Climate Change General Discussion - Is it manmade, is it natural, what are its effects and what should we do about it?

[#FF0000]

I've been thinking about this topic for a while and I want to make a thread, without posting in another dead one, about this topic and generate some discussion about it.

Personally, I have a fairly normal opinion on it. I think it's part natural, part manmade, and that we should ideally reduce our emissions by a realistic amount while holding the actual polluters (China & India mostly) accountable and make them change. However, I do think we should adapt to climate change. We're technically still in an ice age, and much more warming is expected, so it's best to adapt now than wait for later. Not saying that we should forcefully switch to EVs in the next five years, or we should cripple our electrical grid, but if we can make changes with minimal human impact, we should make those.

The one somewhat unpopular opinion I do have is climate change used to be mostly manmade. Between 1940 and 1980, sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions dramatically increased, and then decreased after this period as we began to switch to SO₂.

SO₂ in the atmosphere cools the planet, which is why major volcanic eruptions can cool the earth. For example, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which can be easily spotted on the chart, and caused global temperatures to decrease by 0.5°C (0.9°F) for 2-3 years. This led to the fear of global cooling spreading around in the 70s, which can be seen in some covers of Time Magazine around this time.

Ever since we reduced our SO₂ emissions, the planet has been warming. This makes total sense, but the media has been completely manipulating this outcome and spinning it to fuel their own narrative.

What do you guys think, and am I possibly missing something in all of this?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Is it manmade, is it natural, what are its effects and what should we do about it?​

Yes, yes, the climate changes, nothing.

 

[WTBOnlineFather]

What do you guys think, and am I possibly missing something in all of this?

I think you're missing a lot of superfluous politisperging and >YOU VILL OWN NOFINK and tribal bullshit required to make this information palatable to the average normalfaggot. You can't just politely acknowledge that China and India the world's worst polluters and must share responsibility, nor is it acceptable for you to assert that the climate isn't naturally perfectly stable and unchanging. You aren't truly concerned about the environment unless you're blocking roads and campaigning for white Europeans to be legally mandated to live in pods and eat bugs.

 

[Party Hat Wurmple]

What do you guys think, and am I possibly missing something in all of this?

You're missing the context of the fact that this climate change narrative has existed long before many of us were even born. Back in the late 70s and 80s the narrative was global rising temperatures. They even had a "NEW YORK CITY WILL BE UNDERWATER BEFORE END OF CENTURY" narrative. They were wrong. They changed the nature of this subject and topic many times to serve whatever narrative the government felt like society should push. It's a pure grift and it always has been. None of the information has remained consistent. Every single study done has been proven wrong. This is the world's largest scam of moving goal posts. The fact anyone at all still bothers to acknowledge this as a legitimate science is proof that humanity deserved the Nibiru Cataclysm a long fucking time ago.

However, you wouldn't know any of this unless you talked to old people, which many young people do not. So go figure.

I'm not quiet about how much I hate Academia. Our science fields are just a few notches ahead of cult-like societies. There is nothing positive that humanity can gain towards scientific research when men's livelihoods and career aspirations are directly tied to the academic system. You have too many faggots who are easy to control. Studies and research are easily corruptible. It's remarkably easy to blacklist someone out of academic fields. As a senior scientist, if a student disproves my theories that I've spent my 20+ year career working on, there is no motivation for me to not do everything in my power to stifle, dissuade, and destroy their research. I have every motivation to make sure their studies never see the light of day, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. Now expand this idea to every science field, because it happens in every single one. Now add a government and media apparatus that wants to promote a narrative and gives me big paychecks to promote Climate Change and silence any naysayers. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they do this. We've seen them do it with transgenderism.

It's all fake. It always has been. The earth naturally shifts it's climate and weather patterns with the magnetic poles. But we've known this for nearly 50 years. Over the past 50 years every narrative has fallen apart. The holes in the Ozone closed on their own. We even learned that the planet has actually adapted to our carbon emission output. Nobody had any idea the planet could even do that. Yet, we have countries who have taxes for cows breathing. Yes, places have successfully passed laws for the cow fart carbon credit taxes. It's not about the environment. It's about political and financial gain and control. It's fake n gay and always has been. And if you believe in climate change, formerly global warming, formerly greenhouse gases, formerly carbon emission heating, formerly rising temperatures, formerly climate related weather incidents etc. you're legitimately retarded and should kill yourself.

