/sci/ - Science & Math

Bump, I thought /sci/ would have relevant opinions on this matter

Two people so far have said we shouldn't take action.

Either of you want to explain why?

By the way I'm undecided personally. I'm from northern Europe so if anything my country might slightly benefit from a bit of warming (see pic in OP) - however, negative effects in other parts of the world will probably cause mass migrations and many people will try and get into northern Europe (Canada too).

I think the Paris Agreement is a step in the right direction - surely if action is going to be taken on this issue then it should be shared equally across the world. Some people say the agreement is bad because it's not legally binding - okay, well then the answer would be to push for a legally binding mechanism.

Multiple people have responded to the poll but aren't responding to the thread.

I wanted to foster a discussion about this topic and I thought /sci/ would be interested in having one.

>>11279523
The big nagatives will be even more mass migration from the havily overpopulated regions.

The problem I have with the climate discussion is that the usual suspects are pushing control agendas or "solutions" that do nothing but waste more money, time and resources and enrich a specific few while doing almost nothing beneficial.

>>11279575
>pushing control agendas or "solutions" that do nothing but waste more money, time and resources and enrich a specific few while doing almost nothing beneficial.
Okay what's your plan? Are you saying that we should literally let the world burn because you feel actions against it are subjectively bad? The opposite is letting fossil fuel companies get enriched even more than they already are, the money will end up in the hands of the powerful no matter what. With climate action you're at least acting on the most threatening thing to humanity, I don't even know where you even got the idea that solutions out there are ineffective or wasteful, I mean they might be in the short term, but long term they will work.

>>11279575
So reducing greenhouse gas emissions does nothing? Even though we know that's the cause of global warming?

Something tells me you're a moron.

>>11279566
Yes exactly that's what I was referring to. People from the red countries in the picture in the OP will try and migrate to the blue countries, because the red countries will suffer drought, and therefore maybe famine too.

I really thought this thread would generate more discussion.

>>11279650
There is also one extremely red country with nuclear weapons.

>>11279827
What does this have to do with global warming exactly?

>>11279838
India? Pakistan? Those are probably the two reddest nuclear states on the map.

In any case what do you mean by this? India's going to threaten the rest of the world with their nukes in order to try and get land in cooler areas, or something like that?

>>11279608
>>11279646
there are a lot of "schemes" that channel funds but do nothing or are occassionally counterproductive, this isn't exactly hard to find
on the other hand the fossil fuel mafia are not going down with a threat to their financial hegemony look at how they used the Fukushima incident to knock back progress on nuclear

>>11279845
When faced with the threat of certain destruction nuclear armed conflict looks like a pretty good alternative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY

>>11279851
>there are a lot of "schemes" that channel funds but do nothing or are occassionally counterproductive, this isn't exactly hard to find
Like what?

>>11279857
In b4 some dumb Bilderberg conspiracy shit.

>>11279845
>What does this have to do with global warming exactly?
fuck global warming lol

>>11279851
So then you support real solutions like electric cars, electricity generation from nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, stuff like that? Since you're saying your only problem with the climate discussion is that you think some solutions are not effective enough. So presumably you support solutions that are actually effective.

>the fossil fuel mafia are not going down
They're all trying to boost their green credentials. Many of them have bought renewable energy companies or at least invested in the area, because they recognise that governments might eventually throttle them with fossil fuel regulations.

>>11279873
Ah you're a moron, I see.

>>11279887

>>11279884
Yes I want actual solutions that solve the problem or stop causing the problem.
We need a more distributed energy system that makes better use of local resources.
but we must balance this against the very real and extremely visible damage being caused to the environment from pollution and exploitation, better land rights and

"Solutions" such as "veganism" can actually do quite a lot of harm because they're ideological positions and don't reflect the facts on the ground.
A purely vegan system sees almost all animal life as a threat or competitor qhile being degrading and over explotative of arable systems and by products.

>>11279911
*better land rights with greaster focus on long term sustainability and dissemination of information would solve many problems.

What if we create a better world and it's all for nothing? Gosh darn.

>>11279914
>better land rights
What does better mean to you? How would that solve many problems?

>>11279445
>Or should we be like "nah fuck it" even though many countries will objectively suffer
>niggers
>spics
>chinks
>pajeet
>mutt
I see nothing wrong about that, that's even a good news.

>>11279911
OP here, yeah I wouldn't want veganism because I love animal protein too much. However, if someone can make some artificial complete protein that costs as little as meat or even less, then I'd probably try it. But it would take years of research to get to that level I think.

Lab grown meat would be great, but again, it's hugely expensive.

>>11279915
You are oversimplifying the argument to an absurd degree.

Look at the image in the OP again. If you're someone in Canada you might well think "well fuck it, our country will be alright, lol". But then they have a small military and they might not be able to keep out swathes of refugees that well, who knows.

Interestingly I read something saying that Russia has recently started taking action on climate change because they were having loads of extreme weather events apparently. So even them, a country with lots of nukes to defend themselves, and they're blue in the OP image, so lots of parts of their country should warm up and become more habitable - even then, they still think they need to take action on climate change to prevent crazy weather events.

In any case I think it is completely reasonable for people to ask whether the investment in, say, electric cars is worth it, when petrol cars are so much cheaper. Going green will cost money so it definitely makes sense that people would ask that question.

I think in this debate that people should focus more on the specific effects of global warming. Denialists are just a distraction who are trying to shift the argument. The question of whether manmade global warming is real has already been settled, but denialists are trying to keep arguing that question so that we don't move onto other questions. But really we should be discussing what the exact effects will be, and how much it might cost to ameliorate those effects. Then the democratic populous of each nation can decide what actions they want to take.

>>11279445
when someone knows a good way to pull gas out of the atmosphere I say give them their funding.

>>11279955
the issue isn't the protein it's the production system and its effect on the environment.
people don't need to give up meat but they need to eat less and the meat they eat should be better produced and much more seasonal instead of the borderline indutrial highly destrictive system that treats it as a commodity

>>11279445
don't worry, eurocucks will sacrifice economic production for climate change prevention even though it'd literally increment their overall output rather than decrement it, just so that the US can continue both abusing the environment and not pay for it. being a cuck is amazing.

