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....
.
This is a false (or contrived) impression you have that I don't want to see repeated. I'm a "western" person myself and don't want unnecessary deaths anywhere in the world.
So you donate every cent you don't need for survival for medical care of poor people and other necessities? and ask for a reduction of welfare in the UK , where you vote, to basic survival levels to send everything else to the poorest countries in the world? no?
Then you do operate under asymmetrical tradeoff considerations where you do NOT value all lives identically (as nobody except maybe some missionaires do)
Oh ffs
So you donate every cent you don't need for survival for medical care of poor people and other necessities? and ask for a reduction of welfare in the UK , where you vote, to basic survival levels to send everything else to the poorest countries in the world? no?
Then you do operate under asymmetrical tradeoff considerations where you do NOT value all lives identically (as nobody except maybe some missionaires do)
So if you don't act fully and completely towards an ideal, it's not actually a position you hold? People are allowed to be imperfect and changing and inconsistent. That doesn't mean they don't believe in things.
So if you don't act fully and completely towards an ideal, it's not actually a position you hold? People are allowed to be imperfect and changing and inconsistent. That doesn't mean they don't believe in things.
Yes revealed preferences determine what you ACTUALLY believe in, with regard to tradeoffs.
You can't claim you value human life over animal life and then spend more for you dogs than for a destitute infant in Congo.
Just admit your dog is worth a lot more than most human beings for you and move on.
Or lie and accept it when people tell you it's objectively a lie.
It's not about striving and not managing to achieve. It's about lying about your preferences for hypocritical reasons AND to then be able to force others to do your bidding.
If you are expoused as being a selfish bastard like almost everyone is, you can't use "hey that's selfish" to criticize anyone behavior, for example.
You can't claim it's proper to mandate TO ME your moral preferences about (purportedly trying to )helping Bangladeshi people when you don't, with your own money, live according to those tradeoffs.
Just stop the disgusting, embarrassing attempt to claim a moral superiority in the topic and admit you just want to violently impose your tradeoff preferences on others because you hate freedom
Freedom has never been more solipsistic apparently
Oh,,, good one, nerd
Yes revealed preferences determine what you ACTUALLY believe in, with regard to tradeoffs.
You can't claim you value human life over animal life and then spend more for you dogs than for a destitute infant in Congo.
Just admit your dog is worth a lot more than most human beings for you and move on.
Or lie and accept it when people tell you it's objectively a lie.
It's not about striving and not managing to achieve. It's about lying about your p
Ite entirely conbsistant to value human life above animal life and your dog over ~all individual humans
Yes revealed preferences determine what you ACTUALLY believe in, with regard to tradeoffs.
You can't claim you value human life over animal life and then spend more for you dogs than for a destitute infant in Congo.
Just admit your dog is worth a lot more than most human beings for you and move on.
Or lie and accept it when people tell you it's objectively a lie.
It's not about striving and not managing to achieve. It's about lying about your p
lol seriously ?....
its certainly not about the living cost is vastly different from one country to another.
furthermore maybe the people in congo should had some responsibilities in the matter ?
you are for freedom so why you dont let them live the life they chose in congo as they see fit instead of blaming us taking care of dogs in our own country instead of their children in congo ...?
you can find studies agreeing with your wild claim, what you CAN'T FIND is a purported 97-99% consensus about THOSE studies, do you understand that part? it's NOT TRUE that climate scientists agree as much as you want to claim about those claims. It simply isn't. They don't agree.
find me a study that contradicts this one ?
that study is just based on satellite picture .
so its obviously bias.
Each of the last 12 months, from June 2023 through May 2024, has been the hottest month of its kind on record. And six of the last seven years have been the planet’s most intense for wildfires, the team found. In the study published Monday in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, they report that since 2003, the amount of extreme wildfires has increased by a factor of 2.2—and their intensity has risen by a factor of 2.3. Last year topped the charts for the most intense wildfires ever recorded.
In the study, the scientists analyzed NASA satellite data for the top 0.01 percent of wildfires, ranked by the amount of energy released per day. They arrived at a sample size of about 2,900 of these extreme events between January 2003 and November 2023.
They found that the number of fires occurring in temperate conifer forests, including spruce and pine forests in western North America, has increased 11.1 times over the past two decades.
Im not sure you see this but there is a distinction between extrapolating what will happen in 20 years and what actually happened from 20 years ago to today .
the way you speak it seem you disagree on the datas they collected and they read it wrong ?
really ?
Now you can come here and tell us no, thos increase been done by another reason but to claim the study been wrong on what thay actually reported as datas is lol...
And fwiw, this is just an another example that confirm all the increase of bad climate events predicted decades ago.
Not really because now you have introduced valuing them all the same.
but yes you can value all people the same and still give some preferential treatment. That's probably best providing they all are given similar preferential treatments. That's a mattter of socirty structures.
you did as well if you valued human life above animal life.
if you allow for several axis of values (like real people do) then emotional proximity to the value source is a very common such axis, and there is no inherent moral superiority (or lack thereof) in giving much weight to that axis.
Ie if you can upgrade a dog above most single human lives because you like that dog in particular, that works with humans v humans if they are members of any group you have any affinity with .
you can value a physician a lot more than a poker player, a member of religion x much more than a member of religion y and so on and so.
fact is we all do in some form. so why deny it?
