Climate change

[Anonymous No.11336119]

Should we take action to try and prevent climate change, /sci/?

https://www.strawpoll.me/19311118

I would say the US, Latin America, Africa, most of Asia, and Australia all have an incentive to change (pic related).

But Canada, Russia, and northern Europe don't.

[Anonymous No.11336128]

>>11336119
>https://www.strawpoll.me/19311118
Not just moral imperative but the beauty of the planet and our health.

And also it is very selfish to artificially effect the entire planet and all the other species.

[Anonymous No.11336133]

>>11336119
>But Canada, Russia, and northern Europe don't.
Do you think countries all exist in a vacuum and never talk to any other country? Canada/US trade comes up to something like half a trillion dollars a year in total.
>lol we're not gonna die of drought up at this latitude rev up those smokestacks
is hilariously one-dimensional

[Anonymous No.11336134]

>>11336128
>And also it is very selfish to artificially effect the entire planet and all the other species.

Humans matter. Nothing else does. If they go extinct, oh well. Don’t really care,

[Anonymous No.11336167]

>>11336128
>Not just moral imperative but the beauty of the planet and our health.
Beauty of our planet is meaningless, unless it affects us. Obviously we need a certain number of trees, in order to replenish the oxygen in the air, so we can breathe. And we'll need other organisms for other things, like food.

The environment only deserves our attention if it has a useful utility to us. Parts that don't, it's not worth wasting time on.

>>11336133
>Do you think countries all exist in a vacuum and never talk to any other country?
No of course they don't, I was only talking about immediate incentive. Of course, Canada might think "we don't want millions of Americans / Latin Americans trying to rush into our country as a haven from global warming, so maybe we should chip in a bit to help them out, just so they stay there".

>lol we're not gonna die of drought up at this latitude
Surely they won't, in places where the climate is temperate? Although sure, countries they import food from, in drier parts of the planet, would still suffer drought.

>>11336134
This - we should only care about parts of the environment that are useful to us. Like trees for producing oxygen, and farm animals for food.

[Anonymous No.11336171]

>>11336134
But we eat plants and animals. If they go extinct we won't have anything to eat.

[Anonymous No.11336183]

>>11336167
You're missing the point entirely. It's not about migration at all, it's about the fact that Canada's economy is EXTREMELY dependent on selling and buying stuff to the USA. if there's significant economic decline in the USA, Canada's going right down with them. Combine that with the inability to import a sufficient amount of food from where you used to and you're basically forced back into an agrarian-based society.

[Anonymous No.11336185]

>>11336171
>But we eat plants and animals.

We eat domesticated animals and we eat domesticated plants, all of which are based on populations we’ve kept for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.11336187]

Also, OP here, just want to say this.

The media and public are far too focused on the question of:
>Is climate change real?

Really that shouldn't be the question. The question should be:
>Should we do something about it, or not?

I think it's perfectly legitimate if you think we SHOULDN'T do anything about it - at least, I understand the concerns that motivate that. Why spend money on something unless it can be shown to have a use to us?

But to just deny the evidence is not constructive in any way whatsoever.

Of course, you shouldn't just trust everything that any random person tells you. But climate evidence comes from university science departments, across the entire world. These are the same people that gave us:
>penicillin, which saves lives
>vaccines, which save lives
>processes for refining petroleum, which makes your car work
>the technology behind computers, which powers your laptop or smartphone

[Anonymous No.11336189]

>>11336119
no

[Anonymous No.11336191]

>>11336187
All that was produced by pre 1970's academia, after which it was subverted and ran into the ground. Guess when the climate cult started

[Anonymous No.11336194]

>>11336119
Fuck you for not specifying the degree increase in your image. That might be a best case scenario.

Also, China, India, US, Brazil, and Pakistan alone already make up about 50% of all humans on Earth, all projected to be worse off. I think that MIGHT have some ripple effects on northern Europeans.

[Anonymous No.11336195]

>>11336171
>>11336185
The answer is that we need to look at what we need to keep around, and what we don't.

Even farm animals are going to be dependent on the survival of other forms of life, like microbes, and grass to eat, stuff like that.

So the criterion should be usefulness to us. If something is needed by us then we should take steps to protect it, if we have to. If it's not needed by us then there's no need to protect it.

>>11336183
I'm sure the people who did the study took that into account.
>https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php

[Anonymous No.11336198]

>>11336191
>ad hominem
Fucking moron.

>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11336203]

>>11336194
Fuck you for being too much of a fucking moron to go to the link in the image and understand the data for yourself.

What sort of a moron starts complaining because of his own laziness and patheticness? Fucking pathetic faggot.

[Anonymous No.11336239]

>>11336203
Lol. You posted data with key details missing. Do better next time. I'm not doing your homework for you. Why should I waste my time for someone who doesn't want to make solid arguments? If I can point out a huge flaw so easily, it's not worth my time. Show you're serious by considering the flaws and refining your argument.

[Anonymous No.11336247]

>>11336187
Atmospheric co2 and it's effect on human cognition alone is a reason to act. It's easy to prove the negative effects of this in small, low-cost experiments you can do at home.

[Anonymous No.11336255]

>>11336195
>I'm sure the people who did the study took that into account.
Do you have some proof of this or are you just satisfied with blindly believing that a source you didn't read says what you want it to say?

[Anonymous No.11336350]

>niggervirus
>action
>done

[Anonymous No.11336374]

>>11336239
Sorry faggot I'm not reading your tantrum.

[Anonymous No.11336376]

>>11336247
We're already smarter than all the other animals though, so who cares if we turn out a little dumber?

The effect will surely be the same across the world, so it's not like one nation will get an advantage.

[Anonymous No.11336379]

>>11336255
How about you go check it yourself you fucking faggot?

