Any climate scientists here who can explain how fucked are we?

depends on time scale

first has already happened

second, about 2050

>>8999702
It's not a matter of how fucked we are, it's a matter of how much it's going to cost us in order to relatively un-fuck ourselves. We will need to build the necessary infrastructure to accommodate rising water levels and protect residential areas from increasingly frequent and more violent weather events. The more we let things get out of hand, the more expensive that is going to be.

>a few million 3rd world people die
People are already dying, as people do, but the larger consequence (for the west) is the fact that people from 3rd world countries are going to need to relocate. Climate is already the biggest determinant of (economic) migration. Europe especially already dealing with the fallout. The ironic part here is that those who tend to be anti migration also tend to be against combating climate change.

>Billions of dead
The people who will die are the ones who cannot afford to deal with the above mentioned consequences. Quite tragically, those tend to be the people in 3rd world countries, which have contributed relatively little to the initial problem.

>collapse of global community
The economic consequences of global cataclysmic events, even if they are gradual, is the flow of capital to richer economies (because it reduces risk). Again, 3rd world and developing economies will suffer from this. But in the long term, I think the west will be judged by how it accommodates those who are less fortunate in the present.

>>8999742
You're trying too hard to bait.

>>8999762
I wish I was baiting.

>>8999742
This analysis is too political

>>8999834
It is political because the consequences of the problem depend on political choices. It's not as simple as either we're fucked or we aren't. There are various scenarios with vastly disparate outcomes.

>>8999702

a few billion 3rd world people die, but otherwise we are fine

>>8999836
Close the borders. Increase arms. Have a 20 year disarmament pact. Make sure prosperous economies can continue functioning with minimal international trade. Get another Republican on the Supreme Court. Continue subsidizing alternative energy sources. Drill in Alaska. I hope billions of third worlders die.

>>8999841
And I'm glad you're not in charge of the planet.

>>8999846
No it's much better if those people create hysteria before analyzing the needs of their people

>>8999846
The biggest threat to man is putting someone or some political entity 'in charge of the planet'.
As fossil fuels deplete through this century so will our enormous populations. This is not a problem but a period in time when abundance in a natural resource led to an abundance in population, that is all. Earth is fine. Fuck this new age carbon rationing religion, you are all confused virtue signaling posers.

>>8999742
until there going to be much more un-fucked self's on different's areas... but until un-fuckd going to happ'n. lets go mountais smoke crack with binos to check some areas need help. Yeah, there will be sun. sure. i saw it yeasterday crying under chirstmas tree.

>>8999762
if anything, that's too lame

the world is always less than a year away from starvation, just a few failed crop seasons and all hell will break loose, there will be that few billion of angry young men that will refuse to starve to death without a fight

>>8999841
>billions of third worlders
you do realize they have nukes too?

>>8999702
>Billions of dead, collapse of global community
That's not going to happen.

Only America would let things get that bad and fortunately we have the EU and China to look to for global leadership.

>>8999871
>The biggest threat to man is putting someone or some political entity 'in charge of the planet'.
I agree.
>This is not a problem but a period in time when abundance in a natural resource led to an abundance in population, that is all.
Resources are plentiful. The problem is the kind of resources that we rely on, because those are indeed very limited. Wanting to purposefully create (political) instability across the globe through preventing progress in the search of alternative resources, until current resources run out, is just about the dumbest thing you can do. It boggles the mind how someone can think that won't affect us too.
>Earth is fine.
No shit Sherlock.
>Fuck this new age carbon rationing religion, you are all confused virtue signaling posers.
Fuck this new age social Darwinism, you are all unqualified and backward contrarians.

>>8999918
How many posts ago were you saving the social Darwinism line?

The truth is "we can cultivate more land and feed more people."

>>8999702
If you own property far away from the equator and more that ~30ft above sea level, global warming stands to be a very lucrative financial opportunity for you and not much else. Yes its a problem and it will surely disrupt the food chain a bit but life is resilient and will adapt to whatever situation it finds itself in. Pollution of our air resulting in higher rates of respiratory illness is what should really worry people.

