Global warming solutions

[Anonymous No.15581367]

Making a sci thread of this pol thread because it'll last longer and the posts here are higher iq and quality. Will link it in a post to the pol thread. Also first post is my response on that thread.

[Anonymous No.15581374]

[Anonymous No.15581391]

>>15581367
During the pandemic, global co2 emissions increased despite a significant decrease in global manmade C02 production. I have yet to see a single explanation hypothetical or otherwise to offer a credible explanation to this. Nasa's reasoning was simply to say' oh the oceans must have stopped absorbing as much C02 for some reason that year' without explaining why.

Also why do the various invested interests push for solutions that involve forced economies such as renewables that damage the environment and are unreliable like wind and solar power inplace of nuclear?

[Anonymous No.15581410]

>>15581391
Sorry I was arguing with some retard on pol but I can respond now. It'll take three posts though.
435445263
>>435445019 #
Nuclear power plants are too tempting of a terror target. It's unwise to rely on something that produces radioactive byproducts unless it is so deep underground that it would be secure from earthquakes weather events and any weapons including missiles.


Then some guy said terror is fake and it's the government to which I responded that that only proves the importance of making even more secure facilities and that it's not hard just they need to be underground and earthquake proof because the government that likes to create terror events can make earthquakes and use missiles and blame it on whatever they want to.

[Anonymous No.15581414]

>>15581367
Why do you start stupid bait threads like this? You're already begging the question in your starting premise.

[Anonymous No.15581421]

>>15581414
Wdym?
The whole point of the thread is the question.

[Anonymous No.15581424]

>>15581367
/poltards. are retarded facebook boomers, unfortunately this board has largely been taken over by this invasive species.

[Anonymous No.15581433]

>>15581424
It's basically just the man children who read warhammer 40k books and mein kampf and think Hitler was the God Emporer of misogyny and racism here to lead us in a holy crusade against the monsters in their closet like single women, their black neighbors, and a gay couple.

[Anonymous No.15581472]

>>15581424
>>15581433
Some of them might be like that but it's more diverse in opinion and thought than you make out. The issue with a lot of the poltards is that while they are quick to point out jewish over representation in liberal academia and the law, media and finance etc they fail to explain the elephant in the room around white people and especially white women causing so many problems in society today.

[Anonymous No.15581509]

>>15581472
Hmm. I mention that type of individual because they like to act like everyone agrees with them and decided to worship their ideology and racial attitudes just because they're correct about jews being the same and in some ways smarter about having the same agenda.

As for white women the issue is just gluttony, pride, and lust. Lack of ability to pair bond at all because lust. Greed in not learning to be frugal no matter how much they or their partner earns. Pride in thinking they're all high value and deserve someone who's impressive in every possible measure.

So yeah there is that. Maybe gen Z will have learned to be more humble from the example of their failings and the subsequent conversations about it.

[Anonymous No.15581516]

>>15581472
Let's not talk about those issues though too much or the thread will get taken to b or deleted for going off topic.

[Anonymous No.15581981]

>>15581367
The solution is easy, it's getting the solution implemented that's hard. First, we need to decarbonize, which means switching from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear. Next we'll need to reduce or eliminate the emission of other greenhouse gasses suck as refrigerants, methane, and nitrous oxide. Finally, atmospheric carbon dioxide will need to be reduced, which may possibly be accomplished by the environment after decarbonization. The option I think is most attractive is production and incorporation of biochar into soils.

[Anonymous No.15582004]

The actual solution is to decentralize the economy by redistributing land from the jews who just hold all the empty space in their withered claws until some other jew wants to develop it to people who will farm on it, introducing stiff trade tariffs to protect local small production and eliminate the majority of long distance and overseas shipping. Cutting down on container shipping will reduce the single most ridiculous source of emissions and pollution(which is a word all the """""environmentalists""""" seem to have forgotten now that most their meme green solutions are made of the most toxic, unrecyclable shit imaginable), and small, widely distributed and mostly self-sufficient low density communities have many advantages
>they don't need solar panels and wind turbines covering an area far greater than the actual community to provide power, making them an actually feasible solution for power generation
>the amount of human waste produced doesn't constitute a natural disaster in itself and they can just pipe it in to a swamp to filter it biologically, or even create an artificial wetland for the purpose
>they don't need a bunch of extra infrastructure to be "walkable", they just are by virtue of not cramming humans in to a higher density than ants in an anthill
>far more diversity of employment opportunities
>far fewer soul crushing mcjobs in service industries servicing the needs of the other service industry workers in your city of 5 million apartment renting consumers
>far less susceptible to global pandemics (do we still care about that or are we back to just ignoring that it can happen until it happens again?)

