/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9919177
>it's a fact that's corroborated by a large body of evidence that I know you haven't bothered to look at.
>because I said so
Again, you elevated it from theory to fact because because.

>So what does this have to do with anything?
... Look at your previous post anon. Try to become self aware.

>They are hypocrites? So what?
So we should ignore the useful idiots. Their opinions have no merit and their solutions are non-nonsensical.

>China's emissions are roughly comparable to the US's, despite the population difference.
Do you honestly believe any metric coming out of china?

>>9909531
>we'll have no more arable land and fresh water.
No. Consider the following: lake tahoe exists, the great lakes exist. There is more than a 6 degree difference between the average temperature of those two.
There is not that much water that is above above sea level, there would be next to no impact. The tides have substantially more impact than what would happen.
There is more than a 6 degree difference between california and north dakota. Both grow fuck loads.

>And how does getting rid of nonwhites help us with this?
Reduces consumption and raises global IQ substantially, makes the future of humanity sustainable.

>The Chinese are further along the renewable energy path than the United States is.
>muh 3 gorges

>being carbon neutral is not the solution.
It literally is. Sequestration naturally occurs.

>We're already past the point of no return.
Sick assertion. I'm sure the models that say that have really great predictive capability and mesh with the past perfectly...

>Today, in my opinion, the only thing left to do is plan for post apocalyptic life.
Kill yourself.