The first has already happened. No one cares.

Maybe they'll start caring when migration from the Third World REALLY heats up.

<B-But muh economy
Is the worst argument against trying to stop climate change because climate change will do worse to the economy than anything trying to prevent would have cost.

we're completely and totally fucked. natural climate balancers are dying off. it simply isn't enough to reduce carbon emissions.

>>8999984
I prefer this level of fatalism to the "we might be able to solve the problem just give us more power" kind. Both are flawed perspectives.

>>8999999
That's dubs

File: 9.jpg (33KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 251x251px

>>8999999

>>8999999
GET GET FUCKING GET COMPLETELY WASTED
LETS SEE THE OTHER GET
>>9000000

>>8999841
>I hope billions of third worlders die.
They'll just geoengineer. And freeze canada in the process.

India can do it today, so can fucking bangladesh. By 2050 even more so.

>>8999974
this

also i don't get how people think it will somehow magically stop in 2100

>>9000011
Underrated

>>8999832
I think it's funny you actually believe the liberals who say the Muslim inundation of Europe is due to climate change. It's not.

Everything else in your post is pure speculation. 200 years ago, a population of 6 billion was unthinkable, and we're well past that with plenty of resources to spare.

>>9000027
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=57m

>>9000056
>It's not.
ooooh convincing

2 out of 3 australians develop some form of skin cancer because australia is close to ozone depleted antarctic
stopping the disintegration of the ozone layer saved millions from skin cancer in the US alone, but let's do nothing about climate change even though the cost of doing something about it is lower than the cost of the consequences

lmao
>>9000067
i know, i know
climate engineering being so easy and accessible, yet volatile and dangerous is frankly scary

>>9000068
Do you honestly think it's "climate change" or the political climate?

>>9000056
>I think it's funny you actually believe the liberals who say the Muslim inundation of Europe is due to climate change.
>believe
I think it's funny that you mongoloids seem to think that this is a matter of belief rather than a matter of empiricism. Wat are you even doing on this board?

>>8999702
Given enough time humans, and most macrofauna will not be able to exist. Life will continue in the form of plants, microbes, perhaps a few very very small animals.

>>8999999
good GET

actually kind of true

>>9000074
It's the general increased drought of the subtropics, when Turkey build a dozen dams in the late 2000's, it cut off the Tigris-Euphrates river system, fucking up Syria's and Iraq's agriculture. Google it.
This was the straw that broke the camels back - the arab spring was the spark that blew up Syria.
You're fucking naive if you think they suddenly started swooning about democracy like a bunch of california hippies. It was hunger, failed farms & loads of 20-30y unemployed men who could make a buck for their families by joining AQ and ISIS etc.

>>9000100
I believe you're right about all of those things. It still comes at a cost to the European people. Their politics allowed their situation.

File: gun.png (42KB, 446x373px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 446x373px

Its fucking over for us as far as a normal life on this planet goes.
We are already seeing the feedbacks kick in such as increasing wildfires, loss of Arctic albedo, methane seeps in the arctic and in shallow ocean clathrates. At 2 degrees, which we will reach by 2025, there will be no stopping hundreds of millions of dead. Worldwide crop failures, infastructure collapsing due to heat, rising sea levels killing off farmland. If you live in certain places you might as well be dead already. Even in first world countries, times will get tough. By 2100, the current standard of living in somewhere like Paraguay will be considered first world due to the consequences.

Geo-Engineering is the only thing that can delay complete extinction. And even then, it won't happen until millions have already perished, until life have been unchangeable altered from the path we wanted for this species. Economies will crash, poverty will skyrocket. Even geoengineering can't completely stop things like rising sea levels. We will never become a space faring race. Never achieve fusion. Never see a new Timesplitters game. Never meet aliens. Our 'future' is a few centuries of ever increasing geoengineering, becoming less and less effective as the feedbacks overwhelm the amount of aerosols we can pump into the atmosphere. Eventually the warming will resume faster than ever and the planet will see another Permian extinction.