Now get the billionaires and governments to sign off on that one. Good luck!

[Anonymous No.15582005]

>>15581367
>Making a sci thread of this pol thread
Please don't.

[Anonymous No.15582011]

>>15581367
more nuclear power, less natural gas. and finding a final solution to natural gas turbines, whether that's some unknown power source or just much better batteries. no, natural reneweable energy is not sufficient. doing anything except fixing our power grid dependance on gas is pointless (see: electric vehicles) until that power is ecologically sustainable.

[Anonymous No.15582028]

>>15581981
>decarbonize
Meme
CO2 is one of the least harmful things we produce as a byproduct, both through technology and just by living. Hydrocarbon fuels were settled on because they are simply the best way to make vehicles that move under their own power, and anything else is a downgrade. The people trying to sell you solutions to this non-problem are grifters who want you to pay more for a shittier car that has to have its most expensive component replaced every few years tops. CO2 levels could be - and have been - many times higher than they are now and the environment would simply adjust to it, as it has done before multiple times.
>b-b-but le climate change
The climate is literally never static and we couldn't prevent it from getting hotter or colder on its own regardless of our activities, even if we understood it. Anyone who even claims that they fully understand the reasons and mechanisms behind the climate changing is completely full of shit. Ask them why they weren't able to predict this year would be so anomalously hot with such extreme weather if their models are so good.
Nuclear power is far better for static power generation than burning vast heaps of coal, but I'd be infinitely more concerned about the quality of the air you're breathing and what it's doing to your lungs, than how hot it is.

[Anonymous No.15582041]

>>15582028
>The climate is literally never static and we couldn't prevent it from getting hotter or colder on its own regardless of our activities
Maybe we couldn't prevent a natural shift like a new ice age, but we're actively contributing to the current shift.

[Anonymous No.15582056]

>>15582041
Since we literally could not stop producing CO2 except by jonestowning ourselves to the last man, what level of CO2 generation by the human race would be acceptable and not 'contributing to the current shift'? And why? Should it be limited purely to respiration and farts? Why? The very first mass extinction event we know of was caused simply by the respiration of cyanobacteria, you know.
I'm the one who posted >>15582004 for the record, my position is that we should adopt lifestyles that allow us to work with the environment rather than trying futilely to master it for the sake of cramming more people in to a smaller space to serve the needs of an economy based on the flawed premise of infinite growth.

[Anonymous No.15582075]

>>15581391
>During the pandemic, global co2 emissions increased despite a significant decrease in global manmade C02 production
>if i add two apples instead of five in the apple basket, the number of apples in the basket should decrease
Brilliant logic

[Anonymous No.15582083]

>>15582075
>food analogy
imagine being at computers
so fat you look and see food

[Anonymous No.15582090]

>>15581391
If you can tell me numbers, I could try to think of an explanation.

By the way, it's [math]\mathrm{CO}_2[/math] or CO2, not C02. The "oh" stands for the letter O in oxygen, not for zero.

[Anonymous No.15582094]

That's a fair number of good new thoughts since yesterday so I figured I'd help explain some of the points of those phenomena.

Firstly there's the question why no nuclear?
The answer is pretty simple.
Whether you believe terrorism from radical Islamists, right wing extremists, eastern single party states, or the governments surface or shadow of the west is happening the fact remains that nuclear plants are too vulnerable to earthquake weapons, missiles, or sabotage from any of the five groups of insane people.
Nobody has a process for doing something like burying the reactor part deep in a mine shaft even if newer thorium cycle plants China is developing are safe from some of those things.

1/2

[Anonymous No.15582099]

Next is the idea of land distribution from renewable, corporate, or state trusts and areas to locals would mostly just mean using more of the scarce gas oil and coal sources for logistics and construction and hvac to live in inhospitable places and further exasperate water scarcity issues.

