Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google search will find you thousands of links
of course there are the climate change deniers
and there are those who say what little we can do won't be nearly enough
just one link:
from the article:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "
couldn't resist one more link - story about Siberia, one of the coldest places on earth where there is human habitation - they now face 100 degree days and multiple wildfires caused by them
https://eos.org/articles/siberian-heat-w....
.
45 years of Thatcher Hayek neoliberalism laissez-faire capitalism = everything literally is ****.
5 years socialism = NHS best public health care organisation on earth, social security system, mass public housing.
More nonsense from Luciom.
The west did far better under vaguely leftist governments since the war than under the right wing crap that replaced them.
Of course .
And no idea why he think the left would always end up on centralizing cataclysmic annihilation .
I guess from his far out right perspective, the only existential reality of the left is communism shrug .
Like u post afterwards , we have lot of empirical evidences it ain’t so .
Of course .
And no idea why he think the left would always end up on centralizing cataclysmic annihilation .
I guess from his far out right perspective, the only existential reality of the left is communism shrug .
Like u post afterwards , we have lot of empirical evidences it ain’t so .
You guys are literally saying that climate change can only be solved by global coordinated intervention. And we need a mechanism to enforce rules for countries that try to scam. That means a world government equivalent with power to punish countries that "misbehave" financially and otherwise. That means centralization of power. Which is ALWAYS TERRIBLE AND THE WORST POSSIBLE RISK for humanity.
If the only way to fix a problem is to centralize power worldwide, it's better not to fix it, as nothing is as dangerous as centralized worldwide power. If centralized worldwide power goes rogue we end up in permanent, unsolvable global totalitarianism which is a lot worse than exctinction.
Life has no value absent freedom and permanent slavery to overlords is worse than death.
No it doesn't necessarily mean a world government. This is yet another non sequitur from the non sequitur specialist. It means much better co-operation between the biggest economies and polluters.
"permanent slavery to overlords" is meaningless gibberish, mere noise where you're unable to provide signal.
No it doesn't necessarily mean a world government. This is yet another non sequitur from the non sequitur specialist. It means much better co-operation between the biggest economies and polluters.
"permanent slavery to overlords" is meaningless gibberish, mere noise where you're unable to provide signal.
It means an entity with the power to go inside any single country and dictate outcomes violently. That's a world government (for that topic).
You should understand the risks in the same way i do, just think of Trump-like (or worse) figures capturing that mechanism, what would you do then? permanent slavery to overlords isn't gibberish. It means actual fascists get the keys to the chambers of power in the centralized world entity you created "to fix climate change" and abuse them without limit to achieve global fascism.
No single entity should be allowed to have enough power to decide something worldwide. That's what i am talking about.
BAKU, Azerbaijan — The coming U.S. retreat from leadership on global climate policy comes amid a dawning reality: For much of the world, China already calls the shots.
Beijing’s decades-long effort to dominate the world’s clean energy economy is enabling it to woo tight business alliances with governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America — without insisting on the labor and environmental safeguards that the United States and European Union typically demand. Those countries, in turn, are taking China’s side in disputes with the U.S. and Europe about trade policies or efforts to make rich nations step up their international climate aid
You guys are literally saying that climate change can only be solved by global coordinated intervention. And we need a mechanism to enforce rules for countries that try to scam. That means a world government equivalent with power to punish countries that "misbehave" financially and otherwise. That means centralization of power. Which is ALWAYS TERRIBLE AND THE WORST POSSIBLE RISK for humanity.
If the only way to fix a problem is to centralize power worldwide, it's better not to fix it, as nothing
Another invention of your ?
Where did we say that ?
Has for the rest , it’s just projection from your part disregarding how science can actually work and did work previously in other issues worldwide (ozone accord in the 1980s is an example) without bringing your gloomy doom monster of 1 worldwide government existence .
Ps: u don’t need rules , those that will do work first will benefit massively since they will hold the innovation perks .
All those left behind will just pay a much higher price which the US don’t really care since they just can print the money shrug
No it doesn't necessarily mean a world government. This is yet another non sequitur from the non sequitur specialist. It means much better co-operation between the biggest economies and polluters.
"permanent slavery to overlords" is meaningless gibberish, mere noise where you're unable to provide signal.
+1
some of you guys have clearly lost the plot (among other things) :-))))
... but it's (kind of) entertaining, i'll give you that
No it doesn't necessarily mean a world government. This is yet another non sequitur from the non sequitur specialist. It means much better co-operation between the biggest economies and polluters.
"permanent slavery to overlords" is meaningless gibberish, mere noise where you're unable to provide signal.
I generally agree with this but it pretty much ends up just being a request with a hope and prayer
The US claims to want to be carbon neutral by 2050 with China and Russia by 2060 but if either of those decide to veer off course, there really isn't much anyone could do about it - nato adds a little pressure in that regard for the US.
China's depopulation is expected to accelerate, and Xi attempts to rectify it by incentivizing new births and skilled work. But when a country of a billion people that operates on a system that is so heavily dependent on cheap labor to remain competitive, their climate goals and pollution levels just won't be worth it for them. And when China gets away with causing 1/3 of the world's pollution to remain competitive, other countries either have to lower their guidance to compete, or cut ties, which degrades any progress in the co operation department.
man'o'man .... i scrolled through this threat, read a couple of posts, and gotta say: my head hurts.
few remarks:
1. discussing with people that simply ignore/negate facts is impossible and a huge waste of time.
2. lack of education, ignorance, basic stupidity ... but mostly just trolling i see as reasons
3. some folks are actually that bad, that one could think it might be a good idea to get a little 'earth-self-correction" ... but then again, a lot of decent people will suffer also.