If you are under the age of 30, you have a right to be fucking furious about this. The scum generation before ours and the one before that has doomed us. They knew about this in the fucking 1970's and did nothing. As soon as we have a blue ocean event, mark my word, I will become the Elliott Rodger of climate change. Not a single coal burning world roasting slut will withstand my assault.

>>9000110
And if the shit hits the fan who the fuck are you going to be mad at?

>>9000110
>We are already seeing the feedbacks kick in
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/climate/carbon-in-atmosphere-is-rising-even-as-emissions-stabilize.html

>>9000110
>By 2100, the current standard of living in somewhere like Paraguay will be considered first world due to the consequences.
HERE"S THE BEST PART NIGGA
THE CLIMATE WONT SUDDENLY STOP CHANGING IN 2100

LMAO XDDDD MAGA FUCK TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA

>>9000114
boomers - they deserve ebola

>>9000119
Jokes on you then

>>9000115
lalalallala can't hear you

>>9000115
>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/climate/carbon-in-atmosphere-is-rising-even-as-emissions-stabilize.html
>the amount of carbon dioxide that people are pumping into the air
>seems to have stabilized in recent years, at least judging from the data
>that countries compile on their own emissions
Those data are untrustworthy, because oil and natural gas production and coal mining
have all continued to increase worldwide, and nearly-all of it gets burned.

We are all going to die unless we make a socialist democratic revolution.
#March4Progress

>>9000110
>Never see a new Timesplitters game.
kek

>>9000083
I didn't say agw is false. I said that you're a fucking gullible retard if you think climate change is responsible for the Europe mass migration. It because of a civil war.

File: models.png (38KB, 399x314px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 399x314px

anybody have any info on post 2100 climate predictions

all i can find is sea level rise of 3-5 meters by 2300 - there has to be more than that
oh and extrapolating from these curves

>>9000209
>I didn't say agw is false.
I never said you did. But you do seem to think that the cause(s) for migration is (are) subject to belief.
>I said that you're a fucking gullible retard if you think climate change is responsible for the Europe mass migration.
OK buddy. We can go back and forth a while but I'll save us both the trouble and post some actual papers, since you're too fucking retarded to look up actual numbers.

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n6/full/nclimate1559.html
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n6/full/nclimate1447.html
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7370/full/478477a.html
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6055/456

>>9000009
That is a very impressive pali as well.

File: sosorry.png (20KB, 1131x545px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 1131x545px

>>9000215
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845

all complex life is doomed because of us.

Does anyone else here feel guilt? I do not think I deserve to feel this way, but I can't so much as look a fucking moth in the eye without wanting to apologise.

Pic related - It is my climate apology spreadsheet. Basically I have a list of animal and plant species I want to apologise to. It is quite extensive and I hope to apologise to as many as possible before we destroy ourselves.

Why does everyone think humans are fucked because the Earth lost its coastline? It'll be knocked back to early industrial to late renaissance technology-wise, even though it'll come to a huge loss of standard of living. If someone preps properly and sets his family and friends up (Watermill, saving of science textbooks for basic concepts, books on subjects like smithing, farming, construction, making bows, gunpowder, etc.) he could jump start his family's raise as a feudal lord and king with a shitty factory, protecting a bunch of farmers in exchange for their food, loyalty, and bodies for whatever threat that might come.

Biggest threat will be diseases returning.

>>8999999
holy SHIT

File: 1455730114809.png (493KB, 1888x887px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1888x887px

>>8999742
>>8999927
>>9000110

If water level rises doesn't that mean that more rivers will form and we will have access to more water?

>>9000312


I feel exactly the same.


Every time I wake up I'm wrought with guilt when I remember what other humans are doing to mother nature.