Instead green architecture options and materials like organic insulation and weather proofing, earth berms and partially submerged structures, slowly growing forest farm ecology at an industrial scale, or building city structures to mid high population density with engineered timber and then making them walkable besides delivery services with automated evs and drones.

All of these issues about what did or didn't happen with the pandemic are just harping on about propaganda not data and not worth discussing. Everybody lies and stretches the truth. Enough said.

Most environmentally significant pollutants are not carbon and gradually raising earth's co2 levels while ensuring it doesn't adversely impact biodiversity and developing countries which is now even about half of Africa is important so just doing the low hanging fruit of decarbonizing in ways that are also economically beneficial is helpful in two ways, not just one. Three if you count the pollution reduction.

Oil is still the best for cars besides a phev charged with home solar being slightly better investment already.

As for long distance shipping it's possible to use a new sail type to decarbonize a fifth of the fuel needs but the cost isn't cheaper overall just neutral.

Finally for sequestration and such I would say that's a good idea if you want a new ice age, but really there are S curve type responses to co2 concentrations on heating that guarantee that even with other feedback some wet bulb scenarios are very unlikely should we do nothing about it for centuries.
2/3

[Anonymous No.15582101]

>>15582083
an apple a day keeps the doctor away though

[Anonymous No.15582104]

The real issue is that carbon gets more expensive as you exhaust high grade deposits and the west already stresses the availability of such deposits alone. When other countries develop carbon energy sources will not be a viable option anyway.

3/3

[Anonymous No.15582115]

>>15582094
>>15582099
>>15582104
You're too good for 4chan

[Anonymous No.15582144]

>>15582115
I'd know a Tenth of that and be wrong about half the rest without both 4chan and YouTube videos. Sometimes you need to fact check or look up data from academia to verify the stuff but most of the subjectiveness of arriving at a correct nuanced stance is debate and public concensus. Lots of the YouTube videos are made by people who do use appropriate sources too, but summarize things in a way most professors etc would be unwilling to try to do.

[Anonymous No.15582186]

>>15582099
>Next is the idea of land distribution from renewable, corporate, or state trusts and areas to locals would mostly just mean using more of the scarce gas oil and coal sources for logistics and construction and hvac to live in inhospitable places and further exasperate water scarcity issues.
>Instead green architecture options and materials like organic insulation and weather proofing, earth berms and partially submerged structures, slowly growing forest farm ecology at an industrial scale, or building city structures to mid high population density with engineered timber and then making them walkable besides delivery services with automated evs and drones.
There's no reason alternative and low footprint locally produced materials like stabilized compressed earth blocks can't be used for building low density communities, in fact they're ideal. and I don't suggest moving people in to the desert but rather spreading in to the mostly perfectly hospitable empty land which is quite abundant in NA and will grow more abundant there and in Eurasia if the climate continues to get warmer. I definitely didn't suggest just spreading people all over without taking in to account if there's enough local water for their use, that's pretty much the one bedrock requirement for humans to live somewhere and ignoring that and just assuming we can pipe water in from somewhere else is a relatively recent phenomenon. I also fundamentally disagree with any solution to the problems of the modern world that requires making people even more dependent on high tech 'smart' crap that relies on a global supply chain and empowers billionaires even further, I think that dependence is the biggest real problem we face right now. Not everything needs to be a computer.

[Anonymous No.15582197]

>>15582094
modern nuclear power stations are not vulnerable to terrorism or sabotage. even the terrible old ones we're running today will simply boil off all their own water and kill their own reaction before anything dangeroue can happen. the risk with nuclear power is the waste, which compared to fossil fuels is smaller in volume and more difficult to dispose of. but it's the best large scale power solution we have, and it's worth investing in to make it better.

green energy can't replace nuclear or fossil fuels. it can supplement both, but what our power grid needs is two components:

1. large scale constant power generation to supply to the MINIMUM power grid draw at all times
2. smaller scale variable power solution that can be shut off or activated as the power grid draw rises and fluctuates above its minimum

currently the only solution for number 2 is gas turbines, nothing else- not even nuclear- can be spun up or down on demand. that's why we can't just get rid of natural gas, and why it's the most important power issue to solve (hence depending on nuclear in the meanwhile is a good idea).

renewable, green power is fantastic but not reliable enough to totally cover either role. not unless we develop much better batteries.