[Anonymous No.11336483]

>>11336374
Too lazy? Lol

[Anonymous No.11336508]

>>11336483
No, I'm choosing not to read your pathetic tantrum.

You're a fucking moron who can't look up basic information and you're trying to blame others for YOUR failures, because you're a pathetic moronic faggot.

[Anonymous No.11336524]

>>11336119
>a world without climate change
Why do retards continue to believe that the Earth's climate has never changed before?
There would be no life on earth if the climate never changed throughout Earth's history.

[Anonymous No.11336528]

>>11336119
i love the options in this poll.
>even if it costs the Earth, it is a moral imperative
so true. these environmentalists really lost the plot. they want everyone but their celebrity clergy to live like haitian dirt farmers taxed like swedes. there is no such thing as a moral imperative. this is a cold meaningless universe and nothing matters unless you choose it to. i personally couldn't give less than two shits about climate change. in fact according to the study my country's gdp is gonna increase from it resulting in a better economy for me to make a better life for myself. but oh no not little muggabe dying from another drought. as if little muggabe would give two shits about me. lol

[Anonymous No.11336530]

>>11336379
I'm not the one who's making appeals to authority here.
>dude I'm right because it's somewhere in this paper just go find it for me

[Anonymous No.11336539]

500k refugees made europe shit itself, imagine what would happen when literally millions of people would be forced to seek asylum, you couldn't even deport them because their home atoll would be under water

[Anonymous No.11336541]

>>11336539
europe could not be such wimps and lock their borders down.

[Anonymous No.11336630]

>>11336134
I don't think you really care about humans, either. It's just that you can't socially get away with hating every living thing including humans, and you know it. So you come on here and lie saying shit like "only humans matter".

[Anonymous No.11336642]

>>11336539
They'll be coming regardless of climate change because they're vastly overpopulated and have 9 kids each. And thank god for that because without population growth property development corporations in the west and the banks that finance them wouldn't be needed.

[Anonymous No.11336658]

>>11336119
The option I want is not on the poll.
We shouldn't do anything because the first people do die will be the third world countries in south america, africa, the middle east, probably india. It would be better for everyone else if they were gone, so we should let it happen. We can fix things after half the global population is dead and then we can spread the remaining populations out. This planet is severely overpopulated and its only going to get worse. 10 billion people by 2050... and most of the growth is coming from Africa, specifically Nigeria. Overpopulation is going to be worse than climate change.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html

[Anonymous No.11336665]

>>11336195
>we should only care about parts of the environment that are useful to us
I would think you're just some sort of nerdy dweeb futuristic robotic transhuman AI wannabe, but I know that this is exactly the kind of psychotic crap the market worshipper cultists actually enjoy slurping up.

[Anonymous No.11336778]

>>11336167
>we should only care about parts of the environment that are useful to us

I'm expected to believe that you don't care about wildlife or any of nature because they are of no benefit to you, and yet you care deeply about people on the other side of the world who are of no benefit to you.

Ya right. The truth is that you actually hate every living thing on Earth including other humans because they are of no benefit to you. You're a text book psychopath.

[Anonymous No.11336815]

>>11336119
>OH NOOOOOO AFRICAS GDP WILL GO DOWN WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
This board is a joke

[Anonymous No.11336816]

>>11336191
>climate science didn't exist before 1970
Hello retard.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x

[Anonymous No.11336856]

>>11336119
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQvig0KvUaE

much related and sad

[Anonymous No.11336869]

>>11336134
>>11336167
I really wish society were healthy enough where it was recognized as necessary for survival to kill people like you. You cannot irreparably damage systems that you do not understand and expect that small controllable ideal models that rely on those systems will remain similar. That's not how ecological systems (including complex markets) work and reducing what is necessary to maintain a functional human civilization to some autistic linear combination of imagined agricultural products shows you as someone with neither the moral depth to be considered human, nor the intellectual capacity to be given a vote in this issue.

[Anonymous No.11336875]

>>11336524
Why do retards wilfilly misconstrue what is obviously referring to modern manmade climate change?

[Anonymous No.11336884]

>>11336528
>i love the options in this poll
I tried to give what I think are a representative range of opinions. I didn't try to mock anyone. There are people who believe it's a moral imperative - they believe they should assist people in poor countries who will suffer the most from global warming (Africa, Asia, South America). Perhaps they feel that people in bad situations should always be helped, because they hope that they would be helped if they were in a bad situation in life, or they think they have benefited from things they didn't earn so they should repay the favour, etc.

I am not saying I agree with them, or indeed any of the positions in the poll. I haven't even voted on it yet. I might go for: "I have no opinion / I don't know enough about it yet"

Because I genuinely haven't made up my mind, really. I don't know what the specific effects of global warming will be for my country (the UK), and therefore whether I should care about it.

[Anonymous No.11336890]

>>11336530
I NEVER CLAIMED THE PAPER WAS FLAWLESS YOU FUCKING MORON

[Anonymous No.11336895]

>>11336539
You probably have a point but this issue seems so far off, because global warming is so gradual. That's why most people aren't considering this issue very much.

>>11336630
You haven't given any reasons why he would be wrong. I think he's right. We eat animals, don't we? And ANIMALS eat animals, don't they?

Organisms only care about themselves, this is how natural selection made us, Jesus man did you skip biology class at school?

Organisms only form societies / collectives for PROTECTION and other survival benefits. I really shouldn't have to explain this to you.

>>11336658
1. The US will still have negative consequences, like drought and whatever. I'm not American but there's a good chance you might be. If you're Canadian, well, you might have Americans flocking to your doorstep. If you're another nationality, well, whatever.

