Climate Change

[epicmemesbro]

 How big of a threat do you think climate change poses for the world?   Do you think this is a serious issue?    What ought we to do about this problem?   How much responsibility do we bear for the actions that are or are not taken by politicians?   How ought we to deal with the corporations that seem to be suppressing or deflecting these issues?   Many people feel powerless to do anything about changing what is happening.  Do you feel this way?   Why or why not?   How willing are you to make personal sacrifices to address climate change? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

not a threat, scapegoat that keeps us economically shackled 

[Dad]

not a threat, scapegoat that keeps us economically shackled 

 

Still waiting for an actual argument.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Still waiting for an actual argument.

Earth is not our future

 

Premise we only have one planet is wrong

[Dad]

Earth is not our future

 

Premise we only have one planet is wrong

 

"We won't live on Earth forever so let's just funk it up and hope by the time its ready to expire, we'll have the technology to travel to another planet and utilize its atmosphere without killing ourselves."

 

I want you to stop changing your bed sheets.  Don't bathe.  Don't shower.  Don't brush your teeth or wash your face.  Because earth isn't your future.  No need to take care of anything when we'll be on a new planet in a few hundred years.

[Simping For Hina]

Climate Change isn't real.

[Aerion Brightflame]

It undoubtedly is going to be a problem, we've had decades of studies saying as much. The real question is what is the most dangerous part of it, and how can we deal with that. Because there's a lot of problems it will cause. Here's like the 3 big ones off the top of my head;

• Rising Sea Levels is the most obvious thing that comes to mind. Which will affect millions, if not billions of people, and some of the wealthiest cities in the world. Like London. Rising Sea Levels threaten the future of the financial capital of the world, which is fun to consider when you are talking about the economics. 
• Changing climate causing insect migration. Remember the whole scare with Zika? Well rising temperatures would in theory allow disease carriers like these to migrate to currently cooler climates, which would cause a lot of fairly nasty diseases to start popping up in places like southern parts of the US. Which will place extra strain on healthcare services. 
• Destruction of agriculture. I remember reading that one of the biggest issues with the increasing temperatures is that it will render massive portions of farmland around the equator useless, which will only increase the issues of poverty facing say central African countries at the moment. And because of that, they will be forced to migrate, and that just places further financial stresses on more and more nations as more and more people are forced to move away. 
• I think associated to Climate Change is the acidification of the Ocean which threatens to destroy the eco-system from the ground up. Ocean pollution and acidification is actually fairly easy phenomena to observe if you look at say the Great Barrier Reef which has had large segments bleach and die. How much of the world uses the Ocean as a food source say? This is part associated with rising temperatures causing CO2 to be produced by dying algae in the oceans (I think)

And these aren't super far out you know, they are all issues that could (And probably will) start impacting us within the next 100 years, which is sooner than we would be able to colonise any other planet in any significant number(Not that that is really a solution. If you don't address the behaviour that caused us to f*** up this planet we would just f*** up the next one). 

 

The idea that the planet has warmed up is essentially undeniable scientifically, (After all 16 of the 17 warmest years in human history have been this century. Which is terrifying), and whilst some element of how much of that is manmade is still debatable, the consesus amongst those without an interest against fighting climate change is that there is a man made contribution to that, and that we have to start addressing it. I mean, f*** China historically the greatest CO2 producer has been spending billions in the past few years to cut down on emissions because of I think smog issues (And to fight a growing desert). They have agreed to continue with the Paris accords, and they've actually been a massive contributor in keeping CO2 levels constant for the past two years; http://news.trust.org/item/20161114000455-vw85r/

 

Even if there is very little we can do to prevent the effects of the change right now, we absolutely have to start preparing for the consequences. And part of that is curbing the increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere so that the problems do not become any worse even if we can't make them better in the short term.Simply put there has to be immediate monetary investiment into something that can help with this, be it green energy, be it nuclear, be it just shitting on the companies that create these emissions till they clean things up a little. 

 

Any financial gain from ignoring climate change would be short term, which would make it irrelevant. Because the money made from it rarely gets investedinclimate research (If it did, that would be great. You use the profits of the damaging s*** to help find the replacements). Since it doesn't happen, it's just needlessly self destructive to keep pouring money into these industries because they are unsustainable. 

 

EDIT: And other nations are taking the issue seriously enough that they are saying they will impose a 'carbon tax' on US exports if they pull out of the Paris agreement. So you know, maybe there isn't much financial benefit in pulling out of that? 

[~~~~]

I am honestly shocked that people I kind of respected like Winter and Dae would turn out to be so anti-science.

 

I mean, climate change denial is roughly comparible (from a perspective of how wrong you are) to young Earth creationism, anti-vaxxing, belief in homopathy or a subscription to Info Wars.

 

I don't have any real argument here because I shouldn't need to argue this. I wasn't really aware that the validity of science was up for debate.

[Simping For Hina]

Vaccines cause autism.

