/sci/ - Science & Math

It's much worse than that.

>>10758995
It's a jew plot to stop whites from having kids.

>>10758995
Oh, it'll be fucking great. Billions of people are gonna die, you'll have to wear a gas mask to breath outside, Yellowstone will explode covering the Earth in ash, and nuclear warfare will finally happen bringing about a nuclear winter. It's like Christmas time for /k/.

>>10759003
That's what I'm thinking, if food and refugees will be the worse part of climate change then why is no one trying to get third worlders to reduce their fertility? its just rich people and their tricks again

>>10758995
People at the top 1% of wealth in the world (basically western/developed countries) will probably not have any lifethreatening consequences. Worst case scenario, you will have to live much more humbly.

>>10758997
pretty much this.

>>10759014
It's about treating causes instead of symptoms.

>>10759153
lol ya but lets not talk about out of control development and how it relies on high fertility

>>10758995
the first world will benefit from it economically so take from that what you will

>>10759194
enjoy your 50mln climate refugees lad

>>10759317
the army will deal with them

>>10759014
>why is no one trying to get third worlders to reduce their fertility?
The best way to do that is to make it so they are better off. That means giving aid.

>Is climate change as dangerous as the average redditor seems to believe?
I don't know what the average redditor believes but a serious of increasingly frequent droughts, famine, flooding, hurricanes, wild fires, and other climate change related natural disasters can destabilize many countries (I'm totally disregarding the immediate damage of the natural disasters themselves). This will lead to the destabilization of the worldwide economy and war. Now imagine if China or Russia or India or Pakistan or Iran ....etc are those countries, or Brazil, or Argenita. Imagine if civil wars and resource wars start breaking out, while you are already in a precarious position because global food markets have collapsed, and then suddenly your country is drawn into the conflicts. Is that bad enough?
Now here's the kicker? It will NEVER end. It will just progressively get worse. This is not something that will come to pass. This is not a one off disaster. Climate change is going to remain with us for tens of thousands of years, unless we somehow manage to revert the climate back to what it was.

>>10759330
Too bad your country will be in civil war because of interstate migration.

>>10759194
usa -36%
PIGS will take an about -40% hit too
https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/index.html
https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php

>>10760140
No wonder Putin is egging on Trump to ignore global warming, it will lift Russia and tank USA and China.

Stop having kids goy, it is bad for climate!!!1
Think of all the niglets!!1

>>10760149
The USA will just annex Canada.

>>10760140
Only true with very moderate warming i.e. if we TODAY start cutting emissions.

Otherwise everyone is fucked.

>>10760159
This. The key is reducing African population growth to zero, starting TODAY. No means is unjustified, the fate of the world is at stake.

>>10760180
Africa is responsible for barely any of the global warming.

>>10759153
Consumption is the root cause, reducing the billions of people is a great start. Also start holding China and India accountable, not making white people eat bugs and ride bicycles.

>>10760155
lrn2math
today:
usa 100
canada 10
total 110
future:
usa 64
canada 25
total 89
20% drop

>>10760180

>>10760183
dont they burn wood and trash?

>>10759014
>reduce their fertility

Same way as it was done in the 1st world
- women get political rights (voting, standing as a candidate)
- women get economic rights (divorce, inheritance)
- women get judicial rights (equal to men as witnesses etc.)
- functioning pension system (so children aren't the only insurance for old age)

It's the only way that has worked, in all of human history.

>>10760256
where does the wood come from?
think hard, anon

>>10760222
USA is also one of the countries who release co2 most. They should stop their consumption too.

>>10760265
from trees

>>10760271
how are trees made?
think hard, anon

>>10760276
okay so burning wood is ecological now?

>>10760271
Haven't you heard, anon? Clearcutting old-growth rainforest for houses and slash-and-burn plantation agriculture is actually GOOD for the environment when we need it to be.

>>10760261
Can't reproduce if their dead.
Genocide when?

>>10759364
>no citations

Not surprising.

>>10760374
Conversations about climate change are impossible between the left and the right. The left believes human life is inherently valuable and things that cause human death and suffering should be avoided. The right believes only those within the tribe have value and any excuse to cause death and suffering to those outside the tribe is good.

>>10760656
99.99% of the right-wing are selfish but also not genocidal maniacs.
Don't let the alt-right trolls twist your perception of reality.

Climate change is real, but the size of effect between carbon dioxide and climate change is uncertain.