I truly hate humanity almost as much as I hate my dad for cheating on my mom and abandoning us and never even sending me even a single letter despite pretending to be a good dad before that.


We are a virus and we must understand that, that is the reason why I've decided to castrate myself and start taking female hormones despite not being transgender - I hate the manly bravado that represents everything that is wrong with our world and is responsible for the ecological catastrophe we are in.

Reminder climate change fear is a form of supreme idiocy. The reaction is worse than what climate change will do.

>>9001162
>>9001168
/mlpol/ plz go

>>9001183
Science is based on very simple principles. Yes, you can figure out that carbon in the atmosphere can be linked to temperatures, which melts ice etc

That simple pattern is like 1 function. The future is determined by an immense number of various functions. The problem with climate change fear (emphasis fear) is that it ignores every other function that determines the future, most of which we don't understand.

The idea that science can predict what will happen in 2100 based entirely on carbon being put back into natural cycles is just not plausible. Even if we had an amazing climate model based on carbon ppm it would not be enough to scientifically predict 2100.

This is the major problem with arguments for extreme climate change fear mongering. They also don't solve the practicality problem of implementing their fixes. AKA even using government control we can only somewhat reduce carbon emissions at a faster rate and that loss in economy has drawbacks too.

Also using solar power as an example is full of shit. Solar power 10 years ago was terrible compared to today. So even switching hard 10 years ago might have led to minimal gains. Not to mention China has been undercutting the world market due to not handling the waste properly thereby reducing costs and trying to dump them on the market.

>>9001137
rivers are caused by rainfall, anon

File: 1498425437255.jpg (9KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x225px

>>9001195

Are you pretending?

File: 1493359623191.png (20KB, 297x257px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 297x257px

This is why I'm moving to the moon or mars around 2030-2040.
>be in comfy underground moon or mars base
>a whole new world to explore
>only well educated people in village
>watch stream from earth about how the last civilized countries are being overrun by dindus

>>9001204
What do you think the economics will be like on the moon or mars? Private property?

Did elon musk's mars plan go into how the economy functions?

>>9001207
Think of it like an oilrig, no need for an economy when it's in reality a workplace, all will be provided.

But makes me wonder if there will be a salary or all volunteer work.
Maybe some money or points to buy stuff from earth and get it shipped.

File: 1461541469438.jpg (35KB, 296x296px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 296x296px

>>9001204
>>9001207

>be me in 2040
>living on mars
>my whole new world to explore is this 50x50 m dome
>work like a nigger all day long to keep shit running
>40% chance of dying if venturing outside, still have to do it every day to clean the solar panels
>all the girls here are disgusting, forced diversity brought a lot of ugly nigresses, indians and chinks
>all vegan diet
>they pay us in pills
>no tv, no radio, they consume too much power
>slowest internet connection in the solar system
>last I heard from earth is that they're working on shipping thousands of dindus to mars
>very comfy

>>9001213
Yeah, I have a feeling the slice of humanity going to mars will be very strange.

>>9001215

I can already picture the first human to put a foot on mars being a negro or a woman, causing /pol/ to go insane because now they get to say WE WUZ MARZ AND SHIET for all eternity.

File: 1495607664065.jpg (49KB, 363x333px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 363x333px

>>9001213
>be assigned to mars habitat 45
>it's the biological research station
>meet the new crew
>mfw 90% of them are qt girls in lab coats
>they're starving for new dick

File: 1463273636222.jpg (116KB, 780x718px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 780x718px

>>9001235

>that same day the new negro crew arrives
>they're mostly criminals sent there to populate mars
>they set up their dome next to the qt girl headquarters
>that same night you can hear them having the first mandingo party on mars from your dome
>jerk off to their moans inside your capsule bed every night
>history mentions you as the first cuck on mars

Earth is brown
Mars is red (white)

>>8999871
>>8999918
>The biggest threat to man is putting someone or some political entity 'in charge of the planet'.
Why? If there was a legislative and executive power in charge of the entire globe, we could properly solve global crisis' such as global warming. If this has to be done through strong-armed tactics, so be it.

