Why is global warming so scary?

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Things didn't change as quickly, and these days people are concerned about things besides the basic survival of the species.
It's a mindless comparison, or worse, mindless propaganda.

That's the concern I see people bring up the most. Like we are at an extinction event. I agree its mindless propaganda

 

[Halifax]

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Stop with these arguments. There was a time when humans didn't exist either, so it's a bad argument to bring up stuff like this since we obviously want to stick around for a long time.

You want me to stop because you got fuck all to say. The same issues we are crying about today were survived 10k years ago by humans...

 

[Ruprecht]

That's the concern I see people bring up the most. Like we are at an extinction event. I agree its mindless propaganda

The previous instances of climate change this rapid were mass extinction events. Humanity will probably survive global warming, that doesn't mean failing to prevent it isn't unforgivably stupid and will result in huge amounts of death and misery.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

No it isn't.

For example, some people want to continue to improve on car emissions standards. This technology seems to actually improve the cars but certainly no one is saying we shouldn't drive cars.

Some want a carbon tax. That doesn't mean we shut down factories.

Some want increased investment and use in solar and wind. If the technologies provide what we need at an affordable cost no sacrifices necessary.

If you have examples of people claiming we need to give things up you can certainly bring those up and argue they're wrong. But the main ideas on how to approach the problem are not in line with what you're claiming.

So fossil fuels are the problem but we aren't going to get rid of them? The argument seems even more wacky then I originally thought

 

[Ruprecht]

You want me to stop because you got fuck all to say. The same issues we are crying about today were survived 10k years ago by humans...

It's not remotely the same issue.

 

[Fawlty]

You want me to stop because you got fuck all to say. The same issues we are crying about today were survived 10k years ago by humans...

Oh cool we don't need to build our structures to withstand earthquakes or do geology or anything. After all, humans survive those things.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

The previous instances of climate change this rapid were mass extinction events.

Obviously not for humans tho...

that doesn't mean failing to prevent it (global warming) isn't unforgivably stupid and will result in huge amounts of death and misery.

What specifically will cause the death and suffering? The issues you bring up are probably MUCH easier then trying to regulate the planets temperature

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

It's not remotely the same issue.

So if it isn't massive loss of land and flooding that you're worried about... what is it?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Oh cool we don't need to build our structures to withstand earthquakes or do geology or anything. After all, humans survive those things.

That was my whole argument dude... humans learned how to live with rising temperatures and the issues that arose as a result . They didnt attempt to change the planets thermostat

 

[Fawlty]

That was my whole argument dude... humans learned how to live with rising temperatures and the issues that arose as a result . They didnt attempt to change the planets thermostat

That's a different, and equally bad argument. You don't get to swap out arguments to to dodge each analogy. Your argument that I responded to was about the human survivability of environmental disaster.

Your argument that we should just adapt to the environment is a failed argument, because our choices and actions have changed the environment, and we have skin in that game. The question is how we should change the environment, now that it is established that we do.

 

[ndwolfwood]

That's a different, and equally bad argument. You don't get to swap out arguments to to dodge each analogy. Your argument that I responded to was about the human survivability of environmental disaster.

Your argument that we should just adapt to the environment is a failed argument, because our choices and actions have changed the environment, and we have skin in that game. The question is how we should change the environment, now that it is established that we do.

Another r selected afraid to have his genes challenged.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

That's a different, and equally bad argument. You don't get to swap out arguments to to dodge each analogy. Your argument that I responded to was about the human survivability of environmental disaster.

Your argument that we should just adapt to the environment is a failed argument, because our choices and actions have changed the environment, and we have skin in that game. The question is how we should change the environment, now that it is established that we do.

My argument hasn't changed. You are just doing your damndest to not understand it.

We are capable of adapting to our environment by making educated decisions that bare fruit or don't. We are not capable of bending the environment to our will. Sure we can effect it, but to pretend we can control it is fucking asinine.

Using your hilarious earthquake example.... we changed our building materials to withstand earthquakes. We didnt attempt to end earthquakes altogether. That would be incredibly stupid and wasteful

 

[INTERL0PER]

The same issues we are crying about today were survived 10k years ago by humans...

Yeah, we survived... barely.

And the reason people want us to stop contributing to climate change, is that all indicators point to the climate warming as a fucking catastrophic event that will lead to a lot of pain, suffering and death.

It's entirely possible (and likely) that SOME humans survive, but it's not going to be a fun journey.

You know this whole refugee crisis? That's partly fueled by climate change. Crops are drying up and people can't feed themselves, so they're trying to move to (literally) greener pastures. Of course our obsession with war only exacerbates this. The refugee crisis is already reaching critical levels... and if the seas rise, that problem is going to become exponentially worse.

The vast majority of the human population lives on the coasts. There are so many major cities that will potentially have to be evacuated. This will displace literally billions of people. This will make land and resources even more of a premium than they are now. Wars will escalate, famine will increase. Meanwhile, we're endangering record numbers of animals and threatening them with extinction, which again, just makes everything worse.

The reason people like you receive so much vitriol in these threads is because you seem to be ignorant of these repercussions, despite the fact that it's widely available information. Your ignorance then leads to say things like...

I think you are missing my point that warmer weather can have amazing benefits on societies. What are you zo afraid of?