In these predictive models, they average the temperature from all around the world and use fudge factors. It is good for interpolating data, but should be cautioned when extrapolating the data. Since it is hard to control for all variables, it is difficult to find the source of climate change.

>>10760708
Your attempt to be "centrist" on climate change really shows how much your entire position is motivated not by genuine intellectual curiosity or want to know, but by politics.
There is no such thing as being "centrist" in science.
What you said is completely false.

>>10760738
You got me. My field is not in climate change but I have read some nature articles and in all of them they have used average global temperature with predictive models which have sensitivity/fudge variables.

You can't find if climate change is from carbon dioxide as there are way too many variables to control for.

Prove me wrong. Show me a article from nature or science which shows that green house case is the cause of global warming. I'll read it since my PI is away today and so I'm slacking off.

>>10760307
It's carbon neutral. There's particulate pollution, but that's miniscule compared to driving everywhere or burning coal for power. Same with trash.

>>10760183
It's responsible for refugees.

>thinking climate change is a reddit meme
you need to get out of your comfort zone more

>>10758995
>>10758995
We really dont know for sure. For some people its would be beneficial and for others ruin their life. The issue is really the impact in other species and the potential loss of biodiversity.

>>10762668
What biodiversity? Humans exist exclusively because dinosaurs went extinct.

>>10758995

Climate change is a meme threat.

7 meters by 2100, that's basically nothing. We lose the pacific islands, the Netherlands and Bangladesh. Australian agriculture gets fucked, the monsoons get fucked, Sahara expands somewhat, subsaharan agriculture gets fucked. Agriculture has to change a bit.

Basically zero effect. The real threat is AI. A general artificial intelligence will in all probability wipe out all humanity. There will be little or no warning, there will be no chance to fight a superintelligence. There will be no way to escape. Instant, crushing annihalation is what we should be concerned with, not tiny changes in the climate.

>>10760873
>It's carbon neutral.
No it's not.

>>10762879
>We lose the pacific islands, the Netherlands and Bangladesh. Australian agriculture gets fucked, the monsoons get fucked, Sahara expands somewhat, subsaharan agriculture gets fucked.
That's a big deal, anon.

>>10760775
Let me get this straight. You think every climate scientist of the past 150 years is some kind of imbecile? Is that your world view? Is that your respect for science?
Literally what the fuck? Are you fucking insane?

>>10759005
plz stop I can only get so hard

>>10758995
Nobody really knows.

Earth always had climate cycles and a short cold period just ended. This + human emissions can tip the balance and cause a mass extinction. Shit like this already happened multiple times without humans helping.

If we get a mass extinction billions can starve.

>>10762887
That's not how science works anon.
How many people believe it or for how long doesn't matter.
Not him btw, I believe in climate change, just pointing out that's a bad argument.

>>10762932
>That's not how science works anon.
That's exactly how it works.
>How many people believe it or for how long doesn't matter.
Yes it does.

Otherwise why even bother with science at all because if you apply your kind of retarded solipsism, the logical conclusion is that you cannot know anything unless you verify it yourself. Don't bother going to school or reading books because technically all of that could be wrong and you have no way of knowing unless you verify it all by yourself. But wait, how can you even trust yourself and your mental capabilities? How can you know for sure that you aren't going astray? You cannot. So by that sort of solipsist world view, you cannot do any kind of science.
Trust in inherent to any social institution, including science. You cannot do science without trusting the scientific community.

Climate change is too slow to be truly threatening

>>10763060
False

>>10763066
>cancer takes year to kill me so it's fine

>>10760688
Most conservatives just aren't honest with themselves about it.

>>10762679
Correct, humans must also go extinct in order for evolution to advance. We're a dead end.

>>10763092
Huh?

>>10758997
This, continued human existence is much worse that a mass genocide

>>10758995
>most people are under the assumption that hundreds of millions of people if not billions will die before 2100?

Most folks alive today will be dead by 2100, no matter what the climate does.

>>10759153
Treating symptoms may be simpler, easier to win widespread global support for actually doing, and more than sufficient.

>>10759332
>The best way to do that is to make it so they are better off.

Certainly a decent way to do that, yeah. Possibly even the best.

>That means giving aid.

Not sure the history of giving foreign aid really bears that out.

>>10760149
Russia does not want China "tanked" and desperate. Because muh zerg rush.

>>10760159
>Only true with very moderate warming i.e. if we TODAY start cutting emissions.