>>11279973
How does meat become seasonal? Are some animals more populous at different times of the year and which ones, at which times of the year?

But anyway, for ME, and for most people, protein IS the issue. You saying it isn't doesn't make that true.

Meat is pretty much the highest quality protein source we can get, which is why we eat it. It has every single amino acid we need, and it has vitamin B12, which we also need (vegans HAVE to take B12 supplements because B12 deficiency fucks up your brain and nerves). It packs a fuckton of protein per gram, and very little in the way of other extraneous shit. I.e. no sugars, whereas milk, a pretty good protein source, has a lot of sugar (lactose). Eggs are also a great protein source of course. But so is meat.

Nearly all plant sources of protein are incomplete - they don't have all of the amino acids that we need. I think quinoa and onions beans are complete, but they're very imperfect as protein sources. Quinoa I think has hardly any protein per gram, but it does have a ton of carbs. So you'd probably get fat from the carbs before you extracted enough protein to rebuild your muscles. That's bad. Which is why humans eat meat as part of their diets, instead of trying to get all of our protein from quinoa, which would be moronic and make us all fat.

>>11280148
Because winter.

>>11279445
>will objectively
Strong words for a theory of which every prediction made by its avocates so far has been flat out wrong. Why should we waste money and resources based on speculative pseudoscience of which has produced no credible results which would point towards any of their predictions being even close to right. Climate change is an ad hoc theory mainly promoted by paranoid fools who have no understanding of science.

>>11280165
You didn't answer the question of which animals would be more populous at different times of the year. Your answer means nothing and I'm thinking you must be completely fucking dense.

>>11280185
historically we would not fatten cattle over winter on stored feeds, they would be fattenened over summer on lush pastures then butchered in the autumn and stored
there are many favourable elements to that system

>>11280180
tell me more, really curious about the truth behind global warming. Read some Wikipedia articles and it said that our gas emissions can't turn the earth into venus and that while we are in a icehouse period earth, because of our emissions we are going into a hothoue earth instead of an ice age.

>>11280209
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

>>11280191
this anon knows what the fuck he's talking about

>>11280191
>>11280223
That's interesting but can it meet the global demand for meat? I assume the answer is a big fat "no" which is why we have the system we have.

>>11280180
Oh look it's a fucking denialist moron, not surprising one of you thick sacks of shit would turn up.

>>11280209
>our gas emissions can't turn the earth into venus
Venus is very extreme and Earth isn't going to turn into Venus any time soon - however, the greenhouse effect is precisely why Venus is so hot. And it's also why Mars gets very very cold at night time - there is no atmosphere to trap heat. Earth has an atmosphere which traps heat which is why our nights don't plummet to like -200.

The truth about global warming is what the scientists say. Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect, which warms the Earth.

I'm not saying you need to buy an electric car or whatever the fuck, that's up to you. I'm not even sure what we should do about global warming, which is why I started this thread, to see what ideas anons had.

So I do think the question of whether we should even do anything about it is an open one. We could be like "eh whatever we'll adapt", especially since people in northern Europe (like me) won't suffer the worst weather effects of global warming. But there are indirect effects like mass immigration that should probably be considered.

But the question of whether manmade global warming is real is not an open one. Only morons will try and convince you otherwise.

>>11280236
to be honest I think global warming is real but it is not as disastrous as the media says it is. Someone said it would take a lot of gemerations of humans to melt the ice caps and I think that is true. We should also use money to discover new types of fuel in order for human species to evolve and discover the space, the multiverse or some shit but muh nukes muh wars muh greta muh jews muh gender studies muh equality. Everything in this world is just the opposite of the common sense.

>>11280227
then eat more small mammals like rabbit and guinea pigs

>>11280252
>melt the ice caps
That isn't the only effect though. Drought will be a big effect, especially for places that are already warm. And more severe hurricanes and shit like that is predicted too.

Some of this stuff might not happen for quite a while, i.e. a few decades, but it will progressively get worse and keep getting worse unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions - at least that's what the evidence indicates.

As for fuel, I personally think we should use nuclear because it's carbon-free. It does unfortunately produce radioactive waste though. And the best solution for this found so far is to bury it under ground, encased in concrete (they do this in Finland I believe, taking waste from all around the world). But even that's not ideal. But still, nuclear can generate tons of carbon-free energy. I think wind and solar are definitely getting much better though and I think they're becoming much more cost-effective.

>>11280274
If someone packs it up in a tasty product that I can buy from the supermarket then sure I'd try it.

I assume it's much more efficient to just farm larger animals though since there's so much more meat on them. Imagine having to strip the meat from thousands of rabbits; the labour involved for the small amount of meat probably isn't worth it.

>>11279445
*turns up the thermostat to full and runs away*

>Signed ~Always-Always, PayMeOnlyInOrWithMemeMagic~

https://twitter.com/lilearthangelk?lang=en

>>11279445
>Or should we be like "nah fuck it" even though many countries will objectively suffer (pic related)?

You’re literally asking if people are psychos. The answer is yes

>>11279911
> "Solutions" such as "veganism" can actually do quite a lot of harm because they're ideological positions and don't reflect the facts on the ground.

Fact is, animal agriculture is bad for the environment. Fact is, killing other beings for your own personal pleasure is wrong. Go vegan

>>11279445
>trillions of dollars to attempt to affect the world temperature by 1 degree
>worst offenders exempt from this policy
OP, maybe if climate change policy was about climate change and not about redistribution of wealth, then people would take you seriously

>>11279523
>OMG YOU SAID... NO!?!??? EXPLAIN YOURSELF TO ME RIGHT NOW
Fuck off.

See this here, >>11280393 is an ideological position ignoring the facts because he has dunning-krueger effect and is overconfident in his understanding of the food system.
At no point did I claim the current food system is sane but he acted like his meagre understanding of one proposed "solution" had any validity.

>>11280430
If no means no then what the fuck does no mean?