 

[ENDTOPII]

ideally reduce our emissions

actual polluters

I know I will sound like a sperg about this, due to my post here. But, these two words have a very different meanings. The emission word was created to make it so you can label anything as "bad", every single chemical reaction emits something. Pollution has a connection to negative health and environmental effects (if it's bad for mammals or plants, it's probably bad for you too).

Just want to make that distinction clear before retards start talking about "pollutions not being bad".

---

My problem with "climate change" is that (as you said), the lingo can twist a "0.5°C in difference" meme to start regulating stuff that will have zero effect on combating said "change" (that isn't even proven to be man made). But I have another issue with all of this, and it is related to my previous sperging with the words before.

There is this idea of saving water for an example, so to do that, one of the things they want to do is to make cotton clothes (cotton req. a lot of water) more expensve and introduce "recyclable" textiles. These "recyclable textiles" are pretty much polyester and cotton mixes. So you have now introduced people wearing recycled polyester clothes as a measurement to save water. In order to recycle most plastics, you have to add phthalates. So in order to save water in this case, you have added harmful substances in order to do so.

Spoiler: crash course in plastic

Everytime you heat up plastics, it gets more "stiff", more powder'ish (look at a piece of plastic that has been out in the sun for a long time, it's pretty much becomes a type of dust). So in order to make it "stick together" and be soft again (like clothes and food bags have to be), you add phthalates, these chemicals are proven to be endocrine disruptors. This is the reason for why you see kids entering puberty 2 to up to 5 years earlier than what is biological normal, it's why you got these new cancer types and hormone conditions that didn't exist 100 years ago etc. It really is mostly because everything we eat and wear on our skin is pozzed with phthalates.

Yes, if you read what I just wrote there, a fresh petroleum batch of plastic is (probably) less harmful for your body than a "recycled" batch of plastic.

So to save water, they are introducing products that are harmful for you health. These policies that prioritizes "a temperature change" meme before my own health is what really sets me off to really questioning the motives here. Because they (corporations mostly and then western governments) justify this with some really sketchy data, and neglect the things that are well documented. Same shit can be said about "saving trees", if you are not going to have wood (that has a low risk of affecting your health negatively), then you will probably end up with some recycled plastic there too... I'm losing my mind on this!

We are supposed to "fight climate change" to save our health, but in the process it has just made it worst and hasn't done anything to fix said "climate change".

 

[ShiftyBoi]

I'm sure there's some legitimacy to people using climate change as a grift, but I often wonder what the end game is. Like cutting down on pollutants, using less energy to conserve resources, making more room for green space and not destroying the ecosystem around you are all pretty sound ideas even if you think scientists want you to cut your dick off.
We need the environment to survive and more often than not the people naysaying this idea are the people unwilling to give up incredibly destructive practices. I sometimes feel like if a scientist told one of these people not to inhale lead based gasoline they'd do it just to stick it to them.

This is anecdotal but where I live the climate has radically shifted from when I was a kid. We used to get consistent snow, now it starts later every year, we're lucky if we get a few inches, and it only lasts a couple days before melting. It's comfortable to believe that we're coming out of an ice age or something but I also can't help but think it has something to do with massive fields of my home state being replaced with numerous vacant parking lots and lofts no one lives in. Meanwhile nearly into November we still have sprinkler systems going to keep the grass greener for longer, even more shit wasted.

There is this idea of saving water for an example, so to do that, one of the things they want to do is to make cotton clothes (cotton req. a lot of water) more expensve and introduce "recyclable" textiles. These "recyclable textiles" are pretty much polyester and cotton mixes. So you have now introduced people wearing recycled polyester clothes. In order to recycle most plastics, you have to add phthalates. So in order to save water in this case, you have added harmful substances in order to do so.

I don't wanna throw the idea recyclable clothing out too fast because recently I learned about "fast fashion" and how wasteful it is. People will buy clothes made in sweatshops to wear once or twice and then they either toss them or let them deteriorate on their own. And then inevitably the long lasting plastic used to make the clothes winds up somewhere it shouldn't be.