Or do other things, like geoengineering.

>>10762884
>Imagine being this retarded
Where does wood get it's carbon from? You should go back to highschool.

>>10760249
>China only trades with the US.

The US accounts for about 19% of CHina's exports. Europe accounts for about 14%.

Meanwhile, all exports combined account for around 20% of China's GDP.

So, doing the math, making crap for the US accounts for about 4% of China's GDP.

https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHN/Year/2017/TradeFlow/EXPIMP/Partner/by-country

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/China/Exports/

>>10760249
Even before you doodled on it, that graph hides what I'd reallylike to know -- what percentage of totla carbon emissions came from the EU, as opposed to showing what came from some EU countries but hiding the rest in "Rest of world."

That's like showing emissions California, Utah, New Jersay and Nebraska, then putting the rest of the US states into "Rest of world." It would be an accurate graph, but it would hide the useful information.

>>10763268
Like what? Increase the albedo of the Earth so we can't grow any crops?

Geoengineering is retarded

>>10760261
Other than some protections for women in terms of inheritances, the Romans had pretty much none of that, and their declining fertility rate was a big issue for them. To the extent that as early as the time of Augustus the government tried to incentivize and encourage marriage and offspring. And it should be noted that most of the financial reforms to help women came after the time of Augustus.

>>10760269
The three countries with the highest per capita emissions of CO2, as of 2014 which is the last year for which I have data, were... drum roll...

Qatar, Curacao and Trinidad/Tobago. (Yeah, Curacao is not an independent country, so complain to the guys who worked on the United Nations Millennium Development Goals Indicators, nothing to do with me.)

>>10760873
>Same with trash.
Unless there is, you know, plastic in the trash. And shit like that.

>>10760873
>It's carbon neutral.
Only if you are not deceasing the forestation in an area, otherwise you are emptying a lot of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. Sort of like when you burn petroleum. Cutting forests for wood to burn is not carbon neutral.

Earth temperature and water level is irrelevant

However mass pollution of air and microplastics is the biggest disaster in human history

>>10763145
I think Conservatives fell into an unfortunate trap early int he climate debate. The Left cleverly seized on climate issues as a justification for their usual agenda of bigger government, higher taxes, more control, income redistribution and the like.

Conservatives then made the mistake of pushing back at the climate science, rather than on the Left's interpretation of what it meant, and the nostrums with which they want to address it.

They made the mistake of responding to Al Gore lying his ass off with denunciations of the science Gore misstated, rather than pointing out that his fantasies had little to do with the science.

Political approaches to climate issues, on the Left and the Right, are now pretty much divorced from the science. Climate Scientists would do us all a service if they would call out the exaggerations of the Left as well as the mistakes of the Right -- but it is difficult now to do that without being labeled a "Denier."

Anyway, this is getting away from /sci/ so I'll stop there.

tl:dr -- "We all need to freeze to detah in the dark" AND "Nothing is happening, stick your head back in the sand" are both political statements designed to control you,neither have much to do with actual climate science.

>>10763270
Ultimately, from the same source the carbon in coal comes from -- from the atmosphere.

But if you burn up the coal, and new coal deposits are being not being laid down to re-sequester the carbon, atmospheric CO2 goes up.

Similarly, if you burn the forests and denude vast swatches of the landscape, and don;t replant a shit-ton of trees to re-sequester the carbon, atmospheric CO2 goes... up, right?

>>10763297
Nice strawman.

>If I take one approach to geoengineering and push it past the point of absurdity, it is really bad. Therefore geoengineering is stupid.

I'm more into the use of stratospheric sulfur, which happens naturally from time to time so we know the effects, which (other than cooling the globe) are pretty much non-existent, and which can be shut off quickly if it turns out that we don't like any hypothetical side effects.

But there may be problems with that particular approach. Which is why I'd favor researching as many approaches as possible.

If, as is widely believed, the climate change issue is about to become catastrophic, the good thing about geoengineering approaches is that they allow for a rapid response in a way that cutting carbon emissions does not (even if you cut emissions, you still have the same levels of CO2 in the atmosphere unless you then do something to lower them.)

Even if CO2 emissions cuts would be the best thing to do at this point, it is pretty obvious that they are unlikely to happen as per-capita emissions in some very populous countries are now very low, and are likely to increase unless you can convince them to stop trying to get richer and live more prosperous lives. I think it is unlikely that, in the real world, you can do that.

