/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2345425]

>>/k/8074967

What's /sci/'s take on climate change? On nuclear winter? On 'hippy bullshit' as the /k/ommandos put it?

[Anonymous No.2345432]

>mfw doesn't know how to link
>mfw i don't even care about climate change anymore

[Anonymous No.2345452]

>>>/k/8074967

fix'd

[Anonymous No.2345460]

> What's /sci/'s take on climate change?

Hippy bullshit is hippy bullshit.

Hell, the fact that Al Gore and his environazis believe something is an excellent logical reason to believe the exact opposite.

[Anonymous No.2345504]

Climate change is real but trying to stop it is a lost cause. I think the important issue is preparing for the end of cheap oil. In a decade or two when we have burned all the easy-to-extract oil energy is going to get drastically more expensive, and it's going to fuck over our economy. If we prepare some alternative energy sources ahead of time like solar, biofuels, battery technology, we will be able to transition into a post-oil economy more easily.

Keep in mind the world's farms and food distribution systems run on oil. If all the oil disappeared today, there would be mass starvation within months. We have a mere ten or twenty years to prepare for this. Let's not fuck it up.

[Anonymous No.2345519]

>skeptics' face when the Sun rises two days early on Greenland this year and the only acceptable explanation is the melting of the ice which allows the sun to shine across the horizon earlier

[Anonymous No.2345526]

>>2345425
>>climate change
we're fucked.
>>nuclear winter
we're fucked if india and pakistan have nuclear war, not so much if russia and the US go to war

>>2345504
I think you underestimate the effects of climate change on crop growing...

[Anonymous No.2345545]

The science suggest climate change is happening and humans are indeed a cause.


Its really retarded how blown up the whole conspiracy has gotten to where average people go "oh its a hoax!"

[Anonymous No.2345614]

>climate change
Data I have seen suggest temperatures are going up. The lack of correlating solar data makes human emissions the most logical culprit. We should reduce fossil fuel usage to slow the process. I don't believe it will be as apocalyptic as some suggest (just that some deserts will get flooded with rain while some wet regions will become deserts or some such mixing and matching of global environments). Even if humans aren't the cause, reducing fossil fuel usage will lesson the blow of the loss of cheap oil... right or wrong I am still taking the right side.

>On nuclear winter?
Scientific American had an article a year or two ago presenting a rather bleak scenario. A war between India and Pakistan would lead to the immolation of 100 major cities due to nukes. The ash would be opaque in contrast to clear volcanic ash so it will stay up longer and block more sunlight. Cooler seasons and reduced sunlight will lead to reduced crop yields, which is a very bad thing considering 1 billion people don't have a reliable food supply. The entire thing could lead to a permanent economic depression that global society will never recover from. It very well may sign the the signing of homo sapiens' death warrant.

>On 'hippy bullshit' as the /k/ommandos put it?
How about environmentalism in general?
>environmentalism
The environment is not something that is inherently important. We don't have to protect a forest for the sake of protecting a forest. However the environment IS important to humanity. We are stuck living on Earth for the forseeable future so we damn well better not mess it up. One shouldn't pollute or cut down rainforests for the same reason you shouldn't shit in your bedroom or break a door off its hinges for a beer pong table.

[Anonymous No.2345626]

>>2345614
>>The entire thing could lead to a permanent economic depression that global society will never recover from. It very well may sign the the signing of homo sapiens' death warrant.

HAHAHAHAHA.


No.