File: 19260682_1906476339592854_5588595099385710174_n.jpg (29KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 657x527px

>>9001213
hahahah I love this

>>9001137
More access to salty water just kills crops and you can't drink it either

>>9001311
how is that a problem just filter our the salt and you have good water.

File: net_radiative_forcing.png (92KB, 582x801px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 582x801px

>>9001187
>we don't know everything
>therefore we can't know anything
nice try /mlpol/

Climate is a lot easier to predict than weather. Uncertainties are factored into models, which is why predictions are probabilistic rather than absolute.

>>9001317
Electrolysis requires a lot of power, anon. Power that we may not be able to afford in a serious post Peak-Oil crisis.

>>9000225
Anyone can believe anything and you said migration of Muslims was due to climate change. That is not a fact. It is a belief. Therfore, you believe it is true.

File: trump-tweets-the-wrong-ivanka-1484758669-9248.jpg (35KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 800x600px

>>8999846
Guess again

>>8999910
Fuck

>>9001508
>Anyone can believe anything
But facts are facts.

>you said migration of Muslims was due to climate change
I never said that. I said climate change is the biggest determinant of migration, and that statement is supported by the literature I cited.

>>9001562
>climate change is the biggest determinant of migration
>that statement is supported by the literature I cited
Not war, famine, over population, resource depletion, dictators and despots, liberal open door immigration and foreign worker programs or anything like that? Climate change?
I would be interested to see the "science" behind that conclusion.

>>9001593
>I would be interested to see the "science" behind that conclusion.
I've already posted the articles. If you were actually interested, you would have looked at them already instead of ignoring them. I'm done with this idiotic conversation.

How the fuck do we protect spent fuel pools in nuclear plants again sea level rise? Can you transport the fuel from the pools?

>>9001676
Literally none of those articles have anything to do with recent migration in europe. Shame on you for conflating the two.

>>9001924
>recent
who the fuck said anything about recent? I'm talking about, and have always been talking about, migration in general

>>8999702
climate scientist here.

nothing will happen.

>>9001971
fuck off back to >>>/pol/

File: 2008-06-12-ABC-GMA-globalwarming3.jpg (12KB, 410x236px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 410x236px

>>9001974 >>9001971 >>8999702 >>9001657

https://youtu.be/9_WHQkPrhjg
Global Warming alarmists from abc News predicted in 2008 that in 2015 we would have
(1) Coastal Cities like New York & San Francisco underwater in 2015
(2) Most of USA, Europe & Amazon Rain forest would become Deserts like Arizona in 2015.
(3) All North Pole Ice would melt in 2015.
(4) Hurricanes, Droughts, Fires....

The only thing Global Warming alarmists """predicted""" right is the Famines in Africa which happens everyday since Centuries ago.

THAT MAKES YOU THINK.

>>9001984
>from abc News
You cannot be this retarded

File: 1491278710153.jpg (22KB, 421x500px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 421x500px

>>8999702
Literally every climate scientist is gonna say we're all dead in 50 years, 25 if their uber shills. Alarmism pays.

File: 1490155711242.jpg (268KB, 816x816px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 816x816px

>>8999999
kek has blessed this post all hail.

File: dubsbro.gif (499KB, 245x240px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 245x240px

>>8999999

Look at the digits
>>8999999
Praise Kek

File: 1497907871922.jpg (942KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 1440x2560px

Yep

>>9002030
>by 2100
fuck off with your shitty tabloids

>>9001984
>>9001988
The media =/= climate scientists

>>9001162
t. Nu-male

>>9002033
retard

>>9002033
>>if we keep emitting CO2 at the current rate, barring magic, alien space bats destroying the sun, or more or less everything we know about physics being wrong, the atmosphere will absorb this much heat
>>when the atmosphere has this much heat some places will get hot enough for a lot of people to die

>>9003633
Poor people in undeveloped countries mostly.