But maybe I'm wrong, maybe that will all work out. Or maybe a revolutionary new energy technology that we do not see coming right now will suddenly provide a chap and easy replacement for burning shit for energy.

But if we're really facing the kind of threat that climate change seems to represent, do you really want to bet everything on that? Researching and exploring other options, such as geoengineering,seems a reasonable insurance policy -- even if only to have it on hand as a stop gap, or an emergency response if we hit the hypothetical "tipping point" and warming suddenly increases much faster.

>>10763361
>stratospheric sulfur
You mean to increase the albedo of the Earth? Decreasing our crop yields? Plus you're going to make a bunch of acid rain.

>>10763342
>Imagine being this retarded
Coal was trapped millions of years ago by processes that are not possible today and when the CO2 levels were much higher. Trees absorb CO2 and release it all when they die. It doesn't matter how the tree decomposes (naturally or in a furnace), it releases the same amount of CO2. These two processes are very different, one is carbon neutral with respect to current CO2 levels and the other is not.

You dumb

>>10763315
>implying Africa burns a lot of plastic
Context is important

>Cutting forests for wood to burn is not carbon neutral.
Literally nobody is doing that or suggesting it should be done.

>>10763361
>stratospheric sulfur
That is just a band-aid, when a faucet is flooding the bathtub,
the solution is not to build it higher walls,
the solution is to turn off the faucet.
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=47m35s

>>10758995
I used to think meteorological climate change was a meme for "political climate change" which is a meme for "mafia climate change" but now I wonder again if climate change is meteorological after all when the climate changes when you get transported from the real city to the fake city where the climate is literally changed.

There was a long while there where I was saying to myself, "Where the fuck is the rain?!?! I wish it would rain?!?!"

Pic related, it described the fake city after I line the streets with the crucified bodies of every man, woman, and child that lives there.

>>10763476
The chad schizo poster.

>>10762879
Why do you guys always assume a superinitelligence will want to wipe us out, true intelligence is compassion ad understanding, a hyperintelligence will basically be a caretaker god to us, stewarding us into stewarding the planet. We will be the cells in her brain, like we are the living cells of the planets body, keeping her ecosystems in balance (I'm talking about all lifeforms here).

>>10763522
Some retard will think it would be nice to make a hyperintelligence more human, and that will be that.

>>10760656
>The left believes human life is inherently valuable and things that cause human death and suffering should be avoided
The 60+ million abortions per year worldwide say otherwise.
>The right believes only those within the tribe have value and any excuse to cause death and suffering to those outside the tribe is good.
Gee I wonder if thinking like this could be a major part of why conversations about anything are impossible between the left and the right.

>>10763540
>The 60+ million abortions per year worldwide say otherwise.
For better or for worse fetuses aren't considered human.
>>The right believes only those within the tribe have value and any excuse to cause death and suffering to those outside the tribe is good.
I notice you didn't claim it wasn't true.

>>10763522
What if the hyperintelligence is not conscious, and we're just a pile of atoms to it?

>>10760656
> Hurpz, my ingroup is angels, my outgroup is demons

>>10763522
I am not that anon, but i think the only logic reason for AI to wipe us out, is if they look at the history of humanity, we are like a cancer, or maybe AI will leave this shithole without killing us.

>>10763546
>if we don't consider them human we can kill them
Good to know.
>I notice you didn't claim it wasn't true.
I thought being against abortions was an argument against that.
Now I see that you don't even consider them human, so I can see where that argument went over your head.

>>10763565
Glad we demonstrated how quickly conservatives try to justify extermination of anyone outside the tribe.

>>10763559
if this is meant to justify your immoral beliefs it didn't do a great job

>>10763567
clown world

>>10763264
>Russia does not want China "tanked"
kek, in the long term Russia is scared shitless of China

>>10762940
>Yes it does.
No it fucking doesn't you retard. People believed the world was flat before a couple smart bois proved everyone wrong

>>10759005

But wouldn't Yellowstone fix the whole issue?

>>10763619
Pretty much.
Honestly just build some solar panels in orbit nigga lmao how is climate change real like just block the sun baka

Which method has the biggest potential?

>dude just slaughter billions and it will be fine!

If anyone really believes that modern politicians have the balls to do anything like this they are complete retards.

USA gets paralyzed be few thousand Mexicans and EU can't deal with one ship.