[Anonymous No.15582205]

>>15581367
Solutions:
1. Have less people
2. Each people will consume less
3. Improve technologies and science
4. 1% of people own 50% of wealth. Take it from them.

[Anonymous No.15582223]

>>15581367
> More greenery in cities.
> reign in excessive private jet use
> somehow enforce burning cleaner fuel in international waters (this is probably the hardest)

[Anonymous No.15582268]

>>15582186
It would be possible to buy many of those land areas off. I recently looked up a plot of 10 acres in Oregon for 20k and think I might buy it to start an organic farm there. But really the issue is monetizing the places such that people can generate an appropriate income on the land.

One option would be growing organic building materials like wood and hemp fiber. Another option would be food for local consumption including some meat farming in either fresh water or land animals just to reduce col. They can make their own sufficient energy with solar if they use a basement space and earth berm for climate control. Some people could work from home as rural areas are internet connected. There are service jobs like food industry. What would really make it viable though would be something like mines to work in or jobs like maintaining and servicing renewable energy parks.

I don't think it would work in most places unless they implement a lot of water saving lifestyle techniques. Which isn't impossible.
>>15582197
It's the fact that radioactive isotopes can end up in various bodies of water above or below ground.
Examples of terror target vulnerabilities and i mean state sponsored terror that are avoidable and their alternatives are, steel skyscrapers like wtc replaceable with wood structures up to 10 stories, nuclear plants a la Fukushima replaceable with either a buried reactor or salt chemistry grid storage and more renewable, nordstream pipeline replaceable with nothing really.

Anyway it gets said on pol who does these things and they're only marginally oversimplifying it.

The idea renewable can't replace hydrocarbon sources is only really accurate in high demand industrial sectors such as in densely populated developing countries like China and India or possibly Latin America in the future.

The solution is combination of geographical grid storage like pumped hydro and a lot of nuclear, but that will be gradual and plenty of coal will be burnt.

[Anonymous No.15582300]

>>15582205
>>15582205
1
Yes but most people come from the third world so a focus on modernizing their infrastructure and culture any means necessary is the way to achieve this not encouraging 1.0 birthrate countries to become .5
2
Good ideas would be combining the appliances and spaces of modern homes to reduce total space and room count and also using sustainable architecture and materials. Encouraging individuals to practice minimalism and focus on quality over quantity for their personal consumption chooses too.
3
Better nuclear and solar and batteries are guaranteed to come in the near decades
4
Not take. Confiscate and destroy would be the better option unless they can find something truly useful for it.

Generally all based points to make.
>>15582223
Yes yes and yes
Suggestion is roof top, jet fuel production cap and trade, introduce fish farming to the Philippines to satisfy s.e.a fish demands to keep China close to home and sustainable. Have them cooperate via trade sanctions.

[Anonymous No.15582301]

>>15582205
Fuck no i want wealth to horde gold

[Anonymous No.15582312]

>>15581367
The issue with finding solutions is that nobody has stated the problem of climate change in clear terms.

It's all wonderful saying CO2 is bad, but if you can't convince me (or more importantly the public) that there is a problem, then nobody will be able to find a solution to the non existent problem.

I'll start with giving you an affect of climate change; the earlier greening of plants in Europe. Please try to shoehorn in why climate change is bad.

[Anonymous No.15582319]

>>15582205
There is a nice simple correlation between human quality of life, cost of energy, and CO2 production.

Unfortunately for the vast majority of humanity, our Dear Leaders in in a climate crisis cult that believe CO2 production is to be avoided at all costs. This naturally means that our quality of life must be destroyed with the rises in energy costs.

If only people understood that AnCap, the free market, is the only way to get nasty people who think they know best to FUCK OFF, and leave us all to get on with our own lives.

[Anonymous No.15582327]

>>15582205
that's called theft anon, theft is wrong. Children are able to intuit this.

Instead of begging the government to take up even more of the economy, why not argue for less state control? Perhaps having a group of people who are allowed to steal from everyone else is the cause of many of the worlds problems.