>Signed ~Always-Always, PayMeOnlyInOrWithMemeMagic~

https://twitter.com/lilearthangelk?lang=en

>>11280389
Not sure what you mean by this

>>11280393
If you weren't thick you'd know that morality is nothing more than a social contract. The reason humans (and other animals) formed social groups (societies) in the first place was because a group is stronger than an individual. A predator can easily kill an individual, but they'll have a tougher time against a group. This is why you get herds of elephants and other social groups of other animals.

In today's world, as a human being, you could decide to abandon society and live in the woods by yourself, but getting enough food and everything would be hard, and also would any woman want to raise a family with you there? I'm sure some people have done it, but normally you need to have at least some connection with society. Especially if you want to buy land on which to build a house or whatever. Most of the world's land, and especially desirable land, is owned by nations. So you need to take part in that nation, that social group, if you want the benefit of buying some land within it.

The point here is that there's only any point in behaving morally if you get something in return for it. With animals, nothing bad happens when we kill them for food. So we should.

Not only this, but many many other animals ALSO kill animals for food - and also, if we didn't kill animals for food, those animals would get killed in more violent ways in nature anyway.

There is no rational reason to be moral towards animals. You should only be moral when there is a benefit to you, basically. As an individual that's the only rational course of action. So yeah, no reason to be moral towards animals.

God put animals on this Earth for us to eat. Probably.

>>11280384
The labour cost is higher but you didn't ask that, the energy conversion efficiency is higher.

>>11280430
Getting this buttravaged at my post.

Poetic.

>>11280227
fuck the global demand. you get what you fucking get. create better environments for deer to thrive liek they already are quite awesomely if i might add. lengthen hunting seasons and encourage people to hunt moar for their meat as well as >>11280274 hell ya

>>11280443
>God put animals on this Earth for us to eat. Probably.
odd tautology.

>>11280454
anon is just uncertain as we live in an uncertain confusing tiem

>>11280443
>Dude morality is like fake and stuff so it’s okay if I’m psycho

> Not only this, but many many other animals ALSO kill animals for food

We aren’t them. That has no significance.

> and also, if we didn't kill animals for food, those animals would get killed in more violent ways in nature anyway.

Wrong. They wouldn’t exist.

> There is no rational reason to be moral towards animals.

Morality has nothing to do with reason. Read Hume.

> You should only be moral when there is a benefit to you, basically.

Literal psychopath.

> God put animals on this Earth for us to eat.

There’s no God LOL

>>11280458
>Read Hume
Which Hume?

>>11280458
>> and also, if we didn't kill animals for food, those animals would get killed in more violent ways in nature anyway.
>Wrong. They wouldn’t exist.
good summary of the problem with veganism ecologically

>>11280458
>There’s no God LOL
it's just a reference to the unknown anon

>>11280460
Brit Hume

>>11280423
>>trillions of dollars to attempt to affect the world temperature by 1 degree
>>worst offenders exempt from this policy
What are you even referring to?

>>11280449
I thought the problem with cows was that they fart methane, not that they are energy inefficient to rear.

>>11280453
Many people who work jobs don't have time to hunt.

>>11280454
>>11280457
I don't actually believe in any god but obviously that's what many people throughout history believed, that God meant us to be the stewards of animals, and we could eat some of them.

But really I guess what I'm saying is that nature is dog-eat-dog, literally (or more accurately lion-eat-gazelle, or human-eat-cow, or wolf-eat-rabbit, or whale-eat-krill, or whatever). So it is the way of nature for us to eat animals.

>inb4 hurr durr naturalistic fallacy
Don't give a shit.

>>11280458
>We aren’t them. That has no significance
WE LITERALLY ARE ANIMALS YOU DUMB FUCK, CHARLES DARWIN WORKED THIS OUT A VERY LONG TIME AGO.

>They wouldn’t exist
SOME of them would exist and they'd have terrible deaths you fucking twat.

>Morality has nothing to do with reason
Yes it does you fucking moron, read some fucking Hobbes you fucking idiot. MORALITY IS A SOCIAL CONTRACT AND NOTHING MORE.

>psychopath
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm saying what is true and you're just too butthurt by it, lmao.

>There’s no God
Yeah I don't actually believe in any god either, but still, it is the way of nature for animals (including us) to eat other animals.

>BUT HURR DURR NATURALISTIC FALLACY
Don't give a shit, the fact is that tons of animals eat animals, and we are also animals, so there's no reason to not eat animals, especially since, like I said, the only reason to be moral is when it's in your interest. If animals can't kill us for eating them then there's no reason to spare them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok
30:00
Someone want to explain what he means by the racket?

>>11280691
cows are slow to reproduce and adapt to gluts in food supply rabbits and other small r strategy herbivores can punch out a couple hundred replacements in a year depending on food availability

>>11280180
Excuse me, but global warming has a mountain of evidence behind it, and denialists do everything they can to pretend the evidence doesn't exist or isn't convincing (it is).

>>11280698
sowell is a crank and a fraud

>>11280731
>a fraud
try harder

>>11280732
?

>>11280703
Interesting. But I guess nobody is farming rabbits en masse because it isn't profitable, since it would be very labour intensive to strip all these rabbits of their meat.

>>11280691
>Many people who work jobs don't have time to hunt.
LOL i dont give a fuck, then they don't get extra meat in the off-season. Or they gotta befriend a hunter and beg. Welcome to reality.

>>11280771
LOL i don't give a fuck, then they buy meat from a supermarket like everybody else. Welcome to reality.

>>11280773
>then they buy meat from a supermarket
liek a good little bitchboy can only do. fitting.

>>11280776
Says the little bitchboy crying his eyes out at reality. Fitting.

>>11280768
not much different to chicken processing, rabbit farming used to be a common business, cavies are pretty commercial in peru

>>11280778
i'm crying my eyes out over the reality of the earth suffering because cowards liek you can't bring themselves to work a job and go shoot a fukkin deer little bitch

>>11280180
a global apocalypse story has value. fear is fuel.

>>11280829
>fear is fuel.
No, Australia is fuel, and it's burning right as we speak.