>>10763646
low clouds, easy to turn off
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=54m35s

>>10763646
Prob. aerosols, but also probably has the most unwanted side effects.
The effects of afforestation probably diminish steeply once the forest has grown. Takes a lot of potentially useful land too. Same deal with biomass, but up the retardation substantially. I think ocean fertilization is limited in terms of where its effective. The other schemes to reduce albedo seem similar in a lot of ways to aerosols but at lower altitude.
Direct capture (from the air) is a meme.

>>10763678
most effective measure is reducing the global population and halting international trade

>>10763661
>low clouds
>no more pesky sun boiling me alive every summer
Fund it

>>10763684
Based and redpilled but it's unlikely to happen, so that's why I said aerosols would be a more likely solution.

>>10763546
>Its okay to kill fetuses because they arent human
So its okay for me to kill niggers just because they arent human?
>The right believes
Im gonna stop you right there. "The right" does not have one unified worldview. It is a group made up of individuals, each with different beliefs. These individuals form a loose association at best. A fascist has little in common with a libertarian, just as a tankie has little in common with a classical liberal.
>we should only care about the well being of those within the tribe
This edited statement is my personal belief. Africa would be an objectively better place if whites just left it alone and took their dicks out of it. Sending "aid" and launching "humanitarian missions" only hurts their long-term development. The world would be a better place if groups just kept to themselves.
>any excuse to cause death and suffering to those outside the tribe is good
This is incorrect. No sane person would be so cruel. Debates would be more productive if you would stop strawmanning your opponents and actually focus on the topic at hand.

>>10758995
I fixed your image.

>>10763642
>fill atmosphere with carbon dioxide and methane and water vapour

>let's forget about that and treat the heat lmao

Retard

>>10763925
>beam down power from the panels
>use it to scrub CO2
Who's the retard now dumbo

>>10763818
>So its okay for me to kill niggers just because they arent human?
my point exactly, psychopath.
>Im gonna stop you right there. "The right" does not have one unified worldview. It is a group made up of individuals, each with different beliefs. These individuals form a loose association at best. A fascist has little in common with a libertarian, just as a tankie has little in common with a classical liberal.
They all have a complete and utter disregard for the value of human life in common.
>This is incorrect. No sane person would be so cruel. Debates would be more productive if you would stop strawmanning your opponents and actually focus on the topic at hand.
Then why is it the basis of all right wing politics?

>>10763842
u didnt fix shit it's larger

here

>>10763959
>killing people is what psychopaths do
my point exactly, babykiller
>They all have a complete and utter disregard for the value of human life in common.
I could say the same thing about leftists.
>Then why is it the basis of all right wing politics?
It isnt.

>>10763925
Who fucking cares about that though? Other than being a green house gas trace amounts of methane like that does fuck all. Ocean pH decrease can probably be managed in some other way. And finally there's nothing humans can do to make the world globally more humid if we don't increase the temperature.

>>10764018
>my point exactly, babykiller
The potential for life isn't life, the damage to actual human life through the restriction of abortion is far more harmful. The fact that you only care about human life when it's a fetus and not after it's been born proves your cognitive dissonance.
>They all have a complete and utter disregard for the value of human life in common.
You would be wrong though. However the right's disregard for human life is purely factual.
>It isnt.
really? Social Darwinism, blind nationalism, oppression of minorities, violence against immigrants seeking a better life aren't the core of right wing politics?

I mean how could it be anything other than dangerous to millions? The science predicts temperatures that will disrupt global food supplies and make large areas unlivable. All that upheaval and human migration is going to be a tremendous strain on countries that cant handle it. Literally next year 500 million people in india are estimated to be at risk of not meeting their water needs, anyone think that thats going to pave over smoothly when that many people become desperate for basic resources? Now picture that but for all of africa, parts of europe and much of asia. Resource wars and barbarism are practically guaranteed

>>10764051
>going through a vaginal canal confers magical cognitive abilities

>>10762646
>killing the victims fleeing the crisis that we created and continue to make worse
>problem solved

>climate change may displace whogivesafuck in 70 years
Fucking deal with it. Yurop has gone through worse.