2. If the world's third world inhabitants try and flock to your country to flee drought and famine, what will you do? You could try and keep them out but it might not go down well internationally, I dunno.

[Anonymous No.11336898]

>>11336665
Have I stumbled onto leftypol or something? Jesus man get out of the house once in a while

>>11336778
>you care deeply about people on the other side of the world
WHERE ON EARTH DID I SAY THAT YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT, HOW FUCKING ILLITERATE AND STUPID ARE YOU

>>11336815
America's too, Australia's too, you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.11336903]

>>11336869
>DUDE NEVER START A COMPANY BECAUSE THE MARKET IS TOO COMPLEX DUDE

>DUDE NEVER MANUFACTURE ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THE EFFECTS OF MINING YOUR MATERIALS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

>DUDE NEVER GROW ANY FOOD WHATSOEVER BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

>DUDE DON'T EVEN EAT A LETTUCE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS, IT'S TOO COMPLICATED, YOU SHOULD JUST STARVE TO DEATH INSTEAD

[Anonymous No.11336998]

>>11336903
fuck off to /ptg/ you illiterate faggot

[Anonymous No.11337005]

>>11336903
You can do all of that shit. What you can't do is say "This system only needs a1*cows + a2*chickens + a3*bamboo trees + ... " and expect that to actually model this system in a way that is functional. We have no fucking clue what the ramifications of "domesticating" the remaining areas of the planet on the long term survivability of the human species, regardless of what specific factors result in threats. There is no way to reduce the needs of the species to "trees for oxygen and cows to shove into our mouths" without making the human species so vulnerable to collapse from so many different angles that it's ridiculous. Even the efforts to plant trees all over the God damn place are fucking ridiculous because the unnaturally homogeneous forests they create are ecologically unstable and prone to sudden collapse via diseases and natural disaster.

"Climate change" is a death cult, but we cannot just "engineer" ecologically sound practices beyond properly respecting the complex ecology as it exists. All efforts to domesticate wild ecology on any sort of scale will result in collapse as only systems formed by Antifragile processes like natural selection can result in actual robustness and stability long term.

[Anonymous No.11337030]

>>11336119
Should we take action? Yes.
Will we take action? No.

Look. We have had about thousands of nuclear missiles just collecting dust for over 70 years. Everyone and their uncle can agree that using them would devastate the planet and destroy civilization. We even call the principle of nuclear war M.A.D. - mutually assured destruction.

Solving the problem would be the easiest thing to do. Everyone just grows up, realizes that it's a match in a warehouse full of kerosene, and dismantles them. But they're still there.

If we can't solve even that problem, what hope do we have of ever cooperating on something as complex as the carbon cycle of the Earth?

[Anonymous No.11337076]

>>11336998
>can't reply to my argument
Thanks for conceding the argument you fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.11337080]

>>11337005
I never said we should count specifically what we need, we should use common sense OBVIOUSLY FOR FUCK'S SAKE

[Anonymous No.11337086]

>>11337030
Perhaps, but on the other hand, all the world's countries managed to sign up to the Montreal Protocol, which banned CFCs.

Sure that's not as big of a challenge as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it's something. It shows that countries have cooperated before, for the mutual benefit of all of us, because some bad effects to the planet negatively affect us all.

There could be further cooperation on greenhouse gases. If a Democrat president gets in, I would expect you'd probably see further action.

[Anonymous No.11337091]

>>11337030
What action is there to even take? This is a stupid conversation to have with someone who thinks that it's possible for the species to just collectively "grow up" and get rid of one of the most powerful and ecologically sound power strategies that has ever existed, but it might be fun anyways.

What actions could possibly curtail what is described in this era as "climate change" beyond commiting massive atrocities and depopulation of major portions of the earth? Basically "stopping climate change" amounts to collectively standing up and saying "No you don't get to industrialize and develop modern infrastructure" to the third world, and no one is going to be the adult in the room to do that. There's no amount of plastic straw bans and children walking in circles in the suburbs of the US and Europe that will effect climate change, and the kinds of changes needed to actually address the real issues of ecological damage require actually addressing where pollution occurs. I'll give you a hint, it isn't the post-industrialized west with the only effective ecological regulations in the entire world save wealthy pockets of Eastern Asia.

[Anonymous No.11337100]

>>11337076
>can't reply to my argument
there isn't any

[Anonymous No.11337106]

>>11337080
And what I'm telling you is that a people with no respect for the environment they exist within will be completely incapable of actually accounting for "specifically what we need" in any way that is stable/robust. If you don't respect humanity's place within natural environments you will have no ability to account for the innumerable ways we depend upon it to function physically and psychologically. There are limitations imposed upon us by our evolutionary past, and while we can temporarily transcend those limitations by exposing our species as a whole to artificial selection and its resulting fragility, trying to frame natural environments as something only with material utilitarian value will result only in your own instability and failure.

[Anonymous No.11337112]

>>11337100
There is, but you're too fucking stupid to understand it.

[Anonymous No.11337148]

>>11337106
Mate, we just take what's needed and deal with the consequences later, that's how cars were invented, that's how everything was invented. If there's a negative consequence then we deal with it.

[Anonymous No.11337157]

>>11336508
Lol. Lazy, and butthurt over not being able to form a valid point.

[Anonymous No.11337182]

>>11337157
The faggot that didn't check the link in the OP and expects his mum to wipe his arse for him is accusing others of being lazy, pottery.

>MUM WIPE MY ARSE, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING BY MYSELF

[Anonymous No.11337185]

Africa is red on any map of any economic metric ever

[Anonymous No.11337332]

>>11337182
I am your mum, wiping up your mess.

[Anonymous No.11337600]

>>11337332
No you're a moronic faggot, throwing a tantrum because you're too fucking stupid and lazy to look something up.

Fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.11337828]

>>11336187
>But climate evidence comes from university science departments, across the entire world. These are the same people that gave us:
Thanks for this fallacious reading captain reddit.

[Anonymous No.11338003]

>>11336376
>so who cares if we turn a little dumber?

This brilliant thread and
the question of our time >>11336187
brought to you by the same genius who uttered the most profound words of the 21st century, and possibly in all of human history
>so who cares if we get a little dumber?

[Anonymous No.11338153]

>>11336119
Outcomes for the US and Canada don't take into account that significant economic stresses caused by climate change will drive the US to annex Canada by the end of the century.

[Anonymous No.11338162]

>>11336195
>Even farm animals are going to be dependent on the survival of other forms of life, like microbes, and grass to eat, stuff like that.

Farming animals is inefficient and unethical.

[Anonymous No.11338167]

>>11336630
>I don't think you really care about humans, either

You can think whatever you want. I don’t care.

[Anonymous No.11338169]

>>11336869
>Noooooo stop harming useless natural environments that do nothing but get in our way nooooo

[Anonymous No.11338171]

>>11336898
>thinking the environment has intrinsic value is something that people who don't leave the basement do
>not something people who do things like hiking do

[Anonymous No.11338176]

>>11338153
Well, as long as we don't forget to build the Vaults, it should be fine.

[Anonymous No.11338183]

>>11338171
Nothing has intrinsic value. Value is assigned.

[Anonymous No.11338233]

>>11338183
I take it you've never been outside?

[Anonymous No.11338308]

>>11338169
>argh why can't I breathe and why does my unborn child have cancer already.

[Anonymous No.11338429]

>>11336119
Maybe you don't trust every picture meeting your prejudice, northern regions are already hit hard right now. Siberia and Alaska are literally melting away. Same with Canadian ice roads.
Also entire nations like the Netherlands will washed away by sea level rise. Your map ignores this simple fact.

[Anonymous No.11338530]

>>11337828
>some consider that [argument from authority] is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Let me state that last part again, in capitals, so your thick brain can read it:
>NOR IS IT REASONABLE TO DISREGARD THE CLAIMS OF EXPERTS WHO HAVE A DEMONSTRATED DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE UNLESS ONE HAS A SIMILAR LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING AND/OR ACCESS TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.11338531]

>>11338003
I actually gave reasons to justify what I was saying - you haven't.

So you're just admitting that I'm right. Since you can't present any REASONS to discard what I said.

[Anonymous No.11338541]

>>11338162
LMAO GET A LOAD OF THIS IDIOT

So every animal who eats other animals (which is many of them) is unethical, you stupid fuck?

>BUT THEY DON'T FARM ANIMALS, THEY HUNT THEM INDIVIDUALLY
Makes no relevant difference you stupid fuck.
>YES IT DOES BECAUSE FACTORY FARMING IS CRUEL AND PAINFUL
So is being disembowled on the African savannah you stupid fuck, and yet that's how lions kill their prey.

Also, meat is literally THE most efficient delivery mechanism for protein (complete protein, ALL of the amino acids we need). Tofu has LESS THAN A THIRD as much protein per 100g as chicken breast. And Tofu has some carbohydrate, which chicken breast doesn't (nobody wants carbs when they're just trying to get their protein - those macros have completely different functions and very often you will only want one, not the other).

>>11338171
No mate, it's because you were going on about left-wing bollocks, complaining about markets, etc. THAT'S how I know you're a leftypol shut-in.

>>11338183
Yeah pretty true. Even something like food, which might seem to have intrinsic value because it's so useful to nearly every person on the planet, is only useful if it gives us nutrition. If we mutate / evolve to the point where that food doesn't give us nutrition anymore, then it will become useless. So everything in the world can only have instrumental value at the end of the day.

[Anonymous No.11338545]

>>11338169
Based, and correctpilled.

>>11338308
THE ENTIRE POINT WAS ABOUT USEFULNESS YOU STUPID FUCK

TREES ARE IMPORTANT FOR OXYGEN SO YEAH, WE'LL HAVE TO KEEP SOME OF THEM AROUND, AS I FUCKING MENTIONED IN THIS POST - >>11336167 - WHICH YOU RESPONDED TO WITH YOUR BUTTHURT

THE POINT IS THAT ONLY THE USEFUL PARTS OF NATURE SHOULD BE PROTECTED; NOTHING ELSE MATTERS

>hurr durr but how do you know what's useful? the environment is complex!
Trial and error you stupid fuck, just how it has worked forever. We didn't know CFCs were bad for the environment, but we used them to advance human development. Then when we disovered they were bad, we stopped using them.

Same with petrol-based cars and vehicles. We used petrol because there was no reason not to. Now we know it's bad for the environment, sure, so we can try curbing our use of fossil fuels. But if we had never used them in the first place, we wouldn't have advanced as a species - or to put it more bluntly, countries that DID have the power conferred by motor vehicles would have gained supremacy over countries that didn't.

Or for another example, farming and agriculture. If humans had said "no let's not practice agriculture, we don't know for sure how it will affect the environment, the environment is too complex to understand!", then we'd all still be hunter-gatherers, you stupid fuck. And again, even if you think there is nothing inherently wrong with being a hunter-gatherer, societies / nations that practised agriculture would have had an advantage. As they did, historically. Which is why they defeated more primitive societies who didn't have the effeciency advantages offered by agriculture.

[Anonymous No.11338556]

>>11338429
Mate you can LITERALLY follow the link in the image, although actually pic related has a more correct link.

Pic related's link is a direct link to the study that produced the image. The link in the OP is actually maybe stupid (my mistake) because it's a news article ABOUT the study.