[Anonymous No.15582340]

>>15582312
It basically isn't. The only real issue is actually energy scarcity, which the people who push co2 alarmism have an agenda in trying to worsen energy scarcity to implement draconian control measures.

As we get more technologically developed though all of the new and better options will not be hydrocarbons unless they were grown renewably anyway. These will be implemented just because of market forces.

>>15582319
Basically this but the most important thing to protect ancap wise is science and industry, not hydrocarbon mines and refineries.

[Anonymous No.15582341]

>>15582319
>>15582327
>le free market ancap billionaires will fix it
They're the ones who manipulate government regulations in the first place you dumb fag
and no destroying your literal enemies isn't theft

[Anonymous No.15582356]

>>15581367
significantly reduce population by 80% atleast
stop using fossil fuel
use nuclear power
eliminate china/india entirely from the face of the earth

bomb, climate crisis solved

[Anonymous No.15582376]

>>15582340
>people who push co2 alarmism have an agenda in trying to worsen energy scarcity to implement draconian control measures.
Agree.

>As we get more technologically developed though all of the new and better options will not be hydrocarbons
Don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean nuclear will be (technically is already, but govt safety mandates bump up cost) cheaper than fossil fuels? Are you referring to the far future use of space borne solar arrays? I can agree on the count too, but I see that as being quite some time away. Certianly shouldn't use the government to hasten it's existence.

>thing to protect ancap wise is science and industry, not hydrocarbon mines and refineries.
Also don't understand this. AnCap isn't something that protects, it's just leaving the market alone to get on with it.
If the free market is the best at finding the the optimal way of doing something (which i believe it to be), then allowing every sector of the economy to be a market free of state interference should yield the best results in the shortest time.

[Anonymous No.15582385]

>>15582312
Higher CO2 concentrations reduce the nutritional quality of food by decreasing protein and mineral concentrations by 5–15%, and B vitamins by up to a 30%. It also increases photosynthesis in C3 plants, but they just accumulate more carbohydrates and less mineral content.
>Loladze, Irakli. "Hidden shift of the ionome of plants exposed to elevated CO2 depletes minerals at the base of human nutrition." elife 3 (2014): e02245.
>Myers, Samuel S., et al. "Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition." Nature 510.7503 (2014): 139-142.
>Zhu, Chunwu, et al. "Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels this century will alter the protein, micronutrients, and vitamin content of rice grains with potential health consequences for the poorest rice-dependent countries." Science advances 4.5 (2018): eaaq1012.

[Anonymous No.15582389]

>>15582356
Completely unnecessary. Most populations will decline just because of hypergamy already.

[Anonymous No.15582397]

>>15582376
You have to protect the rights inherent to be ancap

Yes nuclear will be cheaper than hydrocarbons even regulated

>>15582385
Most people are already aware of the need to supplement with vitamins. I believe that a good career field in the future will be supplementician, not dietician.

[Anonymous No.15582398]

>>15582341
>free market ancap billionaires
No, it's just everyone in the free market doing what they do for themselves, which as a byproduct makes everyone better off.
In every case of a transaction where both parties consented to take part in it, we can at the least say that both parties found the transaction better to take part in, than to not. If everyone's taking part in a transaction that they feel makes them better off, I think it is logical to say everyone will be better off.

>They're the ones who manipulate government regulations in the first place
That's why I want a free market. If the government does not allow itself to interfere in the free market (e.g. by forbidding the creation of new laws that could touch the market), or by simply not having a government, you can't have lobbyists lobby.

If you open a method of destroying you competitors by using law in front of a corporation, it will likely take it. The free market avoids that option by removing that method. Socialists try to tackle the problem by removing corporations.

>destroying your literal enemies isn't theft
That's murder, and God knows it. Tribal logic isn't very good at maintaining civilization. It quickly degrades into endless revenge wars like the middle east, though I can understand the hatred.

[Anonymous No.15582400]

>>15582385
I can understand the workings behind that. I don't see it as a world-ending event that requires government intervention. Exchange current plants with more nutrient dense plants in your diet.

[Anonymous No.15582404]

>>15582397
>You have to protect the rights inherent to be ancap
Presumably with public ownership of firearms.