4. facts: we ar
I've just read it. You need to elaborate A LOT on why could climate change be that "great barrier".
Nothing even remotely indicates global warming could lead to the end of our species.
From my point of view you happen to like the Fermi paradox and tried to connect it to global warming and expected it to make sense: it made none.
There are way too many better candidates for that "great barrier" than global warming.
Having said that, global warming is a serious issue and for anyone who may think it is not just google "NASA global warming"; it will take you to the official site where they clearly state that the "trend we're seeing in global warming from the 1800's onwards is without a doubt of human origin".
I've just read it. You need to elaborate A LOT on why could climate change be that "great barrier".
Nothing even remotely indicates global warming could lead to the end of our species.
From my point of view you happen to like the Fermi paradox and tried to connect it to global warming and expected it to make sense: it made none.
There are way too many better candidates for that "great barrier" than global warming.
Having said that, global warming is a serious issue and for anyone who may think it i
it really boggles my mind how people have such a narrow view on this topic, even just simply calling it 'global warming', as if that was all there is to it.
buddy... there's like 5% of humanity always on the brink of starving, another 15-20% food-insecure (meaning, they don't know when/what will be their next meal). imagine this number going up, probably doubling
now add mass movement (forced) due to whole areas no longer habitable (either too hot or completely flooded)
the wealth distribution today is already massively tilted to the top 0.1%, this will also increase dramatically.
now, look at our geo-political situation today, how unstable and risky everything is (and how amazingly stupid and incompetent most governments are), not to mention everyone is only in it for themselves ... take all those factors i mentioned above and mix them in, and it's very easy to realize that mankind will not be able to solve these problems, they will only get worse and worse and worse ... meaning, any halfway realistic scenario will be complete extinction in a timeframe of 50-200 years from now.
Complete extinction of the species is unlikely without a catastrophic meteor event imo - a much smaller human population will adapt and survive. That may turn out to be a very good thing.
I'm far from satisfied with your answer.
I agree that "climate change" is a better choice of words to address the problem than "global warming" though.
You say 15%-20% face food insecurity and another 5% are on the brink of starving. I don't see where you're going: were those numbers better 500 years ago? The same technology that gave us CC also lifted life expectancy in virtually every single region of the planet. My point being: you only see technology as an agent of destruction when most of the time it's actually the opposite. Many of the problems we face today -like famine- could be solved with technology yet to emerge, but you don't seem to give any consideration to that; you don't give technology any credit for all the good things it gave us. If you dispute that the world was in a better place before modern technology was ubiquitous then you're clueless.
You also talk about wealth distribution: again, I don't know where you're going.
Until a few years ago we were almost likely living in the most peaceful period of mankind. Your rationale for "CC could be the "great barrier" is weak and needs further elaboration.
Do you really think humanity will be extinct due to CC in 50-100 years?
What I gather from your post is a rather pessimistic view of humanity with some % thrown around crowned by a rushed conclusion.
Should we take CC seriously? Of course, but make no mistake: there are too many better candidates for the "great barrier".
Pokerbro is the example of the climate porn apocalyptor who is infinitely more dangerous for society than the worst denialist could ever be, because his take is far more removed from reality than a denialist take can be.
If climate change has an effect of X, and i denied that, i am X away from truth. If i exaggerate it by more than an order of magnitude, i am 9X+ away from reality, and that's where pokerbro sits.
NEvermind that he has to deny objective reality more than a denier needs to, to make his claims.
The information structure, the political ideologies, the fake "science" that convinced him of those takes are more dangerous for humanity than denialism is. Because doing nothing at all for the climate is less problematic than acting like what pokerbro claims was true would be.
I am glad he came here with his climate porn takes because there are legions of people like him (each and every one of them, leftists of course) and there were people denying they existed
guys, where have you learned to argue/discuss things? from notes inside of fortune cookies?
ignoring a valid argument by saying "i don't believe that" and then bringing an example of something totally unrelated is really really advanced ... :-)))))))))
so, for the final time: i give up, you guys are right, i am wrong, good luck to you.
over and out.
You wrote no valid argument about exctinction risk. For exctinction to happen because of climate warming you need the currently coldest place on earth to become unlivable because it's too hot.
Do you realize that requires more than 50 celsius temperature increases for the coldest places on the planet right?
You might have a (grotesquely exaggerated) argument for massive population decrease, but do you realize exctinction means every single human being dies? or you just use words at random?
Climate change itself causing extinction require runaway climate change (again before we out expand it). It's definitely possible but obviosuly nothing like a certainty. Climate change will cause a lot of political trouble and could easily lead to very serious wars - that's another possible path to extinction but again nothing like a certainty. There's a few other even less likely possibilities.
Extinction risk is not the important bit. Climate change can be both catastrophically horrific to live through and a blip on the graph.
There is one specie that got extinct by climate change even tho they dominated millions of years ….
They did nothing too , like us, vs climate changes .
I thought we were smarter then dinosaurs but I guess we’re not shrug.
Actually we might be even dumber then dinosaurs because we , contrary to them, had the capacity to do something about it .
Point is , yeah climate change can become on the trend we are, a definite real big problem .
But hey, not learning from past mistakes is a way of life for humans .
Already massive amount of plants insect and animals already disappearing..,
We are smarter and we might even be handle a massive rock hurtling towards us if/when that happens.
Pokerbro is the example of the climate porn apocalyptor who is infinitely more dangerous for society than the worst denialist could ever be, because his take is far more removed from reality than a denialist take can be.
If climate change has an effect of X, and i denied that, i am X away from truth. If i exaggerate it by more than an order of magnitude, i am 9X+ away from reality, and that's where pokerbro sits.
NEvermind that he has to deny objective reality more than a denier needs to, to make
Please explain how you determine from his post he is a leftist?