I don't know the study's methodology, I'm not saying it's 100% correct, but I'm sure they accounted for things like sea levels. Probably.

[Anonymous No.11338564]

>>11338429
>>11338556
Actually, it turns out they answered the sea level question in an FAQ on their website.

In short, you are right, they are not accounting for sea level changes. Their map is only meant to account for temperature. Oh well, I never said the map / study was perfect, I just posted it for interest.

>What about other future changes, like sea level rise and hurricanes?
>Our results really focus on the effects of temperature, and so when we simulate the future we are only focusing on the effects of temperature. Climate change is expected to change a lot of things in addition to temperature, and we are not capturing those effects.
https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/BurkeHsiangMiguel_FAQ.pdf

[Anonymous No.11338568]

>lmao its a nothingburger the climate already drastically changed many times back when no human was even alive

How is this even being debated

[Anonymous No.11338577]

>>11338568
>DUDE, HUMANS HAVE DIED FROM NATURAL CAUSES MANY TIMES, SO THAT MEANS THAT CYANIDE / HEROIN OVERDOSE / CAR CRASH CAN'T BE LETHAL. IF AN EFFECT HAD A CERTAIN CAUSE ONCE UPON A TIME, THEN IT MUST ALWAYS HAVE THAT CAUSE!
That's how fucking stupid you are, you fucking moronic cunt.

[Anonymous No.11338587]

>>11338568
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Anonymous No.11338591]

>>11338564
So this entire study is not worth a dime. Intentionally ignoring all negative effects on northern regions to give a wrong impression of the risks of global warming.

[Anonymous No.11338624]

>>11338587
Based and truthpilled

>>11338591
>IF SOMETHING ISN'T PERFECT THEN IT'S USELESS
Fucking moron. The effect of temperature is still useful by itself you fucking idiotic cunt.

[Anonymous No.11338629]

>>11338545
Your mistake is thinking we can come to a consensus on what's useful and not in nature. It's reductionist, single-dimensional naivete.

[Anonymous No.11338638]

>>11338629
WE USE TRIAL AND ERROR LIKE I LITERALLY SAID IN MY POST

When we started employing agriculture, instead of being hunter-gatherers, did we know every single effect it would have on the environment? No we fucking didn't. But the risk was worth it, because the benefits of agriculture were huge, and we could see no reason not to do it.

Same with the use of CFCs. At the time we didn't know they damaged the ozone layer. And they were useful to us. So we used them. Then once we discovered they damaged the ozone layer, which ultimately damaged us through increased UV exposure, we banned CFCs.

Same with petrol / diesel in cars. We didn't used to know that it would cause global warming. Now that we do, we can do something about it.

I never claimed that we can know everything about nature. But when I said that we should only keep parts of nature that are useful to us, I still think that's true, even if we can't be perfect in our judgements about what is useful and what isn't.

Did we know for certain that the dodo going extinct wouldn't be apocalyptic? Maybe the dodo's death might have caused a complex chain reaction that led to OUR death. But we made a reasonable judgement that the dodo could die without us dying - otherwise I bet greater efforts would have been made to save the dodo.

Do we know every single environmental effect made by nuclear power stations? No, we can't know all of nature perfectly. We can't know ANYTHING perfectly. Instead we just make our best judgement. Nuclear power plants give us a lot of benefits, and the costs are small enough that clearly many people and countries think that nuclear power is worth it.

Or even think about wind turbines. They kill birds, but clearly we don't think that's going to cause us to die, from some complex chain reaction. We judge the benefits to be worth the cost of bird life, so we build turbines.

[Anonymous No.11338639]

>>11336119
>https://www.strawpoll.me/19311118
your options are shit

[Anonymous No.11338640]

>>11338629
>>11338638
Perhaps that post was too long.

The TLDR is this: humans can't know every single environmental effect of the things we do. We can only use our best judgements.

Wind turbines kill birds - you could say maybe that would cause a chain reaction which would kill us, because the environment is so complex! But the evidence for such an apocalypse is small. So our best judgement is to build the turbines anyway. Currently we can't see damaging environmental effects that are big enough to make us think that building the turbines isn't worth it.

[Anonymous No.11338644]

>>11336119
>https://www.strawpoll.me/19311118
Are people just trolling? I find it hard to believe that this man people on /sci/ believe it's a moral imperative to stop climate change. Given how common denialist posts are.

>>11338639
What would your response be then, fuckface?

[Anonymous No.11338646]

>>11338644
*this many

[Anonymous No.11338698]

>>11336187
>But to just deny the evidence is not constructive in any way whatsoever.
There are two distinct possibilities here.

Assuming that climate change is actually real, and everything we "know" about it is somewhat accurate, we would only be able to avert the coming catastrophe by reverting back to a pre-industrial civilization. 'We' in this context is referring to humanity on a global scale, but this process would result in unfathomable amounts of famine and disease. This would be unenforceable, because most people care more about having access to utilities and transportation than the possibility of the world ending in the near future. Heavily industrialized countries like China would literally fight us to death on that point alone.

On the other hand, assuming climate change ISN'T real, or at the very least heavily exaggerated, then we can safely ignore the heavy politicization on the part of eco-socialists. There's no reason to worry in either case.

[Anonymous No.11338856]

>>11338698
>we would only be able to avert the coming catastrophe by reverting back to a pre-industrial civilization
That's not true at all you fucking idiot. Of course it wouldn't be EASY to switch to low-carbon technologies, but it's possible. Nuclear energy is zero-carbon as far as I'm aware. Wind and solar can provide additional energy. Hydroelectric can be used in some places. And of course we can run cars on batteries, using zero-carbon energy sources.