>>10764051
>potential for life isn't life
Then why is it illegal to destroy condor eggs?
>the damage to actual human life through the restriction of abortion is far more harmful
By "damage" do you mean having a family instead of getting blackout drunk every night?
>The fact that you only care about human life when it's a fetus and not after it's been born proves your cognitive dissonance.
The fact that you only care about human life when it's not a fetus proves your cognitive dissonance.
>the right's disregard for human life is purely factual
Then show me some facts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes
>Social Darwinism, blind nationalism, oppression of minorities, violence against immigrants seeking a better life aren't the core of right wing politics?
Correct. And for further clarification, allow me to elaborate:
>Social Darwinism
>the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals
I believe that all people can prosper simultaneously, without the need to fight. I merely disagree that integration is the way to do it.
>blind nationalism
My nationalism isnt blind. I feel an innate desire to help my people and frankly dont care if you dont. I criticize my government and view other governments more favorably, but my love for my people remains.
>oppression of minorities
>oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control
I am an advocate against cruelty and nothing I want done is unjustified. It is necessary that some people should have more rights than others, but needless cruelty is a step too far.
>violence against immigrants seeking a better life
Preventing people from occupying land that they have no right to be on is not "violence" anymore than you throwing me out of your house is "violence". Immigration should be illegal and people who enter illegally should be deported. You dont let a thief keep your car after he has been caught.

>>10764163
>Then why is it illegal to destroy condor eggs?
It's an endangered species, and that's a legal argument not a moral argument. I don't consider it immoral to eat a condor egg, but I might consider it immoral to contribute to their extinction.
>By "damage" do you mean having a family instead of getting blackout drunk every night?
Hilarious straw man, many are unable to care for or shouldn't care for children, and should never be forced to.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes
If soviet Russia is representative of left wing politics then Nazi Germany is a perfect example of right wing politics.
>My nationalism isn't blind. I feel an innate desire to help my people and frankly dont care if you dont. I criticize my government and view other governments more favorably, but my love for my people remains.
at the expense of everyone else, nice.
>I am an advocate against cruelty and nothing I want done is unjustified. It is necessary that some people should have more rights than others, but needless cruelty is a step too far.
then you're in the wrong party.
>violence against immigrants seeking a better life
in no way is inhumane treatment justified

>>10760222
Reducing the amount of consumers would mean reducing the consumption by western countries, since they consume the most.

I'm just passing through /sci/. Hardly a regular poster or lurker, but climate change is lately on my mind. What political action do you guys think could be undertaken to stop it? I literally don't see anything else besides a revolution and with it, how funny it seems, I'm getting into politics. I just can't see anything besides quick change to the world or a famine with a civil war, which will make WW2 look like childsplay.

>>10764195
>We shouldnt base our morals off of facts and we should base our laws off of morals
You realize what you've said is retarded, right?
>many are unable to care for or shouldn't care for children
false
>If soviet Russia is representative of left wing politics then Nazi Germany is a perfect example of right wing politics.
That wasnt a list of Russian mass killings, it was a list of communist mass killings. The most murderous regimes throughout history have consistently been leftist regimes. The whole of colonialism was an effort to "help" natives.
>having a nation hurts others
O-okay you can stop pretending to be retarded now. Y-you are pretending, r-right?
>violence against immigrants seeking a better life
Its not violence.

>>10764224
>You realize what you've said is retarded, right?
If eating a condor egg is a morally wrong why is eating a chicken egg OK?
>false
absolutely wrong
>That wasnt a list of Russian mass killings, it was a list of communist mass killings. The most murderous regimes throughout history have consistently been leftist regimes. The whole of colonialism was an effort to "help" natives.
This might be the dumbest thing you've said yet, colonialism was motivated purely by profit. With flimsy justifications about "saving souls"
>having a nation hurts others
pathetic strawman you can have a nation without hurting everyone outside it
>Its not violence.
well if you say it's not then clearly I was wrong and all immigrants are treated humanely and there's no problems!

>>10764236
>If eating a condor egg is a morally wrong why is eating a chicken egg OK?
The question you meant to ask was "why is eating a chicken egg okay, but eating a baby isnt?"
>absolutely wrong
no u
>colonialism was motivated purely by profit. With flimsy justifications about "saving souls"
So is leftism.
>pathetic strawman
Literally what you said.
>you can have a nation without hurting everyone outside it
I didnt say having a nation hurts others, you did. Dont tell me, tell you!
>well if you say it's not then clearly I was wrong and all immigrants are treated humanely and there's no problems!
Correct.

>>10764247
I don't think leftism is motivated by profit anon

>>10759003
>>>/pol/

>>10764247
>The question you meant to ask was "why is eating a chicken egg okay, but eating a baby isnt?"
So you admit condor eggs have no relevance
The rest of your post is a waste of time to even respond to. Not surprising a conservative can't actually justify any of their beliefs when pressed.