File: Untitled.png (558KB, 1064x661px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 1064x661px

>>9003638
exactly

>>9003654
and here's the source for the pic
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362

We've had temperature spikes before and we'll have them again. Hell, decades ago we were concerned about global *cooling*. This climate change bullshit is nothing more than liberal propaganda being used to undermine the oil industry.

>>9003670
retard

>>8999742
>The ironic part here is that those who tend to be anti migration also tend to be against combating climate change.

i fail to see the irony.

File: DryCaskStorage1.jpg (52KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x480px

>>9001883
I know you're baiting but I'll grant you a serious response.

Spent fuel is only hot enough to require "pool storage" for something like a decade. It is then stored in dry caskets at the site of the nuclear plant.

Also, even at the worst rates of sea level rise it's not like these places would flood over night. It would take decades.

>>9003682
because climate change-induced droughts will flood Europe with even more shitskins in the near future

>>9003654
red farming states will be hit most, turning them into even worse welfare leeches, making american politics even more ironic on multiple levels

File: Untitled.png (1MB, 1503x906px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1503x906px

>>9003712
yup

>>9001204
>This is why I'm moving to the moon or mars around 2030-2040.

fuck off we're full

>>9003729
that image is pretty crazy

>>9003729
>>9004984
Nah, there are a ton of BOLD CLAIMS in it, but the ag shit is correct.

US won't be slammed and economically fucked, it's ag sector will just move north.

It's euros who are well and truly fucked their countries are too small to absorb such change.

>>9003671
>>9003671
I was alive during the climate cooling meme, so I can see where he is coming from.

I think the doomsayers do more harm than good. You turn people off to your POV by screaming that the world is going to end. At best they will ignore you, at worst they will go "then why does it matter, fuck it".

In the US they should just focus on the economic cost and go from there.

>>9004994
>Nah
>US won't be slammed and economically fucked,
great arguments, especially because you're contradicting a paper that was published in Science of all journals

>>9005004
>the climate cooling meme
you know that this was strictly a media meme, and had nothing to do with science, right? unlike global warming, which has always been supported by the scientific evidence, even when global cooling was a thing in the media

>>9005010
Just because you get published does not mean you are automatically right, it just proves general concensus about the validity of the theory. Don't appeal to authority man, it's unbecoming.

Thag said, the source tacitly agrees with me, and shows wide swaths of ag improvement.

>>9005017
>you know that this was strictly a media meme, and had nothing to do with science, right?

They had plenty of scientists to back them up, it was just bullshit.

Then you ask them why that age group won't trust them again.

Im giving you a viewpoint here, not saying it's correct or incorrect.

File: Untitled.png (68KB, 1065x444px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1065x444px

>>9005022
>Just because you get published does not mean you are automatically right, it just proves general concensus about the validity of the theory. Don't appeal to authority man, it's unbecoming.
Retard, no one is appealing to authority. If you had any idea of how stringent that particular journal is about the papers it accepts, you'd know that it's not the name or fame of the journal that make its papers good, it's its selection process. Review alone in Science often takes more than a year, let alone the time it takes to compose a manuscript that even gets sent for review. These papers represent the best of the best.

>the source tacitly agrees with me
Nope, read the paper. Pic related. Yields shift, but decline overall.

>>9005024
I guess it's because the public generally doesn't know the difference between a payed lobbyist and an actual scientist.

>>9005029
>nobody is appealing to authority
>this authority is VERY appealing

Kek.

>Yields shift, but decline overall.

I have not looked into this paper specifically beyond generalities but I could not disagree more. I will have to look into what model it uses.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http://www.climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Mendelsohn_Climate_Change_Agriculture_AmEconRev_1994.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2RYWOZhLA7eMFCGq486zxzzTR4ow&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

Plenty of sources state that ag will remain constant, just shift, and may actually see a net positive.