Some things can't currently be replaced by zero-carbon tech - namely flying. We currently don't have electric planes that are capable of carrying lots of passengers. But even if we just cut CO2 emissions from electricity generation and road-going vehicles, that's a big cut. And we could always replace flying with boats for transportation, and shit like Skype can reduce the need to travel, in the case of business meetings and whatever.

You might say in response to all this: "that's never going to happen, realistically the global population isn't going to make these changes" - but neither are they going to "revert back to a pre-industrial civilisation", so if you're going to use that point against my argument, I'll use it against yours. The argument of "low likelihood" applies to each option, so your option is no better than mine, by that standard.

(continued in next post)

[Anonymous No.11338860]

>>11338624
it's the opposite, it's misleading, also warming will not stop so all negative effects of temperature will travel north as well

[Anonymous No.11338864]

>>11336119
>nuclear is one of if not the only solutions
>"environmentalists" and big oil stand hand in hand opposing this with all their might

[Anonymous No.11338876]

>>11338698
>>11338856
>Heavily industrialized countries like China
China has a lot of industry but let's remember some key points:
1) Their CO2 emissions per capita are still HALF those of the United States.
2) Yes, per capita is the thing that matters. Let's say you have a hosepipe ban (outdoor water-use restriction) in your country to conserve water. Let's say one guy is breaking the ban, and using at least twice as much water as any other person. If that guy says "WELL THE REST OF THE POPULATION COMBINED USES MORE WATER THAN ME, THEREFORE THEY'RE THE PROBLEM", he might well be correct about the fact that the rest of the population combined is using more water, but that doesn't absolve him of responsibility, in any way whatsoever.
3) They generate a larger proportion of their electricity from renewables than the US does.
4) They signed up to the Paris Agreement and aren't withdrawing from it - but the US are withdrawing.

Also another point about China is this. Climate deniers in America seem to say "well China is polluting, so we should too!" but that's just fucking stupid. It's perfectly fair to think "we should make sure China is going to follow the same restrictions as us", sure. In which case, try and push for those restrictions. Push for a binding international mechanism. Don't just say "we ASSUME the Chinese will want to keep polluting, so let's not even bother trying to tackle the situation".

Like I said, China is part of the Paris Agreement, and they are expanding renewables rapidly. They might well be willing to sign up to a binding international agreement on greenhouse gas reduction, if the US pushed for it.

>On the other hand, assuming climate change ISN'T real
I don't think the evidence suggests this.

[Anonymous No.11338879]

yes

[Anonymous No.11338885]

>>11338860
It's not misleading you fucking moron. It is still useful to know the impact of temperature alone, since that will be a major effect of global warming.

Also what you said here: >>11338429
>Siberia and Alaska are literally melting away
Yes indeed, I assumed that's why the map shows Russia and Canada as benefitting, to some degree, from global warming? Because places that are currently too cold for anything to grow, for any people to live, will become warmer, and more habitable. I assume.

In any case. Sea level rises and shit like that would make the map in the OP show even more negative effects than the map does show, yes. But it is still useful to see the effects of temperature alone, one of the biggest effects of climate change.

[Anonymous No.11338891]

>>11338864
>Germany shuts down all nuclear energy because MUH CLIMATE NUCLEAR POWER BAD!
>over 1000 more people die every year as a direct effect from increased coal power plant emissions
Yay! Green Energy!

[Anonymous No.11338895]

I am already a vegan.

[Anonymous No.11338900]

>>11336890
yet your whole argument is based on it...

[Anonymous No.11338922]

>>11336128
Why do you environmentalists care about planets and species and others thing that cant feel but not about animals?

[Anonymous No.11338945]

>>11338864
Yeah we should use nuclear I think

Also they're not hand in hand, just because two wildly different groups with different agendas reach the same conclusion, they have completely different reasons for doing so. So it's not "hand in hand"

>>11338891
Yeah Germany shouldn't have done that, I don't think.

>>11338895
Veganism is stupid because:
a) We need protein
b) We evolved to be omnivores, just like other primates (Chimpanzees eat meat, like small monkeys), and other mammals (like bears, pigs, etc.)
c) We need vitamin B12, which is only naturally found in meat, dairy, and eggs (supplements are stupid)
d) Other animals kill animals for food, so why shouldn't we?
e) Livestock only contribute a very small percentage of all greenhouse gas emissions. Pic related, from the EPA, only 9% of GHG emissions in the US are from agriculture. Source is here: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

>>11338900
Going back over the responses to you, if you've been the same guy all along, I think I got you confused with another guy who was annoyed at the map for not featuring a better scale or some shit, which is why I got angry

If you're criticising the map for not being complete, e.g. not accounting for the US's potential economic decline contributing to economic decline in Canada, then fair enough. I am not claiming the map in the OP is perfect. Sure I said Canada doesn't have a reason to reduce emissions, which I based upon the map. But yes, if your point is that the map is not a perfect projection, then I agree. Canada could actually suffer due to factors that the study didn't account for.

It's just a study I saw, which I thought was interesting.

[Anonymous No.11338954]

>>11338922

[Anonymous No.11338960]

>>11338945
>Germany shouldn't have done that
What Germany is doing is playing a shell game, they're importing green energy from my country at a premium we wouldn't have paid for it during summers when magazines are full of water, leaving our hydro electric magazines dry for the winter and increasing the cost in summers, making us have to import coal energy for the winter, again at a further premium we now are forced to pay.
So we're getting fucked two ways, all so Germany can feel good about themselves while really polluting more and contributing to more pollution in neighboring countries.

The "green paradigm shift" is one big scam.

[Anonymous No.11338965]

>>11336167
>Beauty of our planet is meaningless, unless it affects us.
The beauty of the planet does affect us, retard

[Anonymous No.11338985]

>>11338169
I'd call you an insect, but insects actually have more awareness of the world around them.