You are right tho the solution is not "yet more plastic, just toss it in the microwave".

However you feel about this stuff, fake and gay and real and worrisome, it's always best not to be a doomer about it. No matter what happens humanity can adapt.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

I am not too concerned by global climate change, but rather the related topic of environmental degradation which I would argue is clearly exacerbated by human activity. The situation is especially concerning in the Middle East, China, USA and parts of Eastern Europe with little done to address the core of the issue. That's without bringing up the especially egregious examples of specific locations like Nauru, the Cancer Alley, Lake Urmia and the Aral Sea. In those cases, I would argue that the scientific community is right about the severity of environmental degradation as caused by humans.

 

[#FF0000]

but I also can't help but think it has something to do with massive fields of my home state being replaced with numerous vacant parking lots and lofts no one lives in

Depending on the plant, yes. Corn fields can provide a ton of moisture locally, and I think some other plants have the same effect.

 

[Meriasek]

Climate science is a complicated topic. By nature, the studied systems are extremely large and pretty chaotic. It's very hard to make long term predictions in these. Additionally, the focus on CO2 being the main driver in radiative forcing is, imo, a bit narrow and politically influenced. The current models seem to be based on a lot of data that seems a bit poorly controlled in terms of systematic errors, and error propagation through the various model iterations would likely result in the models having zero predictive power beyond a year or two.
Physically it is plausible that humanity has had a significant impact on local climate, which results in emerging large scale effects. Increased urbanisation, drying out of wetlands, and the increase and subsequent reduction of SO2 very likely has a huge impact on weather patterns on a large scale, but somehow we only talk about CO2.
Additionally, we only talk about all the things we need to do to reduce CO2 (except nuclear power), but not mitigation of foreseeable consequences.
If we run the risk of increased weather extremes, swinging from drought to flood and back depending on area, and climate change being non-reversible in the current state of predictions, we should prepare. But not enough is done, why?
Protecting the environment should focus more on, well, the environment in general. Decreasing pollution, not just CO2 emission. Wetland restoration where possible, reforestation with trees fitting the habitat (Germany's forests have been dying since, uh, the 80s or so, the thing is that many of them aren't natural forests, but basically pine farms for industrial use, and while they're growing fast, they're also in regions that aren't good for them), and the big one, plastic usage and other endocrine disruptors everywhere that we're not looking at enough.
Microplastics, contraceptives, all that shit. I can't believe any of that is good for us, and we need to talk about that honestly, study it, and mitigate the damage already done.
I don't know if climate change as told by the IPCC is real. I don't think they really know, either, if they were honest about the error bars. But environmental protection and reduction of fossile fuel use and recycling as well as reduction of waste where possible are good things either way, I think everyone can agree that the air quality in at least western cities has improved dramatically with the introduction of diesel particle filters and stricter regulations for all sorts of pollution. I like that the air and water at least seem to be cleaner, and I'd like that to continue. Do something about microplastics and endocrine disruptors.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Depending on the plant, yes. Corn fields can provide a ton of moisture locally, and I think some other plants have the same effect.

Because of this CAPE values over Iowa corn fields on hot, clear summer days can easily be in excess of 10,000J/kg.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

Since my previous post gave examples of environmental degradation outside of the West, I would also like to remind all Europoors that there's a metric shit ton of chemical agents dumped by the Soviets and Allies that are now leaking into the Baltic. The munitions are stored in easily corroded containers with varying potential to cause all types of interesting cancers. Nobody actually knows how much is lying on the seabed and how much of the carcinogenic mixture is being released. Again, a clear example of humans fucking up a natural environmental and I strongly recommend not to consume fish from the Baltic.

 

[Meriasek]

Since my previous post gave examples of environmental degradation outside of the West, I would also like to remind all Europoors that there's a metric shit ton of chemical agents dumped by the Soviets and Allies that are now leaking into the Baltic. The munitions are stored in easily corroded containers with varying potential to cause all types of interesting cancers. Nobody actually knows how much is lying on the seabed and how much of the carcinogenic mixture is being released. Again, a clear example of humans fucking up a natural environmental and I strongly recommend not to consume fish from the Baltic.