>>9005036
>Accept this paper because a big shot wrote it
>Accept this paper because it went through the most stringent review process there is
there's a difference

>Plenty of sources
So why post one 23 year old paper that was published in an economic journal? That was really the most credible paper you could find? Note also that I haven't made any claim about regional shifts or yields *outside* of the USA.

>>9005053
>I demand you accept my source as I nitpick yours.

Let's see how far you will go with this. The fact that you are unaware of the lively debate about US ag impacts of GB is telling.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022103315424?LI=true

>>9005062
>Let's see how far you will go with this.
Pretty far to be honest, because you're acting like a retard. First you claim that the paper supports your point, and when I point out that it in fact does not, you discredit it.

>>I demand you accept my source as I nitpick yours.
You don't need to accept anything, obviously, but I wish you would post some decent counter evidence.

>lively debate
>another 14 year old paper
come on now

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/full/nclimate2153.html
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5994/940
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594.short

>>9005074
>stating you disagree means you are discrediting it

Kek.

>pretty far

Kek.

Last two sources are not US based so they are completely irrelevant. I will give you another.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8NMUQ3h5i9IC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=US+agriculture+global+warming&ots=o2eiCqG8j5&sig=QihLSQot4TbnXUZRfYhC8NMWZB0#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>9005081
>>9005074

I'm actually about ready to crash out, and being that your adamant to get the last (You), why not be your huckleberry.

Here is another source, talking about how adaptations having increased yields.

http://m.pnas.org/content/104/50/19691.short

Arguementivily, it boils down to GB negative impacts with the positive of a longer growing season and increased farmland.

Again, last (You) from me. Make sure your reply is a real mic dropping moment.

>>9005081
>book
>peer review
pic cone

>Last two sources are not US based
I'll give you that one, but the first paper is a recent meta-analysis of over 1700 studies. It paints the picture of the current status of the literature, so kinda stupid to just ignore it.

Glad to see you leave.

>>9005086
>http://m.pnas.org/content/104/50/19691.short
good journal, reasonably recent paper, let's see what it says
>Here is another source, talking about how adaptations having increased yields.
Kek, the article talks about how agricultural policy needs to change in order to offset the negative consequences of climate change. This doesn't argue for larger yields under climate change, it argues that if we don't adapt policy then crop productivity will decline. Most importantly, this is an opinion piece rather than an empirical paper. Jesus dude. Do you even read the stuff you post?

>longer growing season
That depends on the region.
>increased farmland
kek, not mentioned in the article at all.

>crop yields might increase
>only some places though, net negative gain
lmao
i can see how that offsets the other negative consequences of climate change

>>9005116
>net negative gain
I think you mean net negative loss

>>9005117
i obviously mean negative gain
negative loss would just be a gain

>>9005119
my bad, I meant inverse net negative loss in gain declines

>>9005116
>>9005117
Actually if you read >>9005108 It states a positive yield increase. The argument is actually quite fascinating; I didn't consider agricultural implications.

>>9005108
First off, I think everyone is saying you have to adapt to climate change, that's obvious. However...

>This doesn't argue for larger yields under climate change,
Is dead wrong. It very clearly does.
>"We show that implementation of these options is likely to have substantial benefits under moderate climate change for some cropping systems. However, there are limits to their effectiveness under more severe climate changes."

>>9005124
Wow, to add to this...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000827
>When crop yield results are introduced to the BLS world food trade system model, the combined model and scenario experiments demonstrate that the world, for the most part, appears to be able to continue to feed itself under the SRES scenarios during the rest of this century. However, this outcome is achieved through production in the developed countries (which mostly benefit from climate change) compensating for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations.

Basically, skimming though, Africa and most of South America is throughly fucked agriculturaly, but developed countries will see a net gain and balance out.

