Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom

This is funny.

Scientists find the optimal temperature for life (in this case the temperature that maximizes biodiversity) to be 20 Celsius

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-ch...

Then they claim it means climate warming is bad, even if...

I find your post funny.

When that person start using science I cringe .

Climate change/global warming is real. There's NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about that.

However, the question is are gas stoves, gas vehicles, and cows passing gas causing it or is it a cyclical part of our planet's evolution? What no one talks about is every other planet in our solar system is also going through a "global worming" which scientists say it's due to increased solar activity.

So there you have it (sorry to all the globalists who are using it as an enslavement opportunity).

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index....

It is as if u believe any physical activities or burning stuff do not create heat …..

The "very serious people", the "experts" caused a very significant portion of recent global warming in their fight against air and sea pollution

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-evidence-r...

Sulfates cool the planet (allow more energy to be reflected back) , and what did the experts do?

reduce sulfur content in ships fuel by law because reasons.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how....

what's the solution for this insane **** up by experts?

more collectivism of course, more regulations, more socialism, and we can always claim to the general public that the warming is entirely from CO2 (even if we now know the recent spikes aren't), blame fossil fuels and ask for ... more socialism, less consumption, the meat ban and so on and on

If the Sun is trying to kill us, I think we should try even harder to cut CO2 emissions and buy time to put up our defenses.

This whole argument of man made vs natural is dumb. Climate is changing and we should slow down the pace of change and adapt, whether the change is manmade or natural.

by Luciom P

The "very serious people", the "experts" caused a very significant portion of recent global warming in their fight against air and sea pollution

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-evidence-r...

Sulfates cool the planet (allow more energy to be reflected back) , and what did the experts do?

reduce sulfur content in ships fuel by law because reasons.

Show More...

It’s not less consumption , it’s just about find better alternative energy through innovation .
And those things u complain it just a way to force innovation to start since not much funding and work been done the last 30 years through your awesome “freedom and free market “….

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...

"World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target"

Exclusive: Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds

FWIW , for weeks we saw many parts of Philippines exceeding 45 degrees Celsius.
It creates big problems now ..

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/gallery/20...

People complain about inflation .
Let’s wait when those countries won’t be able to produce rice and many other sources of food …
An American farmer won’t cost 1$ an hour ….
Immigration is bad now ? lol -> hold my beer for the next decade !

a truly psychotic account of an apocalyptic cult that has to be completely removed from any decision making process and with it any person who doesn't recognize those people and that thinking process are the biggest threat to humanity, not the world getting marginally hotter.

the list of completely insane claims in the article is too long to write, it's basically every sentence being totally out of whack from actual science, a truly grotesque collection of psychopathic claims by people with actually serious mental illnesses (as declared by some of them in the article itself).

jfc if we needed any further proof climate change is being exaggerated by orders of magnitude in it's impact, now we don't anymore.

The homeowners insurance market is collapsing in a lot of climate vulnerable locations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/clima...

Residential real estate and related mortgages are enormous and leveraged asset on balance sheets across the USA. Climate change is en route to punching our lights out.

Capitalism was a wonderful tool for lifting people up for a long time. But human civilization needs to pivot away from economic growth as its fundamental measuring stick. The planet is not growing. We are living with finite resources.

Climate messaging is difficult because people are naturally selfish and consumed with surviving the short-term. Very few people actively care about the experience of others beyond their own lifespans. So there is little interest for people to even attempt to educate themselves.

We currently have the personal liberty to add unlimited amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. The average American is responsible for about 30,000 lbs per year while the IPCC scientists are saying we need to get to a global average of about 5,000 lbs per capita by 2030. This liberty must disappear in order for some semblance of human civilization to be maintained.

This liberty is similar to the liberty to own slaves in Alabama 200 years ago. There was no place to in the South to have a discussion about that liberty in the 1820's. Just as there is no place in America to discuss the liberty to add CO2 to the environment.

When the financial system cracks .... the conversation will emerge.

Mostly agree with this but I would rather put the burden more on infinite amount of debts being printed , resulted from a fiat monetary system , providing excess demands and overconsumption of resources instead of blaming capitalism system .
Current Capitalism isn’t perfect , we saw its flaws today due to a bad monetary medium but that could change and making it better down the road .

"everything I dislike is like slavery"

Capitalism is a serious problem but the idea that growth is the problem is a disasterous one.