[Anonymous No.11339372]

>>11338960
Germany are idiots

>>11338965
THE BITS THAT DON'T AFFECT US AREN'T IMPORTANT, RETARD

>>11338985
He's not wrong. The bits of our environment that we need, like some trees, then yeah sure, let's keep those around.

But something like the dodo, we do just fine without it.

[Anonymous No.11339382]

>stop climate change
>get an ice age
climate change is actually in our favor, we are supposed to be going into an ice age now

[Anonymous No.11339392]

>>11339372
I don't trust that people actually are generally capable of making those distinctions. While certainly there could be in some abstract sense extraneous elements in an ecological system, pretty much every time we attempt to artificially intervene in ecological systems to either extract unnecessary influences or protect what we consider vital, it generally results in ecological system collapse. Our methods of modeling ecological systems are not capable of creating long term stability.
We need significantly more than just some abstract notion of "trees" and attempting to engineer complex systems which we don't understand will undoubtedly result in disaster.

[Anonymous No.11339420]

>>11338885
>one of the biggest effects of climate change.
How does it feel to be retarded?

[Anonymous No.11339447]

>>11339382
>the world's scientists in every nation on the planet
>vs
>a retard on 4chan
Gee I wonder who to believe, what a tough decision.

>>11339392
All I am saying is that the environment is only useful if it's useful to us.

And this is how the majority of people think too, which is why lots of people don't care about climate change, because they don't see any tangible difference it will make to THEM. If they did see what those changes are going to be, then they'd obviously have an incentive to take action, if they thought the consequences were bad for them.

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't take action on climate change; I'm just saying in the abstract that something is only worth caring about if it is useful to humans, basically.

>>11339420
Temperature in itself is not the only effect of climate change you fucking moron.

Maybe I could have worded it better but you know what I mean you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.11339530]

>>11339382
Not for another ~16,000 years

[Anonymous No.11339566]

>>11336187
>The media and public are far too focused on the question of:
>>Is climate change real?
Because that was already answered concretely decades ago, dumbass.
>Really that shouldn't be the question.
Kill yourself, denialfag.

[Anonymous No.11339580]

>another climate change denial thread where the OP wants to be a faggot that ignores the consistent evidence of AGW we've had access to for over a century
I love that the new tactic by you retards is to now beg people to not talk about the human influence and pretend there haven't been proposed economically-viable solutions for decades.

[Anonymous No.11339603]

>>11339566
MY POST WAS THE OPPOSITE OF CLIMATE DENIALISM YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE FUCKING MORON

I LITERALLY SAID "TO JUST DENY THE EVIDENCE IS NOT CONSTRUCTIVE"

YOU FUCKING MORON

>>11339580
YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE FAGGOT, YOU DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO READ THE THREAD

YOU FUCKING MORONIC CUNT

[Anonymous No.11339615]

>>11339447
>the world's scientists in every nation on the planet
the world's scientists in every nation on this planet say that we are already past the peak warmth of this interglacial (or we were supposed to) but -partly- because of humans this interglacial will last a lot more. usually small glacials and interglacials happen every 10 000 years

[Anonymous No.11339633]

LFTR.

[Anonymous No.11339669]

>>11338885
>Yes indeed, I assumed that's why the map shows Russia and Canada as benefitting, to some degree, from global warming? Because places that are currently too cold for anything to grow, for any people to live, will become warmer, and more habitable. I assume.

You might think this, but large regions become even less habitable, even inaccessible. Especially permafrost turns into a swamp. Swallows forests, buildings and infrastructure. Also even more co2 and methane is released speeding up global warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ynabSmGGs

[Anonymous No.11339695]

>>11339615
I'm pretty sure what they're saying is "more greenhouse gases means more heat and more negative weather/climate, so we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions"

[Anonymous No.11339699]

>>11339669
Interesting, didn't know that

[Anonymous No.11339701]

>>11336119
>Map
OK; so countries with insignificant or practically zero GDP will suffer a 100 percent drop.
Plausible?

[Anonymous No.11339817]

>>11339603
If you post in capital letters people will pay more attention to your very important points.

Bold italics would be better though.

[Anonymous No.11339838]

>>11339817
How else am I meant to respond to an illiterate moron who can't read simple English you fucking moron?

[Anonymous No.11340074]

>>11339838
You could start by not calling everybody "you fucking moron", you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.11340147]

>>11339701
They are literally pretending to predict every nations GDP 100 years out and precisely determine the negative impact of that portion of natural climate change which is accelerated by humans. Pure pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.11340174]

>>11336119
I just really love the part about Mongolia surpassing America in GDP/capita...

[Anonymous No.11340232]

>>11339447
All I'm saying is that you as a fucking moron of a human being who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground is in no position to make that statement.

[Anonymous No.11340793]

>>11339838
Everyone understands your posts, they're just not very good posts.

[Anonymous No.11341867]

>>11338856
Nuclear is a nice idea, but supplanting coal, oil etc with renewable energy is only a single facet of a larger problem. Literally every industry in the modern world is dependent on the manufacturing and utilization of fossil fuels in some capacity. If you remove them out of the equation then our capacity for metallurgy, travel, international trade, agriculture, communications, medicine etc fall through the floor.
>>11338876
>Don't just say "we ASSUME the Chinese will want to keep polluting, so let's not even bother trying to tackle the situation".
Climate change is purported to be an existential threat, which allegedly needs to be addressed within the ballpark of a century. That is a disastrously short time table, and what you're suggesting would cause various diplomatic and humanitarian crises. China was used as a practical example, given their nature as an industrial powerhouse and crass attitude towards foreign relations in general.