>Yes nuclear will be cheaper than hydrocarbons even regulated
Certainly in static electrical infrastructure, but vehicles don't seem to have good storage yet.

[Anonymous No.15582411]

>>15582404
Yeah the best vehicle is a phev. Can recharge daily use range and just buy gas for the rest. It's exactly like wanting a nuclear plant for baseload and oil or natty gas for the rest.

[Anonymous No.15582413]

>>15582398
holy shit you're dense
>have free market
>ancap billionaires stuff the pockets of lawmakers to manipulate things to their benefit
>poof there goes the free market
war isn't murder either

[Anonymous No.15582414]

>>15581367
Is there any reason why we don't put solar panels over parking lots? Provides shade for cars while generating electricity without needing to clear land for panels.

Sunlight hitting asphalt is a huge contributor to the urban heat island.

[Anonymous No.15582420]

>>15582414
the people suggesting solar panel roadways were laughing all the way to the bank as they pocketed the money of retards. Solar panels make terrible roads and this may shock you, but they're a little more expensive to make than just patting down the dirt and gravel and pouring asphalt on top of it

[Anonymous No.15582432]

>>15582414
Not really. It's a great idea. I think generally there is a concern of the architecture in terms of cost to build something really safe. There's also lots of acreage on the tops of big box stores idk why people don't use.

[Anonymous No.15582436]

>>15582432
it's a fucking terrible idea even if solar panels were free. They'd need to be cleaned, maintained and replaced constantly

[Anonymous No.15582441]

>>15582436
Only if there's a bunch of hail falling everywhere.

[Anonymous No.15582446]

>>15582441
or rain
or if there's dust
or if there's cars driving on them

[Anonymous No.15582453]

>>15582446
No bro the panels go up above the cars. Nobody suggested solar roads. That is retarded

[Anonymous No.15582455]

>>15581424
Every board

[Anonymous No.15582464]

>>15582453
oh I misread and thought you were regurgitating the retarded solar roadway idea. But it'd still require tons of maintenance and be extremely expensive to cover every roadway even without putting solar panels on the roof. It's a good idea for parking lots though.

[Anonymous No.15582488]

>>15582420
>Reading comprehension level: zero

I'm not saying driving on them. I'm saying using them as shade covering for pedestrians and parked cars in open parking lots.

>>15582464
Wouldn't the panels be easier to maintain where they are easily accessed and where plant/animal life is not going to interfere with them?

[Anonymous No.15582492]

>>15582056
>Imagine being so retarded that you thought respiration contributed to carbon emissions
You know that carbon came from plants, right? Respiration contributes 0 net carbon to the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.15582498]

>>15582432
>There's also lots of acreage on the tops of big box stores idk why people don't use.

Just not willing to make the investment.

But the fact that you can get the benefit of removing the heat generated from sunlight falling directly onto black asphalt seems huge, as well as the benefit of not making peoples' cars (and their electric batteries) bake in the summer sun is a bonus.

[Anonymous No.15582677]

>>15582397
>>15582400
Yeah, I think the main concern with that is the C3 plants that large populations subsist on like cassava and rice, where if there isn't some intervention they're all gonna get pellagra.

[Anonymous No.15582704]

>>15582492
>oxygen goes in
>CO2 comes out
>this does not contribute to carbon in the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.15582776]

>>15582704
Correct, retard. All the carbon in your body came from the plants you eat, or the plants that your food ate. Those plants fixed that carbon from the atmosphere. It's a carbon neutral system. It cannot contribute to atmospheric carbon and the only way it can contribute to the greenhouse gas effect is if that carbon is converted to a more powerful ghg such as methane. Try learning about a topic before you try to speak on it.

[Anonymous No.15582778]

>>15582776
well shit guys just go home global warming is solved because the carbon in petroleum came from plants that fixed it from the atmosphere too, and the CO2 levels have only dropped since life first began sucking it out of the atmosphere to make sugar

[Anonymous No.15582798]

>>15582778
This is unironically true.

[Anonymous No.15582808]

>>15582778
Nothing alive today evolved during the carboniferous and the climate is changing too rapidly for anything we depend on to adapt. Every time we've observed changes this rapid we also observe mass extinction events. Are you pretending to be retarded on purpose? Why don't you spend some time with a textbook so you don't need to have the most basic concepts explained to you?