>>11280180
>a theory of which every prediction made by its avocates so far has been flat out wrong
Still peddling that objectively-false talking point you fucking shill rat?
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk

>>11280829
>>11280845
Get it? It's a metaphor, Australia is both physically fuel in the sense that it fuels flames, and metaphorically fuel in the sense that it supports a global apocalypse story.

It's over, you literally cannot deny anymore. Rain-forests that have never burned in recorded history, are burning, right now. We once thought that these rain-forests were immune to fire, given the composition of the trees, yet 3 years of record breaking drought proved us wrong. Australia is a prelude to what is yet to come.

don't mind me
http://www.chemtrailplanet.com/DEW.html
just passing through

>>11280875
what is it you think I'm denying? by all means keep being angry and fearful if you choose, it's for the greater good.

>>11280900
I am beyond anger or fear over the environment at this point. What's happening to Australia will happen to the rest of the world, that's just how it is, call it a global apocalypse story if you so wish, it's all but guaranteed at this point.

Denial of the significance of it, on the other hand, is not ok. Lives will change, cities will burn, immigrants will knock at the gate, people will die, and denial that this is the trajectory that humanity is heading towards, is blatantly wrong. It's the kind of wrongness based on complete ignorance of literally everything happening on the planet right now.

>>11280924
I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist but there are similarities between these fires and the overly intense fires that struck cali not that long ago.

not saying it's necessarily anything suspicious but it might be worth observing some of the data presented here at least to get a feel for the oddities
@11280883

>>11280781
Little bitch is crying his eyes out at reality, fitting.

>>11280691
> WE LITERALLY ARE ANIMALS YOU DUMB FUCK

Never said we weren’t animals.

> SOME of them would exist

No, they wouldn’t. No animal that exists in the animal agriculture industry would exist if humans did not perform animal agriculture.

> and they'd have terrible deaths you fucking twat.

Someone suffering a painful death in the future isn’t a justification for giving them a less painful death before that occurs.

> Yes it does you fucking moron

Nope. It’s all emotion.

> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm saying what is true and you're just too butthurt by it, lmao.

Nah, you’re just admitting you’re a psychopath.

> Yeah I don't actually believe in any god either, but still, it is the way of nature for animals (including us) to eat other animals.

Appeal to nature fallacy.

> Don't give a shit

Okay, that’s nice. You’re still using fallacies.

> like I said, the only reason to be moral is when it's in your interest.

Literal psychopathy. Mentally healthy non-psychopaths do things they consider “moral” because they feel an obligation to.

>>11280781
>earth suffering

Earth is just a rock. It doesn’t experience suffering

>>11280924
>stop not being afraid of what I'm afraid of!
You know you choose the form of your suffering, right? Maybe a hug would help, there there anon

The climate change denial sliding on /sci/ has been ridiculous. You'd think the shills would direct more effort at Leddit or whatever.

>>11279955
Your argument revolves around oversimplifying the possible collapse of an incredibly complex system to marginal costs and profits.

>>11280989
>climate change denial sliding
what's that?

>>11280956
You literally said "we aren't them" meaning the animals that eat other animals. WE ARE LITERALLY ANIMALS THAT EAT OTHER ANIMALS. WE HAVE BEEN FOR MILLENNIA. WE ARE IN EXACTLY THE SAME CATEGORY AS ALL OTHER ANIMALS THAT EAT OTHER ANIMALS.

Not only this but our closest relatives in the hominidae family ALSO eat meat.
>The hominidae, including humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are also omnivores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore#Omnivorous_mammals

You were implying that we are not part of animals that eat meat. We are, and you are wrong.

>No animal that exists in the animal agriculture industry would exist if humans did not perform animal agriculture
Yeah because they'd all get eaten alive in nature you dumb fuck. If you released all the animals they would all get eaten alive in nature.

>Someone suffering a painful death in the future isn’t a justification for giving them a less painful death before that occurs
The justification is that we need protein and they're tasty you fucking idiot - which is the same reason why every other carnivorous or omnivorous organism eats meat.

>psychopath
HAHAHAHAHAHA you fucking loser. You're describing normal human beings as psychopaths, because you are a fucking weirdo.

OH WOW you're referring to the fallacy I identified? Christ you must be the next Sherlock Holmes.

The rest of your post is cope faggot bullshit. Either you're a child, in which case I apologies for the profanities, or you're some mentally deranged person. Because surely only a child could be this naive about reality.

Next paragraph in another post.

>>11280956
If you are a child then as I say, I apologise for the profanities because a child doesn't deserve that. But if you are a child, you are browsing an 18+ website. What you do with that information is up to you, but I'm glad I didn't come to a place like this when I was a kid, it would have fucked me up.

Or if you're NOT a child then you remind me of those mentally deranged vegans you get on TV chat shows who desperately plead with the normal viewing public, in vein, to see animals as members of our society who deserve the same rights. And they watch in anguished horror as the interviewers and audience stuff meat into their mouths and smile.

>>11280956
>>11281049
Wait, I mean "in vain", I didn't mean anything to do with blood vessels.

>>11280989
Do you mean denialists are starting slide threads? If so which ones?

>>11281000
At least I didn't say something as fucking stupid as "what if we create a better world and it's all for nothing".

>>11281017
I assume he means denialists making slide threads - threads that are supposed to slide legitimate climate change threads off the catalog, by taking up space on the catalog.

But I don't know what threads he means because he didn't link to any. And obviously this thread is the opposite of a denialist thread, as can be seen in the OP.

Hi. I'm new here, >>11281052
By your response to >>11281000,
I can tell that you are full of shit. now, please, just fuck off already.

>>11281052
>create a better world
i know for a fact this line is popular among some highest ranking asshats responsible for the ongoing degradation, as i was in the room when it came straight out of one their lying, asshat, mouths

>>11281017
Shill armies. The internet is stuffed to the brim with bots and fake profiles, and the ultra-rich, national governments and such have a disturbing impact on world opinion, because unlike mass media, people give more credence to what they think are fellow people online. Climate change denial is one of their topics, as is attacking China (Falun Gong is in on this, believe it or not), political sliding of the "it's not a coup, it's a violent reorganization of power" kind, slobbering over Israel's dick and so on. /pol/ has been subverted by it, it's really impressive how they went from armchair Nazis to actual JIDF.

