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

Are the effects of climate change as severe as the scientific community portrays it?


  • Total voters
    54
I believe in the importance of looking after the environment, but "climate change" as a concept is a nebulous spook that's just used as an excuse to strip your rights away and/or force you to pay more taxes.
If people actually cared about "saving the planet", they'd stop shipping all our industry to the third world, where poisoning the water and soil for centuries to come is just standard practice. Also if they actually considered nuclear energy instead of clinging desperately to their meme "renewable" energy sources that at best only work in small-scale situations, and at worst actively harm the environment.
 
The world is a complex system. And complex systems react in complex ways to changes. Therfore the modus operandi should be to be very, very careful on how one interacts with such a system.

People take the cooling effect of volcanos for granted, but are very resistant to the the idea that billions of people burning gas, coal, wood and so on over decades has little to no impact.

A few points though:
Adaptation:
Adaptation is needed, the cause has to be removed though. Since adaptation to a growing underlying issue will lead to higher and higher cost of said adaptation and it's usually better to remove the root of the issue instead of trying to just live with it. Taking Insulin because you are diabetic works for a while but you will end up suffering if you do not change your eating habits and lifestyle along with it.

Monetary interest:
This goes both ways. There is one group wanting to sell you solutions for the climate issue and the other group that wants to continue selling products contributing to it. Depending on which side of the issue you are standing: It is only the other side that grifts and I can still remember this gem:

Easy solutions:
There are no easy solutions. Really none and each time one is presented it turned out to have various disadvantages from the get go.

And finally. People are not going to be convinced. If they have their standpoint they will keep it. Especially on the Internet when you can just Google your arguments. Some stuff is more suited to do in reality where you can then see if the people have actual knowledge about any given topic.

I am just trying to do my best and be done with it further than this. If I am wrong, then I am glad and most things do have a positive impact on my life anyway. If I am right then the only things that will change peoples mind is the impacts it will leave and said impacts becoming more frequent and hitting closer and closer.
 
We need to adapt like we always do. The sahara used to be a savannah full of life, the deserts of Iraq and the Levant were called the "fertile crescent" because 5,000 years ago it was not a desert but indeed prime farmland.

Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians sure weren't driving SUVs around and the climate still changed because that's what it always does. Going even further back to neolithic times we have the end of the ice age which triggered such a massive sudden ocean level rise that every ancient culture around the world has a flood myth despite being completely isolated from each other.

If cavemen could survive that we can survive this. Any hippie who thinks going green will magically stop this is smoking some bad granola.
 
if we started shaming fat people for eating more than one person's share of food.
You know, I know and so do every single person in this thread that it will never happen.
1610841345727.jpg
 
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.
Case in point, just now a German Green politician (speaker for the Green Youth organisation) claimed that we don't need pets and that they're a luxury we can't really afford as a society.
 
Case in point, just now a German Green politician (speaker for the Green Youth organisation) claimed that we don't need pets and that they're a luxury we can't really afford as a society.
I agree with it being a luxury, but we can afford it and he is fucking retarded and should be locked up.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ⚞⛇⚟
I share Josh's opinion on the matter.
"The atmosphere is big. How can you know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? How can anyone know that?"
-:null:
Climate change is no more real than the tiny invisible particles that supposedly control our lives. How can we know what the atmosphere 10 kilometers above us is made of? How can we know what the earth 10 kilometers below us is made of? Bitch, you can't see atoms with your eyeballs. How do you know they are real? Next thing you know they're gonna start telling us the continents are capable of moving and shit.
 
I think its real, and is a man made accerlation of an organic cycle. I do what I reasonably can to not pollute the environment- no disposable plates, using non plastic containers where I can, wearing clothes for probably way too long and line drying them most of the time to keep them intact, trying to fix things or using some makeshift solution instead of buying new things, etc. I think so many of our solutions are very misguided.... I do not see why I should throw away my functioning 25 year old vehicle for a new one that burns less gas or is an EV because that means my vehicle will go in a junk yard to rot and contaminate the earth in favor or a new one that caused god knows how much pollution being produced (mining litium and other metals for comuter parts, replacing natural rubber parts with plastic, replacing natural fibers with acrylics, shipping parts across the world, etc etc). I also cannot feel too guilty for not recyling in the name of the planet (its a scam mostly) and not taking more actions in my life to mitigate environmental consequences. Realistically I have very little potential impact and the society that was created around me is not my fault. On the grand scale we need to rethink packaging, fibers, industrial emissions, and so on. I have no power to do that. I think things are going to get bad, I think it will take longer and longer to get 'worst case climate disaster' due to the few solutions which are being implimented (remember cfcs and the hole in the Ozone, and how that improved once cfcs were banned? Solar, wind, hemp fabrics and fibers, etc) and I think overall we will adapt better than expected. Still saddens me that there noticable effects in ecosystems due to human activity. The earth will recover and new organisms will evolve.