[Anonymous No.15582837]

>>15582808
Everything alive today is descended from things that lived during the carboniferous and successfully adapted to that, the great dying, the cretaceous green house, and all the various ice ages and hot ages since.

[Anonymous No.15582902]

>>15582413
If the government interferes in a market then it is not free. That simple.

>war isn't murder either
It absolutely is, just as taxation is theft.

[Anonymous No.15582917]

>>15582808
Supposedly but most special extinctions are from some other pollutant like pesticide, habitat destruction, fertilizer runoff, sulphur, ozone depletion.

[Anonymous No.15582978]

Why solve it?
Warm earth is a happy earth

[Anonymous No.15583363]

>>15582837
The species that survived are a small portion of the species that existed during those mass extinctions and their survival was largely dumb luck. All of those changes in climate happened at a fraction of the speed the current warming and the adaptations they needed to survive had significantly longer to develop. The climate they are currently adapted for is the same one we've had for hundreds of thousands of years.

>>15582917
And? That doesn't address those mass extinctions. You've basically just said "yeah, supposedly not eating will make you starve to death, but you can also die from gorging yourself or eating poison".

[Anonymous No.15583370]

>>15583363
>their survival was largely dumb luck.
Wow funny how dumb luck almost always selected for intelligent generalists and against apex predators and creatures with highly specific specialized lifestyles

[Anonymous No.15583372]

>>15581367
>A unit on this graph is 20 years
Each unit should be 100000 years,160 years is a small amount of time

[Anonymous No.15583376]

>>15583363
Supervolcano eruptions and asteroid impacts are pretty fast events.

[Anonymous No.15583377]

>>15583363
>The species that survived are a small portion of the species that existed during those mass extinctions and their survival was largely dumb luck.
Natural selection is dumb luck?
>All of those changes in climate happened at a fraction of the speed the current warming and the adaptations they needed to survive had significantly longer to develop.
Source: your ass. also yeah I'm sure the changes that followed that asteroid impact were very slow to develop
>The climate they are currently adapted for is the same one we've had for hundreds of thousands of years.
hahahahaha yeah the climate has totally stayed the same for hundreds of thousands of years it's not like there was a little ace age a few centuries ago, multiple distinct warm and cold periods and a full blown ice age just in the last 100,000 years

[Anonymous No.15583384]

>>15582004
>Lower the population to lower energy usage
Not saying we shouldn't lower the amount of Africans, Asians and Indians in the world but when we have nuclear fusion working that alone can provide energy needs for 8 billion, it will make 'renewables' and fossil fuel a joke

[Anonymous No.15583395]

>>15583384
I said lower the population density, not lower the population. There is plenty of empty space on this planet, and believe it or not it isn't just deserts.

[Anonymous No.15583403]

>>15583363
Sure that's great and all, but why do these species matter to humans?

If I type in "why is biodiversity important" into the internets, all I get is a bunch of copypaste articles parroting "biodiversity is important", or a few articles saying "biodiversity is important because it is important". Nobody actually explains why.

[Anonymous No.15583404]

>>15583377
>Natural selection is dumb luck?
During mass extinctions? Yes. Natural selection is the idea that the things that don't die survive to pass on their genes.

>the changes that followed that asteroid impact were very slow to develop
More like nonexistent. That event was too rapid for anything to adapt to it. The things that survived did so because they already happened to have a survival strategy that would allow them to survive.

>the climate has totally stayed the same for hundreds of thousands of years
Pic related

>little ace age
That was a local event, not a global one.

Why do you pull shit out of your ass instead of reading up on the subject?

[Anonymous No.15583407]

>>15583404
>The things that survived did so because they already happened to have a survival strategy that would allow them to survive.
That's how God intended.
Same will happen to fags, along with many other groups and species soon.

[Anonymous No.15583413]

>>15583403
It's probably too complicated for you to understand so I'll try to make it as simple as possible. Biodiversity increases the complexity and resilience of an ecosystem which in turn means we can extract more services from it.