Which is so fucking ignorant that it borders on offensive. What are we afraid of? Nothing less than the collapse of society.

This thread does remind me of a Guardian article from a few days ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

The TLDR of it is that we basically are fucked and we've probably past the point of no return. That's this one scientist's opinion anyway. I'm full aware of the fucked up nature of the situation, and think we're going to have some rough decades ahead, but I'm also optimistic about the future of technology and how that's going to reshape our society.

Who knows. Fingers crossed.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Yeah, we survived... barely.

And the reason people want us to stop contributing to climate change, is that all indicators point to the climate warming as a fucking catastrophic event that will lead to a lot of pain, suffering and death.

It's entirely possible (and likely) that SOME humans survive, but it's not going to be a fun journey.

You know this whole refugee crisis? That's partly fueled by climate change. Crops are drying up and people can't feed themselves, so they're trying to move to (literally) greener pastures. Of course our obsession with war only exacerbates this. The refugee crisis is already reaching critical levels... and if the seas rise, that problem is going to become exponentially worse.

The vast majority of the human population lives on the coasts. There are so many major cities that will potentially have to be evacuated. This will displace literally billions of people. This will make land and resources even more of a premium than they are now. Wars will escalate, famine will increase. Meanwhile, we're endangering record numbers of animals and threatening them with extinction, which again, just makes everything worse.

The reason people like you receive so much vitriol in these threads is because you seem to be ignorant of these repercussions, despite the fact that it's widely available information. Your ignorance then leads to say things like...



Which is so fucking ignorant that it borders on offensive. What are we afraid of? Nothing less than the collapse of society.

This thread does remind me of a Guardian article from a few days ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

The TLDR of it is that we basically are fucked and we've probably past the point of no return. That's this one scientist's opinion anyway. I'm full aware of the fucked up nature of the situation, and think we're going to have some rough decades ahead, but I'm also optimistic about the future of technology and how that's going to reshape our society.

Who knows. Fingers crossed.

Ohhhh so now we are getting to solvable problems like famine and water shortages. You see instead of trying to regulate earth's temperature, we should learn how to live within our habitat and its unique challenges

 

[Gutter Chris]

So the ocean levels rise a bit. We'll know ahead of time where and can evacuate those areas.

But everything gets warmer. There's a net energy increase. That means longer warm seasons. Longer farming seasons. More food.

I would bet that in the past, periods of global cooling sucked balls. Who the fuck wanted to live in an ice age?? We were probably at war left and right for the scarce resources and foo. Periods of global warming were probably the most peaceful and thriving periods in human history. Great weather, happy people, longer farming seasons, food and wild game in abundance.

What do you want to do about all the refuges from all the shithole countries that are no longer habitable ? You think that they are just going to respect borders and go die ?

How much do you think it will cost to move just americans from the coasts inland? Can we afford to do that and deal with the rest of the world in crisis as well? As false pointed out to you we are talking about the collapse of civilization. Might work itself out down the road but it will get very ugly first

What do you want to do if while all of this is going on there is a mass famine ?

Its not just weather and water all kinds of political issues and hostilities between people are likely to arise .

These are just a few of the problems that will have to be dealt with at the same time if global warming continues and a major reason why we want to slow it/ try to reverse as much of it as possible

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Ok so what can we do to stop it?

I guess we'll just evacuate coastlines and move people inland, and rebuild cities, and move farms to wherever the climate shifts. Ok. Worse shit's happened. Like WW II probably sucked way more.

Wow, dude do some reading and then maybe then start a thread to discuss it .

 

[Fawlty]

My argument hasn't changed. You are just doing your damndest to not understand it.

We are capable of adapting to our environment by making educated decisions that bare fruit or don't. We are not capable of bending the environment to our will. Sure we can effect it, but to pretend we can control it is fucking asinine.

Using your hilarious earthquake example.... we changed our building materials to withstand earthquakes. We didnt attempt to end earthquakes altogether. That would be incredibly stupid and wasteful

And now you're blatantly strawmanning my earthquake example after I explicitly stated that it was in response to the human survival of disasters, and not to your point about adaptability.

You also failed to answer my response about one of your poorly-thought out ideas about adaptability. We do change the environment. We can now say that if we continue to burn fossils at the rates we do today, and the higher rates we expect in the future, that we will affect the climate in certain ways. So, given that we affect the climate, and given that we know that we affect the climate, and given that we have a pretty good idea of how we affect the climate, we are thus, right now...bending the environment to our will. It then becomes a question of how we wish to bend it. Smart people agree that we should reduce our use of fossils, to slow our contribution to global warming and climate change.

 

[Limbo Pete]

You can pm if you want my opinion on that stuff. Pretty sure we aren't supposed to publicly discuss mod actions like that. That is also another completely irrelevant derail of the thread. @Limbo Pete

Do you have any relevant thoughts on this thread?

One thing you should not do is complain about a derail while feeding it. End the conversation and use the report button if needed. Put people on ignore if you want. Do not abuse the report button though.
And don't whine at me plz.

 

[Ruprecht]

Obviously not for humans tho...

What specifically will cause the death and suffering? The issues you bring up are probably MUCH easier then trying to regulate the planets temperature

Lack of food security, water security, increased spread of diseases (both animal and plant) and mass relocation.
Nomadic societies are largely not relevant to our current population and environmental carrying capacity.