If I'm wrong, then what I think ultimately doesn't matter, because all (or most) of us will be dead anyways. But if I'm right, then I can safely ignore climate change histrionics. There's nothing to worry about in either case.

[Anonymous No.11341869]

>>11336898
I dont give a shit about my country's GDP. I'd rather the chinks and poos get flooded

[Anonymous No.11341890]

>>11338644
no one is responding, because the poll is designed to arrive at the conclusion of "reduce greenhouse gas". Why? Deliberate choice of language that carries positive/negative connotations.
>fairly,all contributing together, moral imperative
>I dont care, troll liberals

[Anonymous No.11341910]

>>11339447
>Temperature in itself is not the only effect of climate change you fucking moron.
It's not the biggest either, retard. It's merely correlated with many systems in the climate. Do you think everyone is worried about wearing T-shirts and more sunscreen?

You never answered my question. What's it like to be retarded?

[Anonymous No.11342002]

>>11341890

[Anonymous No.11342083]

We should aim to reduce consume as a whole. People here are only talking about land being damaged but the amount of trash being thrown on ocean is a bigger problem

[Anonymous No.11342174]

>>11342002
Left obviously

[Anonymous No.11342204]

Malthus already understood the answer more than 200 years ago: Exponential growth always ends up in catastrophic culling.
We just do our best to predict when shit will hit the fan and be among the surviving minority

[Anonymous No.11342221]

>>11338945
I'm not a vegan (I think veganism is gay as f*ck and should be scorned and laughed at), but some of your arguments are flawed.

>a) We need protein

We're not dependent on protein from a non-plant based source. That is to say, meat based protein sources are sufficient to fulfill protein demands, but they're not necessary.

>b) We evolved to be omnivores, just like other primates (Chimpanzees eat meat, like small monkeys), and other mammals (like bears, pigs, etc.)

Genetic fallacy. Because X evolved to do Y we ought not necessarily do X. You cannot derive ought from is. Moreover, you commited a tu quoque fallacy.

c) We need vitamin B12, which is only naturally found in meat, dairy, and eggs (supplements are stupid).

See (a). Moreover, are "stupid" is not a valid argument, but I agree with you. Vegans are imbeciles.

>d) Other animals kill animals for food, so why shouldn't we?

Tu quoque fallacy.

>e) Livestock only contribute a very small percentage of all greenhouse gas emissions. Pic related, from the EPA, only 9% of GHG emissions in the US are from agriculture. Source is here: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

(e) is in fact the only legitimate argument against your interlocutor, who responded to OP by claiming being a vegan, implying a vegan lifestyle assists in reducing global carbon emission.

Do better, anon. You don't engage a brain retarded by veganism with facts and logic. You laugh at them.

[Anonymous No.11342417]

>>11336539
>500k refugees made europe shit itself
Which means they shoud have learned their lesson. Next time, just don't let them in.

[Anonymous No.11342459]

>>11341867
>If you remove them out of the equation then our capacity for metallurgy, travel, international trade, agriculture, communications, medicine etc fall through the floor.

no, alternative technologies already exist, some are even better and cheaper

[Anonymous No.11342625]

>>11336119
>niggers die
based af

[Anonymous No.11344163]

Fucking climate change. Who gives a shit? So the planet will be a little warmer. Get over it. So the fuck what if it kills off half the humans, or even more. We need a lot less fucking people around anyways. Good! STFU

[Anonymous No.11344779]

>>11336119
Use nuclear and hydro for power as well as metal oxide electrolysis for metal instead of coke and furnace. Fixed your climate problem UN

[Anonymous No.11344796]

>Should we take action to try and prevent climate change, /sci/?

literally how? technologically advanced nations can, but backwater dumps are not only going to become the most populated places on earth due to fertility and birth ratios but also the most reliant on fossil fuels.

most countries doing everything they can to be carbon neutral won't beat out the shit holes pumping the majority of the co2 into the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11344807]

>>11344796
this, and no forgein aid is not acceptable

[Anonymous No.11344813]

>bob dylan advert in bosnia
blech
>in english
lol, what racial sensitivity, what a class act dylan is

[Anonymous No.11344979]

We should polute less because it makes life shitty, that's it.

Now go get a pot that can hold a billion gallons of water and crank your stove up to three max and let me know when the temperature changes.

[Anonymous No.11344998]

People who litter should not be given a fine, but instead forced community service for a week where they have to pick up plastic trash on streets and in forests

[Anonymous No.11345011]

>>11336119
based climate change. the southern hemisphere needs to die

[Anonymous No.11345028]

>>11342459
>no
Alright then. Just let me know when you're ready to draft a plan to retool every industry on the planet, I'll be waiting here with baited breath.

[Anonymous No.11345070]

>>11342459
>Alternative technologies exist and some are better
You posted this in front of an electric car so notorious for spontaneous combustion as they age that many indoor parking lots don't allow them for overnight parking. Electric cars have quite a long way to go before they're capable of being more than a meme, and it's the batteries that are the problem, not the stupid charging centers.

[Anonymous No.11345116]

>>11344807
Why

[Anonymous No.11345172]

https://www.stickmanbangkok.com/readers-submissions/2008/01/dutch-women-and-their-weird-behaviour/

[Anonymous No.11345206]

>>11344979
Amount of water vapor in atmosphere is determined by temperatur, not by water vapor emissions.

[Anonymous No.11346709]

>>11345206
You don't know what you're talking about.
The Amazon rain forest is known to affect climate globally due to how it pumps out massive amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11347891]

>>11336119
>Should we take action to try and prevent climate change, /sci/?

"climate change" is a scam by george soros and his child actors to get a global tax going, payable to the global banking cartels.

Pic related explains it in more detail.

[Anonymous No.11347938]

>>11336128
Was it selfish when the dinosaurs were wiped out?