>>11281052
>Do you mean denialists are starting slide threads? If so which ones?
Most of them. The point isn't to really spread the disinformation in itself, so much as to cast doubt on something which settled by hard science. So long as there's a "debate" surrounding any topic, they can get away with just about anything.

>>11281052
>create a better world
create a better world for whom? can you be more specific? nope. you cannot. because its an asshat line.

>>11281073
ty, wasn't sure which side you were implying was shill armies. climate change shills seemed more likely from my perspective, with the opposition being more like a bunch of kids poking an ant hill with a stick. I'd have guessed ppl who want to play the climate change is srs business game would be more at home in a less shitposty environment?

>>11280958
It's an analogy to all life on earch hollowanon

>>11281178
You mean metonymy

>>11280883
>chemtrailplanet
You have to go back.

For you all believed that attention was for the pleasure of self and the sale of sin, but it was so you all had a private universe of reflection that you could decorate within.

I am he that which all know by name, for I have crafted this moment to etch into your brain.

Respect whoever I give the hat to next, that which is Land, Spirit, and Warmth (一個翻譯).

It will be the chain of that which is observation and opinion when punishment and judgement wear out their welcome.

I am that which you all deny as tongue or tone, "I am Time, man of flesh, with spirit of bone."

Know me by any name or image you prefer, it is your light that I will not rape. There is only one American who stood up for Australia, and this is her: https://twitter.com/lilearthangelk

But even her you would rape, those that believe they are worthy of retaining this thing called a penis.

America, you are who I call into the light. Stop raping everyone with social media and start the loving your neighbor plight.

>>11279445
The problem with your argument is that it relies on GDP as the indicator of wellbeing. I'll go ahead and agree with you though. Now the problem is that the map is a population growth heatmap.
I could use the same map to argue for genocide of any red populations.

The one thing I don't understand about the right's reluctance to solve the problem is how they don't understand that the migrant crisis in Europe is 1/1000th of what we can expect when all of the places in red on your map start to want to migrate to blue countries - or even light red countries!

I agree with this (>>11279575) anon. Global efforts are making a dent, sure, but overall it's a giant prisoner's dilemma and no one wants to lose out on economic growth. Especially the global south (most red countries on OP's map). It all comes down to individual responsibility and moral ethics if you ask me.
Some of my extended family in Germany has told me about how the children there skip school to protest for climate change action. How many of those kids make their own bed in the morning? How can literal children, who have close to no responsibility whatsoever be in a position to demand radical change? If people were accustomed to accepting responsibility and had a moral ethic that encouraged them to help people by doing the things that virtue-signaling idiots want the government to force everyone to do, we wouldn't be in a mess where people had to tighten their belts (which they have been unaccustomed to doing for 3 generations).

>>11281248
Yes!

>>11281541
>How can literal children, who have close to no responsibility whatsoever be in a position to demand radical change?
Who do you think will be the ones to inherit the Earth once boomers are gone. Honestly it's their future, not yours, they're exactly the people who should be worried about climate change.

>>11279445
Using GDP as the be-all end-all metric of good/bad for countries is so retarded and you should stop doing it

>>11279445
>28 votes no
Votes made by people who shouldn't be on this board.

>>11281068
Ah look it's a buttfrustrated moron who is too stupid to make an argument. Thanks for crying though, it enriches me.

>>11281072
>>11281076
I was quoting the post here: >>11279915
That I responded to here: >>11279955

>>11281073
>The point isn't to really spread the disinformation in itself, so much as to cast doubt on something which settled by hard science. So long as there's a "debate" surrounding any topic, they can get away with just about anything.
True.

>>11281115
>climate change shills seemed more likely from my perspective, with the opposition being more like a bunch of kids poking an ant hill with a stick
So Trump is just a kid according to you? I still would have voted for Trump over Hillary, if I was American, but his denial of climate change is pretty stupid. But I guess it's a position he needs to take in deference to the Republican Party, who are in deference to big business like Big Oil, Big Coal, etc.

>>11281541
>Now the problem is that the map is a population growth heatmap
No I don't think it's anything to do with that at all. Look at the legend of the map again - it says "change in GDP per capita by 2100 compared to a world without climate change".

So population growth, or the lack thereof, shouldn't have anything to do with it. This study was trying to isolate the effect of climate change by itself.

You can follow the link in the bottom right corner of the OP image if you want to read more about the study.

>>11281611
Ah yes of course because there's nothing better than being too poor to feed yourself or heat your home, thanks moron!

>>11281663
"Yes" is still on top though. Which is a change. The last time I checked it was not long after I made it, and it was like 3-1 in favour of no.

>>11281663
>>11281674
Take a look at that poll, some of the posts ITT and the recent spate of garbage in the catalog and tell me /sci/ isn't being raided by /pol/ and /x/ fags. Mods need to step up and start cleaning up this board before it's too late and we end up like /tv/

>>11281611
The reason GDP growth is used is because it's a measure of how well construction, and banking corporations are doing, and those are the the people that are profiting off of, and overseeing this slow motion trainwreck.

>>11279445
>Leaf economy prospers
>Alaskan buyback from a financially ruined america
Hell yes

Climate change is no longer about facts or proof, it's about politics and economics. Science in the context of climate change doesn't matter anymore, because none of it can be trusted so long as special interests are involved. We live in a time of rampant disinformation and public manipulation, the only thing you can rely on is your own intuition and observations.

>>11282094
>wahhhh the world is so shit because i'm too much of a fucking pussy to get a good job

>>11282137
History will look back upon this time period as the era of weaponized opinion.

>>11282151
>not understanding the argument
Brainlet detected.

>>11282151
It's simple really, I'd rather not bend the knee and devote my life so to any psychopaths, so psychopaths can CONSUUUUUUUUME

>>11282156
It's the new method of war. The internet has replaced the real world as the main battlefield with conventional war becoming secondary to it. The scariest part about it is that you no longer need to be a large country with a powerful military to participate in this new war and simply need a decent budget, some connections and perseverance.