I just really dont want to be sweating for the next 60 years though, not looking forward to that.
 
My strawberries are flowering again after cutting them back during the cold weather in late October. It has been so warm and dry after that I suspect they have thought winter is over.

I have never seen this before and it really unnerved me. It is not right or natural for strawberries grown outdoors to flower in November in NE Ohio.

Keep burning that coal and diesel for cheap chink plastic dogshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATI Escapee
People are crying over no winter, when countries with no winter can make 4 rice harvests a year compared to colder regions just 1.
Heating costs are less as well.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Neurotypical Mantis
climate change is caused by pajeets and chinks
 
We can never have a fair debate on Climate Change when every solution requires additional taxes. This is because it is to price out the poorer people while rich people can still enjoy the luxuries that they can still afford.
 
We can never have a fair debate on Climate Change when every solution requires additional taxes. This is because it is to price out the poorer people while rich people can still enjoy the luxuries that they can still afford.
The real solution to climate change requires the opposite, but the government won't tell you that.
 
Climate change, as in CO2 emissions isn't what people need to be worried about, poor water and land management should. To be clear, over consumption isn't necessary to issue, rather a failure to regenerate soil and aquifers. The problem is leading to desertification and floods around the world, it's also the cause for the warming of micro climates.

A loss of plant canopy, the shade and moisture it provides leads to the soil drying out and hotter air temps. Dry soil absorbs worse than moist soil so it fails to hold on to that water when the rains come and leads to floods taking the top soil with them. This further leads to a loss of vegetation. No vegetation means no roots and no natural fertilizer. Which leads to the collapse of the underground microbiome of bacteria, insects and fungus which causes the soil to be come less fertile and less likely to hold on to moisture.

The key to fixing the problem is collecting rain water runoff and retaining moisture in the soil through berms and swales. Planting trees, grasses and shrubs will help maintain these earth structures while capturing water and storing it underground for use in dryer times. There will be a loss in agricultural output of cash crops as land and water is used for other plants but many of these plants can be harvested for food or timber and sold or used by local famers helping to offset the loss in profits. The main point is to maintain the productivity of the land for future generations rather than perusing sort term gains.
 
People who hate CO2 emissions should embrace natural gas fracking, and nuclear energy, because they objectively have lower emissions than the alternatives. The problem is the climate change activist movement is filled with idealistic people who want zero emissions when there are no realistic alternatives.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: i440BX
People who hate CO2 emissions should embrace natural gas fracking, and nuclear energy, because they objectively have lower emissions than the alternatives. The problem is the climate change activist movement is filled with idealistic people who want zero emissions when there are no realistic alternatives.
The goal is net zero, meaning not no emissions, just no net emissions. Just like a village that wants to have a stable population would try to balance people moving out and people mowing in.

Have you actually put time into looking up the possibility of the low emission scenarios that are not gas/nuclear? If so, can you name a few books, studies and so on?
 
Climate change is a death cult for euphoric atheists.
The more the media whips them into a frenzy the more violent their soy addicted antics will be.
Also like anti-natalism the solution is to become an hero yourself and lead the way.
You first @RandomTwitterGuy .
You don't understand.
My plan is to make enough money and put myself in a privileged position so that when the shit hits the fan, me and my kin can exploit you and your kin.
I will probably go full Harkonnen, properly less gay or more. Who the fuck knows, but all I care about is that I am on top (gigety) because it is only gay if you receive it.

Climate Change is real, it sucks. We are fucked, but if you got skills and money, you are less fucked, so that's my goal.
 
Back