[~~~~]

Climate Change isn't real.

 

Vaccines cause autism.

shitposting in debates? really?

[mido9]

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You ninja'd me

[Aerion Brightflame]

So the Skeptics view is that Climate models are wrong about the feedback, but not about the idea that global warming does exist and is an observable phenomena? It contests that carbon dioxide emissions are actually having that much of an effect due to the observed data in a highly complex system. 

 

If true, that's great, it means things are not as bad as many of us are expecting to be. That could be frankly amazing news. Here's the kicker; In what world is that an argument for doing nothing? 

 

The argument doesn't disprove climate change, it doesn't dismiss the potential effects that could happen if temperatures continue to rise, or if sea levels rise. It's not preparatory, it's just an appeasement. Why is it an argument for not preparing and not counter-acting something unanimously agreed to have the effect of warming the atmosphere?

 

Even if the models are wrong, the data (To my knowledge)indicates that say ocean level rising, warmer surface temperature, warmer top ocean layers (From what I've gathered looking at NASA's page on this) are increasing at higher rates now compared to previous years or decades, even if it doesn't match the trends predicted by climate models. 

 

I just don't see why the sceptic view as presented here is an argument for 'everything is fine, keep going with the level of emissions we have now and start dealing with the problem when it becomes apparent'. We can still begin to transition and invest and make non greenhouse emission sources industry leaders and more viable than they currently are. If the sceptic model is right, we have the time to do this which is great. So why not do so? 

[VCR_CAT]

I mean, really people

 

 

97% of scientists agree that Climate Change is a real thing that's happening; this isn't something that's a matter of opinion or belief; you either accept that it's happening and join the discussion of what should be done about it, or you're shutting your ears and ignoring objective, empirical evidence.

 

Really, the only hoax at this point are the people that are being paid to speak out against whether climate change is happening or not. And yes, I say paid because there are well-known people who are paid to argue against something even if there isn't room for argument, and the idea is to spread misinformation in the public so as to keep them from voting for anything that would harm their business. They did this when the FDA wanted to impose more needed restrictions on over-the-counter supplements (Mel Gibson had a few things to say about the Government storming your house with a SWAT team to take your vitamins), and they do this with Climate Change because, ultimately, a green future is one that doesn't rely on fossil fuels.

 

Now, once fusion power is a thing, that's going to revolutionize the world as we see it; it's not only going to be a very powerful method of electrical generation, but it's clean and safer than fission as well. Once our electrical grid is stronger around cities, electrical cars become much more viable and we can move on to more advanced forms of transportation.

 

And honestly, it's difficult to argue that space colonization is the reason to not care; being able to create a self-sufficient colony off Earth is not something we're very capable of doing in the foreseeable future; there are no good planetary candidates that are good enough to house humans in a way that they can not only survive but thrive in our realistically near vicinity. Mars is both too cold and its gravity is too weak, and Venus is too hot to land on (cloud cities still possible but without planetary resources and farms it becomes harder to keep this colonies self-sufficient). For quite some time, we're stuck on this planet and we should be working to take better care of it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

97% of Economists said Trump and Brexit would tank their respect economies in the immediate vicinity of being elected

 

The people realize the elites are full of sheet mate

 

Climate Change is just the latest way to keep economies shackled to global interests 

[Simping For Hina]

3% of scientists is still a lot of scientists.

[VCR_CAT]

97% of Economists said Trump and Brexit would tank their respect economies in the immediate vicinity of being elected

 

The people realize the elites are full of s*** mate

 

Climate Change is just the latest way to keep economies shackled to global interests 

 

not only are economists =/= scientists and these are different people entirely, this proves nothing but "They were wrong once so I'm not going to listen to them ever again".

 

Your argument is no excuse for ignorance, and as I've said many, many times; you need to approach experts and news with a critical mind, not a cynical one. And also, maybe be smart enough to recognize that there's a difference between economists just saying sheet and how not only irrelevant it is towards this topic, and peer-reviewed scientific journals that actual undergo testing and present actual, empirical evidence.

 

This isn't experts just "saying stuff"; this is objective and empirical evidence and to reject such for any reason is nothing more than stupidity and ignorance. You're not doing yourself any favors keeping that tinfoil hat strapped tight, bub.

[Dad]

97% of Economists said Trump and Brexit would tank their respect economies in the immediate vicinity of being elected

 

The people realize the elites are full of sheet mate

 

Climate Change is just the latest way to keep economies shackled to global interests 

 

Except economists aren't climate change scientists, and whether or not Brexit or Trump tanked would affect me or my future.  Just because you can accept that the big bad elites are out to get you, climate change is a Chinese conspiracy theory, and global interests are controlled by the illuminati, doesn't mean I'm gonna lay back and accept it.

 

Hook that coal generator up to your home and close the doors.  Let me know how cool and comfortable it is.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Except economists aren't climate change scientists, and whether or not Brexit or Trump tanked would affect me or my future.  Just because you can accept that the big bad elites are out to get you, climate change is a Chinese conspiracy theory, and global interests are controlled by the illuminati, doesn't mean I'm gonna lay back and accept it.