There's still phosphor ammunitions from WWII in the North Sea as well, people are advised to not take amber from the beaches home, because that might be phosphor and start fucking your shit up once it's dry.

 

[ENDTOPII]

wear once or twice and then they either toss them or let them deteriorate on their own.

You know why people do it? The "fast fashion" meme is such a retarded cope.

The real reason for why people don't wear the shit they buy is because it's too ugly to keep,. When something looks nice, even if it's worn out and so on, people keep wearing it because the "design" itself looks good/cool and it becomes a personality of theirs (I know it people say it sounds "gay", but it's true, you are what you wear). Since everything is ugly by the design, it only looks good as "factory new", and when you wear it for a little while, you realize that it was actually ugly from the beginning.

Spoiler: Extra sperging

You probably have some item that you refuse to let go, IDK what it is, but I will assume it's because there is no replacement for it and it's still a nice item. That's how items in general should be designed, they should be built to keep. In a world where things goes towards rentals and leasing, this will get worse. If the agenda was to "save the planet", planned obsolescence would have been cracked down harder than anything... but it hasn't, so I will assume that this isn't as "urgent" as the propaganda would claim it to be.

The "fast fashion" trend would die off as soon things would look nice again, but that will never happen in a lefty/progressive society, because their dogma is to be as ugly and repulsive as possible.

 

[Picnic_Boy]

There are so many bad actors involved on all sides, I don't know what to believe. I only know wind farms are a scam.

 

[Chongqing]

If the agenda was to "save the planet", planned obsolescence would have been cracked down harder than anything...

Dog ownership also contributes to emissions. Think about all the extra food that needs to be produced for them and transported.

But the climate change movement has never even as much as hinted that owning a dog isn't a net positive for the environment.

There are so many things like that. From smartphones, to EV batteries, energy sources other than nuclear, and so on.

People want to be comfortable in their cult.

 

[Meriasek]

But the climate change movement has never even as much as hinted that owning a dog isn't a net positive for the environment.

Pretty sure I've read people claiming that having pets is bad because of that, though.
In the end, many of the "solutions" that are promoted are basically just ways to reduce personal freedom and wealth of the common people. They don't tackle root causes and they don't really do much in total besides making (almost) everyone's lifes worse.
That being said, given the decline in education and general mental capabilities of the younger generations, I don't know if I want to have running nuclear power plants around anymore, either.

 

[Lucky Larry]

Shouldn't a climatic change be a good thing in the eyes of many that complain about it, I mean with one caveat.
If it's really that terrible, it would kill a lot of humans and thus correct the carbon output naturally while also reducing the overpopulation.

The caveat being, that it would mostly be shitskins.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I'm sure there's some legitimacy to people using climate change as a grift, but I often wonder what the end game is.

Money, isn't that always the point of a grift?

There are hundreds of billions of dollars in grants that you can get it if you pretend you're going to help the planet. Some people really believe in it, and lots of others see the dollar signs. But yeah, money is the point. Lots and lots of money.

 

[Soy Fed]

I can't take global warming seriously because it's apparent that the people who are trying to convince me to take it seriously do not themselves. What have the governments of the west done to address this supposed problem? First, they fearmonger while sitting on their hands for forty years. Then they give trillions to people responsible for the problems to institute ineffective solutions, usually involving half-baked technologies. While doing this, they import hundreds of millions of people from the countries with sustainable lifestyles into the ones with unsustainable lifestyles, to make sure that problems get worse. We might have problems with the environment, but supposed environmental legislation is simply about controlling resources, technology, and narratives.

In the Southwest US there was a big push to reduce water usage, which was successful. When the state governments saw the extra resources that had been freed, they used them to justify building and selling millions of new homes in a sun-scorched wasteland. The people who reduced their water consumption were rewarded with urban sprawl and higher water prices.

If you are familiar with the history of South America, you will recognize this behavior as part of a larger strategy of causing problems in order to reduce demand for valuable commodities.

 

[AMERICA]

I would take climate change hysteria more seriously if we started shaming fat people for eating more than one person's share of food. I don't ever want to hear a fatty lecture anyone on the environment, they're wasteful.