No that's just wrong.
Yes poximity matters but for simialr proximity humans are more valued than animals. there's no real comparison for ~everyone who may well consider a pet a familly member but would value their kid way above their pet. That's becaue they value humans more than animals.
No that's just wrong.
Yes poximity matters but for simialr proximity humans are more valued than animals. there's no real comparison for ~everyone who may well consider a pet a familly member but would value their kid way above their pet. That's becaue they value humans more than animals.
and humans starts all at the same notional value then proximity changes it dramatically for everyone. and that's only one axis, then there are other value axis like age (for many people , children are worth more than elders) , and many inherent characteristics of the person (can be anything from political opinion, to criminal record, to job and so on).
we all value human lives dramatically differently according to a series of factors (not the same factors with the same weights for everyone), so the "all human life is worth the same" is a brutal, blatant lie.
and we shouldn't base policy considerations on brutal moral lies.
so back to topic, it's absurd on it's face to posit anything resembling a "we should wait the quality of lives of random strangers far away the same as our citizens lives when deciding what to do given climate warming exists". it's completely insane, deprived of any moral standing *because we never do that for any other policy consideration*.
and we don't because people don't live their lives according to that principle, ie revealed preferences prove we don't believe all human lives are worth the same at all.
and anything that goes against the shared normal moral attitude (the real, revealed one) of people is literally anti-human
That's correct lots of axis. including cost. Still constistent with all lives having equal value. It just means that human value is not the only factor.
It's also the case that most people dont value everyone equally. But we value them enough to be concerned about the impact of climate change etc. That's why the vast majority of us wont support just killing them off.
Generally those who want us to support '**** em' type policies have to either dehumanise them or get them out of sight. There is a very good reason for that - we do value them.
The hottest country in the world has an average temperature of 29 degrees. So that is a long way away from total inhospitability. Even if global temperatures rise 2 or 3 degrees, the hot countries might rise less in temperature, which is what we've seen so far as per the NASA temperature data posted previously. Obviously heat waves can still be deadly, and counter measures towards adaption should be taken, but we're a long way from millions of deaths from climate change or whatever speculative nonsense is bantered about as if it were fact. And even if we did have to evacuate some of the most hardest hit countries, we could easily do so. Lots of unused space in Russia, Canada, etc. We could probably relocate 6 billion people to Ontario if we needed to. Ontario is huge. And in 40-50 years the world is going to have so much more productive capability, technology, population, aka ability to mitigate any problems.
"**** em".
Send them to Mars to start that space colony thing.
Poster talking about its easy to move around a substantial amount of humans, delusional.
Poster talking about "random strangers having same wait (sic) as our citizens..." is missing the point that we share the same atmosphere. It doesn't just become greenhouse "over yonder".
We all share this beautiful spaceship, Earth, together. What "goes against the shared normal moral attitude (the real, revealed one) of people" is not stepping up and being leader and taking proactive measures to make sure our spaceships life support systems aren't compromised.
But you know, the cold kills more people, so making the atmosphere have higher and higher concentrations of C02 is good for us; keeps grandpa cozy and promotes better cognition. LOL gtfoh
The hottest country in the world has an average temperature of 29 degrees. So that is a long way away from total inhospitability. Even if global temperatures rise 2 or 3 degrees, the hot countries might rise less in temperature, which is what we've seen so far as per the NASA temperature data posted previously. Obviously heat waves can still be deadly, and counter measures towards adaption should be taken, but we're a long way from millions
Your lack of knowledge and how average temperature works is mesmerizing.
If Canada hit a 25 average temperature I wonder what temperature will be elsewhere .
Ps: I rather you do your part instead of Ontario getting 6 billions people .
That is why we actually need right now to do something ….
Pss technology been around a long time already and all those miracles you believe didn’t happen yet .
No idea why you think it would be different the next 30 years .
And where would you grow food ?
"As above, so below"
The growing river in the atmosphere will be matched by one below, on Earth's surface...
Lots of red
again, i am talking western countries. After we settle western countries we can discuss the rest.
The fact that to counter my claim, which is that warming saves lives in the west, you constantly need to talk about other places, is kinda proof of the fact you admit i am right on the claim.
So, am i? does a warmer UK save british lives?
Your question makes sense if we view the world as neatly divided sections where the conditions and reality of one section does not affect the conditions and reality of other sections. Kind of like viewing other countries as fanciful terrariums.
Of course this is not even remotely close to how the world operates, so your question is fairly moot.
However, if we take your question at face-value and ignore obvious cases as to why we should not (like Syria, arguably the first climate-change induced destabilization of a state), then the following is rather predictable for your UK: Greatly reduced output of agriculture and fishing industry, enormous immigration pressures, the collapse of many international agreements and diplomatic relations (especially trade agreements), enormous increases in food prices and cost of living in general, economic depression and very likely also economic depression. The price of keeping your most important alliances alive will likely mean you are dragged into several international conflicts and wars, this in a world where even the strained diplomatic relations of today will seem like desirable times.
If we ignore all that and just look the direct impact on the human body, you live in a place with high humidity in summer. When high humidity combines with high temperatures, the human body loses its ability to regulate body temperature and you take a beating and might also very well die. The increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will also quite literally make your entire population dumber.