>>11282151
Sending a cv is an act of submission and employer ghosting afterwards is a truly profound insult. Even the interview process is more akin to getting someone to jump through hoops and do a bunch of irrelevant tricks to prove you're a decent lacky and willing to submit.

If you were truly looking to "make the world a better place", you'd want to get to know a potential employee on a personal level to know whether they are intelligent and honourable people or not - maybe spend a few hours hanging out - but that's just not the way it is. It's a broken system, which favors the psychopath. Fuck it, and fuck you. I'd rather spend my life struggling, and either sink or swim doing my own thing, than suffer the indignity of submitting to the likes of you.

>>11282159
>>11282161
>>11282246
>wahhhh the world is so shit because i'm too much of a fucking pussy to get a good job or employ myself and make a success of myself
So you're all faggots, I get it.

>>11282264
Take it for whatever it's worth to you. I seriously couldn't give a flying fuck.

But I can guarantee you will never find my resume in your fucking bin. LOL

>>11282264
I realise you're just baiting for precious (You)s but you ought to at least to have the ability to recognise GDP as a flawed single metric since someone shooting you would result in an increase in GDP.

>>11282269

>>11282269
>>11282246
Extremely based and integritypilled

>>11282269
>>11282432
Because you're too much of a faggot to either get a job or make your own job, lmao.

>>11282272
>since someone shooting you would result in an increase in GDP
You think GDP means GDP per capita don't you? You're just that much of a fucking moron aren't you?

>>11282461
Give anon the benefit of the doubt in that he meant you are a net loss of GDP by simply existing.

>>11282475
nah he's a net gain on gdp due to all the products he consumes. what you meant is that he's a net loss for humanity though

>>11282461
I have a job, I didn't have to degrade myself or grovel for it though.

>>11282475
nah he's a net gain on gdp due to all the products he consumes. what you meant is that his existence is a net loss for humanity
gdp /= benefit for humanity is the poi

>>11279445
so apparently 41% of scientsits believe there's nothing wrong with men's impact on the environment

>>11282461
no he doesn't.
you're just retarded, much like using gdp as a measure of actual wealth is

>>11282500
forgot pic

>>11282497
They're just crossboarders trying to push their shit agendas

>>11282497
>41% of scientsits believe there's nothing wrong with men's impact on the environment
it'll only increase in time. "success" these days requires one to have the ability to come to terms with and accept environmental destruction (even better if you can actually enjoy it like a real psychotic),
It's an evolutionary force on humans which is steering us in exactly the opposite direction we need to go to avoid extinction
I think biologists call it an evolutionary trap

>>11282507
this. the vast majority /sci/entists are intelligent enough to know envsci is a meme and the cheaper plane tickets the better.

Are these scientists that deny human exacerbated climate change on the payroll of companies that have known about the effects of their production and wares for 50+ years and who constantly peddle a disinformation campaign against it, by chance?

>>11282461
>You think GDP means GDP per capita don't you? You're just that much of a fucking moron aren't you?
no I mean that making the gun, selling the gin driving to your house scoping the place then shooting you, followed by the police and legal work that follows to capture the killer technically increase GDP metric.

>>11282492
>I totally got a job without ever showing them my CV or any record of what work I've done!
Uh huh sure, and I bet your dad works for Nintendo too.

>>11282500
>>11282527
Removing a worker from the labour force doesn't increase GDP you fucking idiots.

>>11282137
>none of it can be trusted
I hope you don't mean the evidence for climate change can't be trusted. It's billions of data points from globally distributed observatories, and it adds up to a clear conclusion that warming is happening and that human activity is causing it.

>>11282246
>Sending a cv is an act of submission and employer ghosting afterwards is a truly profound insult. Even the interview process is more akin to getting someone to jump through hoops and do a bunch of irrelevant tricks to prove you're a decent lacky and willing to submit.
incredibly based

>>11282791
it does, short term, he just pointed out how fucking cocsucking braindead piece of shit castrate/kill yourself

>>11279445
>objective

>>11279523
>Either of you want to explain why?
Because my country benefits from it, and since first world countries are learning their lessons about mass migrations before we even got hit hard by it, I doubt we'll let it happen if even more of them try to come here

>>11281663
Go back to where you belong, low iq fag

>>11282137
>the only thing you can rely on is your own intuition and observations
But if you don't add a big part education you end up with flat earthers and anti-vaxxers.

>>11282862
WOW SHORT TERM FOR LIKE A DAY YOU FUCKING FAGGOT

>>11279445
All those red countries will just start shooting sulfur areosols in the air to cool the climate - a surprisingly cheap technology, while also freezing the blue countries - to death, either intentionally as a weapon or as a side effect.
This will result in a climate war, probably with nukes fired all over the world
There is NO country that will come out of this with a net positive

We are witnessing the end of the planet as we know it. Do with that information as you will

>>11282927
no u

>>11280731
So you admit you're wrong about your world view?

>>11279855
brainlet stupidity is going to kill earth
honestly, every climate change 'skeptic' should be executed for being a dysfunctional retard

>>11283451
it's worse than that, we don't need to freeze completely just lose crop yield moderately...

>>11283531
just raise the temperature a little in a few borderline regions and rice stops being viable there because hey won't be able to flower properly.
what grain crops can tolerate the hottest climates?

>>11283548
Corn, as it uses the C4 biochemical pathway for photosynthesis. Studies have shown that corn takes the least hit to its yield in hot temperatures compared to wheat or rice.

>>11283553
what about millet and sorghum?

>>11283556
>millet
Also a C4 plant, likely has better output than corn in dry weather.
>sorghum
No idea

>>11283594
I'm looking forward to see what we can do with crispr and give a few wild species the domestication syndrome genes from other crops and see what grows well under the future conditions especially with the increase in temperature making a few things easier

>>11283623
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/potato-bean/
I feel like a degree in a crop related studies might be very worthwhile given their future importance

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/%3C?%20echo%20$baseURL%20?%3E/montereypines_01
old fucking trees

>>11283553
The problem is cold, we can't all eat winter squash all the time when the grand solor minimum comes.

OH NO CLIMATE CHANGEEQ!!!!!!!!

When did /pol/ invade this board?