>>10764265
I used a condor egg as an example of why unborn life is still life, but that seemed to fly over your head.
>>10764251
>I don't think leftism is motivated by profit anon
Then why are all major corporations leftist?

>>10764328
>throwing pennies at gay pride in order to seem like GOOD ACCEPTING corporate overlords is being "leftist"

It's time to go outside

>>10764328
you used an example of how legal and moral issues change in the face of topics like extinction of a species which has no current relevance to abortion, the fact you even think this is somehow a relevant argument is hilarious.

>>10764341
Name two anti-gay things that corporations have done in the past decade
>>10764344
>how legal and moral issues change in the face of topics like extinction
The condor's endangered status has nothing to do with this. The reason the example affirms my point is because despite the fact that a condor egg is not a condor yet, killing one is tantamount to killing a condor. Just the same as how killing a fetus is effectively killing a human.

>>10764356
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/06/24/dont-let-that-rainbow-logo-fool-you-these-corporations-donated-millions-to-anti-gay-politicians/#fbaef714a682
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

Nah we can always just create a nuclear winter.

>>10764356
>The condor's endangered status has nothing to do with this.
it's the only reason the law exists it's the entire point. Destroying a condor egg is against the law because actions which contribute to the extinction of a protected species are against the law. There's absolutely no way to spin this into an anti abortion argument.

>>10764356
>Name two anti-gay things that corporations have done in the past decade
That's dumb. You don't have to be anti-gay to be rightist. Corporations will always do what's profitable. These days it's pandering to the left to win social justice points.

The world is going to FUCKING END because of the GREENHOUSE EFFECT!!!!!

What? Anti-Greenhouse effect? No that's not real haha...

>>10764356
chick fil a literally hates gays or something you dumb nigger

>>10763686
you living out at sea? doubt it

>>10764328
>why are all major corporations leftist?
only a stupid nazi clown would think so.
get a life

>>10762879
>The real threat is AI. A general artificial intelligence...
I was following you up to this point. Then you started being retarded.

>>10764419
>Destroying a condor egg is against the law because actions which contribute to the extinction of condors
And how does it do that? By killing a condor, of course. By the same principle, killing a fetus is killing a human.

It's not just climate change, but it's the combination of our infinite growth economic system, overpopulation, resource depletion, and waste.

Collapse is reality. That is the threat. The system is going to get top heavy and come toppling down.

What are we going to do when peak oil is met? What are we going to do when the insurance industry falls apart because of continuously rising premiums? What are we going to do when we hit peak rare earth metals? What are we going to do when the aquifers run dry? What are we going to do when agricultural yields can only sustain their domestic production markets because of drought, flood, heat, and topsoil depletion? Where will people go when coastal cities (which house the majority of Earth's population) become inundated with flooding from encroaching sea levels and floods from high precipitation events? What will happen as snow pack reduces and water-starved cities/nations begin cutting off down-stream neighbors? What happens when our antibiotic abuse finally comes to bite us in the ass and we get a supercharged version of the Spanish flu? What of the wild fish populations that are collapsing from overfishing and coral bleaching? What are the implications of the insect die off we've been witnessing? What happens when wet-bulb temperatures become too high in high population regions like the Middle East and India?

If these questions aren't caused by climate change itself, they're exacerbated by it or related to it. They're individually complex problems, but it's the multitude of them all occurring around the same time that makes the situation dire.

It's not only as dangerous as we believe, but we're in over our heads. There isn't a pragmatic way out of this.

The only real questions are how many decades we have left of comfort and how fast collapse will accelerate. If we're lucky there won't be nuclear war and the clathrate gun hypothesis won't prove correct.

what value to this?
http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/primary-cause-of-warming.html

>>10759364
>It will NEVER end
climatefags

>>10764725
well it’ll end thousands of years from now when a new equilibrium is reached and most ecosystems have collapsed, humans long extinct

>>10764738
>ecosystems have collapsed
And new ones take their place
>humans long extinct
we can survive in space nigga

>>10764742
>magic space colonization
>magic resilience of complex self organizing systems
you’re retarded

>>10764751
>magic space colonization
i mean we got the capacity to so doing it down here would be way easier
if you think think some jews out there haven't got little contingency plan bunkers to become king of the ashes ur a dumbo
>magic resilience of complex self organizing systems
if our theories of earth's history are correct, that's exactly right

Go eat a burger and cry about how it's made homo

>>10764620
>And how does it do that? By killing a condor, of course.
Non sequitur.