 

Hook that coal generator up to your home and close the doors.  Let me know how cool and comfortable it is.

If they were right before, we should be underwater by now, we're not

 

What makes you think they're right about the next set of doom and gloom?

[Dad]

If they were right before, we should be underwater by now, we're not

 

What makes you think they're right about the next set of doom and gloom?

 

No, we shouldn't be under water by now.  Because we've been fighting emissions for years. The problem is, we waited too long to get started.  That's not how it works.  By the time we were aware of climate change, we were already decades behind, maybe more.  That's like saying "I'll never change the oil in my car.  I'll just buy a new one."

[VCR_CAT]

If they were right before, we should be underwater by now, we're not

 

What makes you think they're right about the next set of doom and gloom?

 

Citations desperately needed, because I'm not finding any predictions that say the ice caps should've melted by now. Only prediction I could find said 2040.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Economics is not a hard science. It is a massive game of prediction of uncertainty. It is always open for interpretation and you can be wrong very easily. The point of them being 'experts' is that when they are right, or when they are wrong it is based on a relatively high level of understanding about a complex issue supported by evidence and experience. And technically, they were right:

 

The immediate uncertainty of the brexit announcement and the governments poor handling caused the pound to drop and caused the markets the drop. Trump's victory caused a lot of currencies to drop. The markets recovered, but a drop still happened. But the majority of the things these events could do to tank haven't happened yet because there has been no chance to; Brexit has not occurred, and Trump has not instituted any fiscal policies because he is not president yet. 

 

But that's irrevelent to the issue. My point is: Being an 'expert' doesn't mean you are infallable. It just means you have more than a funking laymans understanding of something which makes you more qualified to talk about it. It doesn't make it impossible to be right or wrong. 

 

Especially in science, where often learn more from being wrong than right. If Climatologist models are wrong, then it means they missed something. They should go back to the drawing board and come up with new models to try and explain it. If they aren't doing that, it's dumb, but still. It doesn't effect the evidence. We can witness temperature increases and see how they've been increasing at faster rates. We can do the same for sea level rises, and for ocean acidification. 

 

Even if the models are wrong, it doesn't devalue the observations. Which is that it is a problem that is getting worse. 

 

And even if you ignore that, China an economy who generally don't give a funk about the rest of the worlds concerns about safety and environmental standards when it comes to making money are investing billions into fighting emissions, both in nation and overseas. China is telling the US to stay in the Paris accords. You think that an issue that China is placing above money is one that is just 'a globalist hoax'?

 

And even then - There is money to be made by being the forerunner in clean energy, it's essentially an open market. Why not invest in it instead of industries that are running out of time? 

 

Can I also ask; Is your dismissal of a consesus by 'experts' based any another other than 'they were wrong these few times'? Like maybe a sense of thrill at being able to go 'no I know better than these guys'. Because that's just petty. 

[mido9]

Citations desperately needed, because I'm not finding any predictions that say the ice caps should've melted by now. Only prediction I could find said 2040.

Here:

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

 

There have been predictions that have been saying we should have all been dead in 1985, not the 2000s.

 

Also, the 97% statistic comes from a two question survey which specifically asked:

 

Do you think climate change is real?

Do you think humans contribute to it?

 

It's wild to extrapolate it to mean that 97% of scientists believe the world economy should be warped around combating climate change. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

[Phantom Roxas]

I already shared this in the Trump Administration thread, but I believe it's just as important to share it here. If anyone believes that China created climate change as a "hoax", they have now refuted that claim.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/china-tells-trump-that-climate-change-is-no-hoax-it-invented

[VCR_CAT]

Here:

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

 

There have been predictions that have been saying we should have all been dead in 1985, not the 2000s.

 

Also, the 97% statistic comes from a two question survey which specifically asked:

 

Do you think climate change is real?

Do you think humans contribute to it?

 

It's wild to extrapolate it to mean that 97% of scientists believe the world economy should be warped around combating climate change. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

 

Okay, sweet. Most of what I could find was re: the effects if the ice caps melted, which would be really bad, but nobody was really dropping any date predictions. Also, if we were to use that prediction as an argument to somehow refute scientists today, it wouldn't really work since I highly doubt the people that made those predictions in the 1970's are still working in the field today, or if they're even alive.

 

as for the 97%, I take it as a "97% agree it's a thing that humans are causing and that's happening". As for what we should do about it, warping the entire world economy around it isn't exactly the answer. When a green party says they'll ban the oil industry, that's basically economic suicide. No, I think instead we should still be investing in research towards the matter and especially invest in cleaner energy sources and alternatives to fossil fuels. I mean, if we want to talk the long-run, the fossil fuel industry is one that can only die as resources dwindle. If we can can put our time and effort towards renewable methods instead, then we'll be looking towards a better future overall.