>>11284394
2015 or maybe earlier
the types of thread they make have not changed since then

>>11284394
>muh /pol/ boogeyman
You guys are hilariously deluded.

Real question is when did guys like this >>11284444 (checked) stop being afraid of 4chan

>>11284538
the real real question is why did the site turn to shit when pol exploded and a billion redditors and phone posters started shitting up every board with the same shill threads

>>11284528
It's patently obvious where the absolute garbage threads shitting up the board are coming from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i7-_yQ2JuQ

I want it to be warmer so I vote no

>do you think
>think

It doesn't matter what you brainlets think climate change is happening with empirical evidence you are either too stupid, too ignorant, or too american to see whether you think or believe it is or not

Neck yourselves if you can fit the noose over your fat gamburger blobs

>>11279445
Every country will suffer due to immigration.

>>11283269
The business drummed up by your murder far exceeds the value of any labor your capable of. Probably by several years.

>>11285716
It would also lower the demand for food over his lifetime. However it would reduce potential gdp. Glad you agree that gdp as a measure of wellbeing is flawed.

>>11279445
NO.

Population estimates say by the year 2050 we will be at 10 billion. The simple fact is we need climate change to increase the temperature by 2-5 degrees so that the migration and habitable zones of deadly animals and parasites such as the tsetse fly increases to span 40% of the entire African continent, rendering more than half of Africa uninhabitable.

This will also cause mass die offs of fish and other animals, further straining our food supply to the point of food-wars. Once the population gets back under 4 billion ONLY THEN can we begin to actually do something.

What do you think our chances are?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJH_vX3HETE

>>11286728
>Once the population gets back under 4 billion
problem with that is that the process of going down to 4 billion - people will take much of the stuff we need to sustain even 1 billion with them as they go. The inverse of the exponential function.

>>11286728
Calm down, Evil Doctor.

I say No and Yes. We will stop once real destruction starts happening. But it needs to be a global effort otherwise developing countries will be like "naah" and then Western pollution taxes will drive away valuable business to developing countries who don't give a shit about the climate.

Also the political ramifications of capitulating to the cult that is the left will be dire for years to come. We dont negotiate with terrorists for the same reason we cannot let screeching hateful cultists dictate what we should do.

>>11287321
>it needs to be a global effort
>We dont negotiate with terrorists for the same reason we cannot let screeching hateful cultists dictate what we should do.

Can anyone here imagine a global effort to cooperate with this guy happening any time soon? lol

>>11287321
>political ramifications of capitulating to the cult that is the left will be dire for years
>we cannot let screeching hateful cultists dictate what we should do

The real cult here is the growth monger cult.
I like this particular passage from their religious tome, the Good Book of Economics
>Continuous growth is invariably inevitable as long as humankind is not wiped out as evolution dictates it to be so. Those who reject growth and choose stagnation will simply be replaced genetically and culturally by those who expand. The only alternative to growth is conflict, decline and/or extinction. There is no stagnation.

It perfectly rationalizes their bloated lifestyles of ignorance and gluttony, and exemplifies their absolute arrogance and insanity quite well.

>>11287342
it honestly seems quite a logical extension and ties quite closely to evolution.
you're a big boy now, evolutionary stadia should not intimidate you.

>>11279445
NNOOOOOO!!!! If you sociopaths don't stop driving your gas guzzling cars there will be droughts in Africa killing off all those Tyrones who could be banging my wife!!! NOOOOO!!!!!

>>11287404
>rightoid post
>it involves black cuckoldery somehow
Every fucking time.

>>11287409
>noo don't call me a cuck for being a cuck noooo

>>11287392
>evolutionary stadia
what the fuck is that even?
more psychotic babble from the growth monger CONSUUUUUUUUUMER cultists?

I find it truly amazing the miriad ways in which you people can rationalize turning the world into a lifeless shitheap to satiate your bloated gluttony. Are you a scientoligist too?

>>11287418
uhuh , yeah having more wealth is so bad. such a cult. lmao.

>>11287321
>We will stop once real destruction starts happening.
lol, imagine actually believing this. Australia turning into a desert wont stop us, hurricanes wont stop us, people will just buy air conditioners once the heatwaves start getting out of control. Truth is there is no "tipping point" as far as damage, it's probably exponential with time though.

>>11287420
its not good or bad.
but please, lets be real here and spare me the LIE that you're innocent and benign
You're a malignant cancer

>>11287425
>its not good or bad.
>You're a malignant cancer
lol, and you're an idiot.

>>11287418
>noooo!!!! waht cishet assholes how dare they not want to live like cambodian rice farmers who are taxed up the ass??? don't they know greta is crying????

>>11287427
Malignant cancer is a natural phenomena, as are you. I'm not taking sides.

>>11287415
>thinks about blacks cucking men like himself literally 24/7
Yep, you're a closet cuckold like the majority of /pol/ (they all watch BBC porn)

>>11287431
t. actually watches his wife taking black dick daily

>>11287429
>I'm not taking sides.
lmao, yeah sure. because that's not at all a vitriolic thing to say.

>>11287437
I'll stop calling you malignant cancer the minute you admit that the growth monger cultists are essentially a malignant cancer of the earth.
Right now the comparison between you and malignant cancer is appropriate because neither seem to be aware of their true nature.

>>11287447
earth isn't alive. your "mother nature" isn't a real thing, it cannot cry. you are the cultist here.

>>11287392
Continuous growth is how you build a civilization to last a century. Stagnation is how you build a civilization to last a millennium. Ultimately any ideology based on exploiting limited resources is inferior, all ups have corresponding downs within that ideology. Stagnation only knows increase and equalibrium. By definition evolution is always trying to maintain an equalibrium, that is its nature, infinite growth couldn't be any more disconnected from evolution.

>>11287455
>earth isn't alive
irrelevant
if all you cared about is "humanity", then it's absolutely delusional to ignore the science that says your consumerism reduces the long term viability of humanity's life support system.

growth monger cultists are the epitome of delusional

>>11287465
this is why china didn't develop science. they held onto their civ more than their own best interests.

>>11287465
The growth monger cultists refer to things like balance, equilibrium, and sustainability as "stagnation"

They are sick and utterly brainwashed.