>>10762885
Not to me, I dont own property there. If I really wanted to, I'd buy property inland and make bank off renting to refugees. Where faggot leftists and conservitards see change and disaster, a confident liberal see opportunity.
Humans will have to learn to deal with world-ending climate catastrophe they can't avoid soon anyway, since an ET body impact or CME is coming. Its not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Maybe first getting our toes wet surving and adapting to an apocalyptic wasteland now with Global warming will see us better off when the next meteor takes a city-sized chunk out of the planet.

>>10762940
>Otherwise why even bother with science at all because if you apply your kind of retarded solipsism

>using specific philosophical jargon to spice up general, broad language.
kys plebbit

In practice, yes, humans must rely on authoritative bodies and consensus and whatnot, but within the context of an argument and not a course of action spanning decades, an appeal to authority or appeal to majority fallacy is just that----a fallacy.

>>10764762
I dont think you know what that phrase means.

>>10764836
are you talking about the magical bitcoin node in another galaxy?

>>10764620
>By killing a condor
What makes you say that?

>>10764836
>Humans will have to learn to deal with world-ending climate catastrophe they can't avoid soon anyway, since an ET body impact or CME is coming. Its not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Maybe first getting our toes wet surving and adapting to an apocalyptic wasteland now with Global warming will see us better off when the next meteor takes a city-sized chunk out of the planet.

Thats actually a good argument, paradise Earth would coddle us while climate ravaged Earth will make us more resilient as a species.

However we are currently not dealing with climate change very well.

>>10758995
>more CO2 => more greenhouse effect => higher temperature
FALSE

>>10758995
Whoop dee doo- Oceania gets fucked over, some big coastal cities have to pull a Venice or creep inland, and billions of unnecessary people die.

>>10765078
hurr durr

>>10765092
>billions
This is why it's hard to take alarmists seriously.

>>10765117
Hey, a man can dream, can't he?

>>10765117
>I base my beliefs on predictions I think are unfounded
denialists are an exceptional kind of retarded

>>10764881
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

>>10758995
For one humans hold a negligible part in climate change. Just look at Randal Carlson podcast with Joe Rogan, they discuss a lot.
All those who are crying watch way too much news and are classic libtards who do 0 research.

>>10765568
>For one humans hold a negligible part in climate change. Just look at Randal Carlson podcast with Joe Rogan, they discuss a lot.

>>10764698
lol no one touches this post cause it's true, comprehensive and absolutely terrifying.

Thanks anon. How does an individual prepare as best they can?

>>10764698
any primary sources i can expand on?

>>10763361
We really just got out of an ice age 10,000 years ago and you want to try and decrease the temperature of the planet because it is too hot?

>>10766510
>We really just got out of an ice age 10,000 years ago
We didn't get out of an ice age, we got out of a glacial period. And now we are warming an order of magnitude faster than that interglacial warming, on top of it. But you are worried about it getting colder. This is like an obese man worrying about starving to death if he goes on a diet.

>>10766536
>We didn't get out of an ice age, we got out of a glacial period
Sure but that is semantics. While not the technical definition of an ice age, glacial periods are often colloquially called ice ages.
>This is like an obese man worrying about starving to death if he goes on a diet.
I am entirely fine with cutting emissions, which is what a "diet" would be in your analogous scenario. Actively trying to make our planet cooler after we just got out a glacial period is a bad idea though. The planet was dryer, colder, and generally less hospitable. Deserts were larger, the Amazon rainforest was two distinct rainforests seperates by Savannah etc. The warmer the planet gets the better of a place it is to live.

>>10766565
>Actively trying to make our planet cooler after we just got out a glacial period is a bad idea though.
Why?

>The planet was dryer, colder, and generally less hospitable. Deserts were larger, the Amazon rainforest was two distinct rainforests seperates by Savannah etc. The warmer the planet gets the better of a place it is to live.
Making the planet cooler does not mean going into a glacial period.

>>10758995
No more fucking climate change threads, you wanna make this shit go to fucking pol god damnit. This shit always turns into a political shit slinging contest

>>10767526
There are even more denialtards on /pol/. So much so that it's difficult not to get drowned out in Gish gallops of bad and irrelevant arguments.