[Anonymous No.15583415]

>>15583404
>nope natural selection doesn't count during mass extinctions because reasons
>um nope shut up it was instant not fast phew really saved myself on that one
>the normal climate fluctuations just don't count because they don't okay!!
you are so unbelievably full of shit
in b4 you accept my concession
I do concede you're not worth replying to

[Anonymous No.15583416]

>>15583407
That will include your retarded ass unless your betters solve this problem despite your kicking and screaming.

[Anonymous No.15583419]

>>15583415
Are you trolling or illiterate?

[Anonymous No.15583428]

>>15583416
>>15583419
you're so mad you're double posting
now claim you're actually laughing, like you always do

[Anonymous No.15583430]

>>15582094
>Earthquakes
Wildlife in Fukushima is prospering, Japan is prone to earthquakes because it is on multiple tectonic plates. Build it somewhere safe and there is virtually 0 risk of it being levelled in an earthquake.
>Sabotage
>Right wing extremists
Domestic terrorism is the biggest lie, why would you want to destroy the country that you are proud to be from. That said nuclear power plants are constructed to make sabotage(Intentional or unintentional) pretty much impossible, nuclear plants are retard proof, trying to blow up a nuclear power plant is just stupid. A year of fear mongering and Zaporizhzhia hasn't been blown up.

[Anonymous No.15583431]

>>15583416
The fuck you babbling about now? You a troon?

[Anonymous No.15583435]

>>15583428
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.15583449]

>>15583431
I'm talking about you dying from the effects of climate change. Probably in a food riot. The alternative is that this problem is addressed globally regardless of your feelings and when the problem is solved you'll post about how there was never a problem to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15583453]

>>15583449
>dying from the effects of climate change.
I'll risk that. Not worried about that in the least.

[Anonymous No.15583460]

Just tax pollution and let the free market handle the rest

[Anonymous No.15583463]

>>15583460
>pollution
define it first.
obese people create more pollution than thin people, so blacks are in trouble tax wise. they gonna scream waysisms!

[Anonymous No.15583469]

>>15582205
>Have less people
Meme solution, how do you get Africans to have less people
>Each people will consume less
You do not have to eat insects, locally sourced food is good.
>Improve technologies and science
We already are, maybe China will take the lead in the nuclear department, they stick to traditional science not western pseudoscience
>1% of people own 50% of wealth. Take it from them.
And how exactly are you going to do that?

Taxes are a scam, every attempt to increase taxation has just lead to lower/middle class people footing the bill, government needs two dollars to spend one.

[Anonymous No.15583470]

>>15581391
Fuck complex systems and their fucking bullshit nonlinear behavior.

Seriously though, they didn't just shrug and say "I guess the ocean absorbed less," they think the ocean absorbed less due to measurements.

That's the problem with complex systems, there are all sorts of feedback loops and tipping points, attractors and valleys. You can't expect them to work in a linear manner.

[Anonymous No.15583479]

>>15581367
The solution is to let climate change run its course. After that's done we can take all the pieces of shattered civilization and put them together to adapt to the new climatic reality. There is no "solution" otherwise we would have found one by now.

[Anonymous No.15583499]

>>15583479
What if you let decades go by and nothing happens? Will people be embarrassed that they thought the sky was falling for no reason?

[Anonymous No.15583512]

>>15583470
>That's the problem with complex systems, there are all sorts of feedback loops and tipping points, attractors and valleys. You can't expect them to work in a linear manner.
and yet shills will take one vague correlation and say THIS GAS THAT EXISTS IN A FEW HUNDRED PPM IS THE MOST DEADLY THING IN THE ATMOSPHERE HERE LOOK AT THESE SCARY GRAPHS

[Anonymous No.15583513]

>>15583499
they'll have long since moved on to the next world ending threat that keeps them glued to the tv and call you a schizo for even bringing it up

[Anonymous No.15583563]

>>15583469
>how do you get Africans to have less people
Vaccines

>>15583469
>China will take the lead in the nuclear disaster department
FIFY

[Anonymous No.15583587]

>>15583499
No they'll find something else to grift communism into being
You already have these shitters in automation protests even thou you can't have luxury gay space communism without robots.

[Anonymous No.15583769]

>>15583563
Just hand out birth control dude.

[Anonymous No.15584316]

>>15582398
>No, it's just everyone in the free market doing what they do for themselves, which as a byproduct makes everyone better off.