We urgently need to tackle climate change and it's going to take a lot of hard headed realism rather than anti growth thingy which is many fallacies rolled into one and worse it means never dealing with the problem. We can't afford that

I admit that I wouldn't be sure if you were on team "we need to eliminate growth in order solve climate issues"

It would be better if we all just turn off our cars and wear fish net clothing.

If people actually wanted to reduce emissions the most with the smallest impact on daily life, it would be quite possible with a fraction of the costs currently imposed on rich countries.

First of all, people emit much more CO2 in rich countries than in poor countries, as everyone is reminded every day by the left.

Well a corollary of that is that there is then a moral imperative to ban all immigration from poor countries, obviously, IF CO2 emissions are the threat the left says.

Every time a person moves from say Bangladesh or Nigeria to the USA or the UK, that's a massive increase in CO2 emissions over decades.

Make that illegal.

Then we can massively increase nuclear energy production, like every rich country should produce as much as france at the very minimum, as a % of total (if France can do it, anyone can).

Theoretically we could be able to produce all energy with nuclear and hydro and a bit of solar/wind.

But nuclear needs to be the backbone for 24/7/365 baseline production.

Then transportation is either electric or fuel synthesized with nuclear energy.

But see, the above wouldn't imply socialism, nor any change in how we live, so...

Everytime you hear someone talking about emission reduction as a moral necessity who isn't in favor of severely limiting or outright banning immigration from poor countries, and isn't in favor of massive subsidies and a strong push for nuclear above everything else, you know you are facing a lying hypocrite who is criminally using climate change talks to instead push for his preferred socialist policies.

I appreciate the honesty of arguing to **** the poor while a small group get all the goodies. Not a fan myself alhtough I dont doubt that may well be a lage part of the way we go with an increasingly small group having more and more of the wealth while the rest of us go to hell.

I'm unashamedly in favour of socialist policies even without climate change. Climate change is going to make it much harder because there's going to be a lot of war and general misery which tends to favour more your sort of world.

poors would only be "suspended" in their progress through immigration, but after emissions are solved (and it's a very quick thing if we act properly without leftism, it's a couple of decades at most) immigration can resume. We just need a ton of nuclear energy then we can carbon capture as much as we want, it's all feasible with today technology, and in theory technology does improve fairly fast with time.

What is certain is that we don't need in any way to change how we live, and anybody claiming that is in complete bad faith. Even if we want to believe the problem of climate change is as big as proponents claim (and ofc they are grotesquely exaggerating it by orders of magnitude), and even if emission reduction had to be an actual first priority, we could do that living the same way we do today, and with growing economies. As with literally every other thing we might desire to achieve as groups of human beings, socialist policies are actually insanely detrimental, and we would already have solved emissions (in the paris agreement sense) just by going nuclear as much as france 10-15 years ago.

But if we keep destroying productive economy, which is what you need to have the money to go nuclear (and to the other, far less important, things that can still help a bit like mass reforestation of vast empty land and so on), it all gets slower and worse.

And btw a lot of leftist people are against nuclear lol, those are the enemy a lot more than climate change deniers.

Leftist anything = bad per the Fascist.

I'm not an ideologue.

I think capitalism is appropriate in some instances and socialism is appropriate in others.

If a person is smart enough to become a doctor and is willing to invest a decade in studies and residency to get there, they deserve to be paid more than a waiter.

In the case of the atmosphere, it is a globally shared resource that all 8 billion people and lots of critters are dependent upon its being within a habitable range. I don't think wealth should provide someone with the privilege to pollute it and contribute to its destruction.

As it pertains to that globally shared resource, I believe we need a globally binding treaty and a communist approach to protecting it.

This is a difficult issue to have an intelligent discussion around when people seek to discredit any substantive discussion with ideological attacks.

In WW2, we rationed lots of things like coffee, butter, gasoline, meat, etc as we came together to fight a global war.

We need to ration carbon emissions. That isn't going to be easy. If we can't give up recreational emissions such as those associated with internation jet travel, then what can we give up ?

Nut, you should start with understanding capital controls bretton woods strategy and how that works for rationing effectively than some third grade socialism communism idiot talking point. Look at tobin taxing and how that affects things.

Everything you said looks great until you begin to understand how things operate and that none of what your asking revolves over some idiotic capitalism vrs socialism macro power force that solves everything.

There are a lot of very intelligent folks out there attempting to formulate the best approach to your questions and you're not going to solve the problem by saying that we came together 80 years ago and why cant we give up recreational emissions?