OP but it is, I'd know it anywhere.

Same here. I hate Intel so much, I won't even work there, despite it being my current industry and having been headhunted by their recruiter. It was so satisfying to tell them to go pound sand.

From many years ago, in a previous career.

Job: IT

Issue: hardware of some kind is broken

Customer, incredulous: "...but it wasn't broken yesterday!"

Yeah, no shit. That's how things break. They're fine, then become broken. Why is this even being discussed?