>>11287470
no i care about technological advancement. so what if some strangers suffer? as long as i and those who i care about live longer healthier lives that's all that matters. and to drive that tech progress engine we need economic growth so i'm all for it. it's not cult like at all, i'm not a sacrificial animal like you. so you are the cultist here, because you're putting your own self interest behind some retarded ideals. that's what cultists do, they give their lives to their calling.

>>11287479
t. sacrifical animal cultist who wants to live like a zambian dirt farmer with the taxation of a swede

>>11287484
You talk as if modern luxuries cannot be separated from fossil fuels, explain.

>>11287481
>more pseudo religious creed and defensive backlash from a delusional growth monger cultist

please spare me. You know nothing about technological advancement. You're incapable of contributing to it, and you've never in your life endeavored to do so. You simply need to believe in some abstract concept you like to call "technological advancement" as some form of salvation to rationalize your bloated life style.

End of story. Now go fuck yourself.

>>11287494
Now he's gonna go on about nuclear thorium fusion warp drives or some shit. Guaranteed. It's fucking tiresome.

>>11287494
they can but we need the fossil fuels atm as we transition to cleaner techs.

>>11287497
i have a bloated lifestyle because i'm employed in the medical industry developing tools. what do you do but want to send us back years in technological advancement because your "mother nature" is crying? nothing. you and your fellow cultists only hold back progress with your luddism.

>>11287507
>i have a bloated lifestyle because i'm employed in the medical industry developing tools.

BWAHAH HAH AH HAHA HAHHA A

OH MY SIDES what a clown

>>11287500
nuclear reactors would be a surefire way of solving the both the co2 emissions and energy problems. the energy density of nuclear power is unbeatable and it is clean af. see once again you enviro cultists offer no solutions but living like a zambian dirt farmer. and when a solution is offered you're like "baww mother nature doesn't like it baww" stagnating our progress.

>>11287518
what do you do for a living?

>>11287507
>luddism
The luddites were protesting automation lowering their quality of life while the parasitic upper classes enjoyed all the benefits created by scientists and engineers.

>>11287519
yes and there are infinite supplies of uranium in sea water
whatever you say buddy

>>11287522
>what do you do for a living?
Im a zambian dirt farmer that gets taxed too much and hates progress

>>11279445
>That diagram again.
How can countries with the economic strength of a dead toad get a -100 percent change in their GDP?

>>11287524
maybe if they weren't so dumb they wouldn't be stuck in the lower classes. there is a reason industrialists were who they were.

>>11287526
it doesn't have to be infinite, there is more than enough for 100s of years to power us.

>>11287532
Anon... What they're saying is that they're going to die off/migrate somewhere else.

>>11287533
>admits that he thinks uranium in sea water is a viable source of energy
look man. you're a fucking idiot. you should be thanking me for attempting to broaden your horizons. Instead you're getting defensive because you're stupid bloated fuck, and fatties don't like be told not to eat. now please, just fuck off

>>11280236
Where would you put yourself?

>>11287541
i never said it was in the sea, that was you.

>>11287434
>t. retard who doesn't understand the implications of not greentexting his "t."s

>>11287571
t. autist

>>11287577
I agree

>>11279445
I live in Poland and I say:FUCK THE THIRD WORLD

>>11287519
>"baww mother nature doesn't like it baww"
so how do you feel about the massive loss of polinator species we're currently experiencing?

>>11287622
You also live in the country the most cucked by fossil fuels in Europe, your opinion matters less than 3rd worlders in that regard.

>>11279857
Just take a look at all the shitty kickstarter and other products that thunderf00t made videos on
>using AI-operated cranes to stack concrete blocks for large-scale energy storage
>making plastic from atmospheric CO2
>condensing tens of litres of water out of thin air with little to no energy input
>non-rechargeable aluminium batteries
>solar freaking roadways
The kickstarter ones all made a shitton of money and solar roadways even got state funding iirc.

>>11287421
I'm Auatralian. What kind of bullshit is this? A 2 degree increase will not turn Australia into a desert in fact the only reason that the Dainteee Rainforest isnt growing larger is because they keep cutting it.

We should (and could), but we wont.

Rich people rule this world, not progressive ones.

>>11287881
>A 2 degree increase will not turn Australia into a desert
Oh just wait, you'll see

>>11279445
Shit bro if anyone asked me what to do I'd say make the entire world run on nuclear while we figure out an efficient solar harvesting solution or better energy storage solutions

>>11279445
>thawing permafrost
>good for GDP
I hate this meme.

>>11287961
Just like they said in 1980 that we'll see in 2000 right? Then in 2000 they said we'll see in 2020 right? Now in 2020 you're once again telling me to "wait".

I totally believe you this time anon! 3rd time lucky right!!!!

>>11288107
Is "they told us such and such in the 80s!" really your best response? Nobody "promised" you anything. Humans actions are notoriously hard to predict, on which climate change hinges a great deal, you were given a rough roadmap of the future in the 80s.

>>11280430
Imagine being this much of a triggered faggot!

>>11287543
THAT PYRAMID IS STUPID AND YOU ARE TOO!

>>11288115
>promised in quotes
I never used that word. Why the fuck did you quote it? Stopped reading at that lie.

>>11288137
>I never used that word.
Ah but you implied it did you not? You seem to think that global warming is this set-in-stone thing, like we can plug some numbers into an equation and give you a definite yes or no, and that stays the same for the next 100 years.

No. Climate science is about probabilities, you're x times more likely to experience an extended drought by 2020, hurricanes are x percent more intense on average. The climate is what we call a "chaotic system".

I hope to god thorium reactors are in our future.

>>11288189
not if gretards get their way. they would have us eating bugs and rolling around in the mud to be one with the earth.

>>11287481
>so what if some strangers suffer?
This is the power of the modern american everyone lmao

>>11279523
>push for a legally binding mechanism
You'd think the world's best diplomats in the UN could've come up with that the first time around huh. Almost as if that wasn't the goal, and of it wasn't their goal, than why should they listen to you? They answer to no one.
You truly think people in power are looking out for you, don't you.