>>9005124
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Projections
nigger it's exactly a loss globally and a loss almost everywhere
you can only get a gain with adaptations and only if the arming is below 3 degrees, which considering nothing is being done about it might exceed 3 degrees

not to mention you are on purpose forgetting the other problems climate change will bring

>>9005124
>Actually if you read >>9005108 (You) It states a positive yield increase.
Not with current policy.

>This doesn't argue for larger yields under climate change,
>Is dead wrong. It very clearly does.
The argument made in the article is that the yield of SOME crop COULD increase under SPECIFIC climate change scenarios, PROVIDED that the policy recommendations outlined in the article are implemented.

The discussion is about the effect of climate changes on crop productivity. I think by now it's quite clear that crop productivity is set to decline, unless we act to change that. And even if we do act, the most optimistic scenarios, for example as outlined in that opinion piece, do not hold under all climate scenarios and require extensive policy modifications. You cannot possibly use this as an argument that crop yield WILL increase.

>>9005139
crop yields in the US will most certainly decline, especially in southern states
same is true for southern european countries

>>9005135
Of course there will be a loss without adaptations. You can't have a change and not adapt. However, with adaptations the yields go up tremendously.

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/full/nclimate2153.html

Even this aggregate has adaptation yield increase by 7-15%...thats massive.

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/full/nclimate2153.html

>>9005144
>tremendously
>7-15%
heh

>>9005141
yeah, that's the argument I was making

>>9005139
Changing farming practices and using new viable farmland is not a massive policy change. It will happen due to simple reality, and increased yields means the juice will be worth the change.

You are crazy if you think people won't move to (quite literally) greener pastures.

>>9005148
15% yield total increase is nothing less anon.

>>9005144
The increase in yield under adaptation is not sustainable (i.e. the 7-15% increase evaporates over time, even with adaption), as you would have seen had you read the article. Or even the very next sentence in the abstract.
>Yield losses are greater in magnitude for the second half of the century than for the first. Consensus on yield decreases in the second half of the century is stronger in tropical than temperate regions, yet even moderate warming may reduce temperate crop yields in many locations.

>>8999702
A problem with those "millions of dead third worlders" is that the remaining millions aren't going to just sit back and bite the dust with them. They will attempt to migrate North and make the current refugee crisis look tame

>>9005151
>increased yields
you keep saying that, but this is most definitely not a given.

see for example: >>9005029 >>9003729 >>9003658

>>9005156
>Yield losses are greater in magnitude for the second half of the century than for the first. Consensus on yield decreases in the second half of the century is stronger in tropical than temperate regions, yet even moderate warming may reduce temperate crop yields in many locations.
Of course, if you don't implement adaptations. With adaptations, you will see a yield increase, even in the 2nd half of the century, just obviously not as much. Of course southern locations will become less viable, but that's again obvious. The article is very clear about that.

>>9005155
it says 7%-15% and that's a small increase
it's not worth it since we are adapted to the current cliamate
thinking like >>9005151 implies that potentially hundreds millions of people will have to move just because we don't wanna reduce CO2
yield losses globally will be larger
if the warming is above 3 degrees(likely if nothing is done), everyone loses

that's simply not going to happen - nobody is going to take it if they're too hungry
this is the path to war, climate engineering and short term survival

>>9005162
Read the paper you fucking moron.
>Yield losses
>even with adaptation

>>9005162
>Of course, if you don't implement adaptations. With adaptations, you will see a yield increase, even in the 2nd half of the century
don't be retarded, your source says the opposite
besides not like the warming will stop after the second half of the century

truth is you want to see the world become a shithole, because you think it will affect southern locations more

>>9005164
>it says 7%-15% and that's a small increase
Over current yields that's not small at all anon.
>if the warming is above 3 degrees(likely if nothing is done), everyone loses
Not true, the paper states that adapted yields will still be positive just the adaptations will be less effective.

Moderate global warming is happening this century. It's going to happen of we magically stoneage the world tommrow. However, for all its negatives, it's not all.

From a statistical economics view, it doesn't take much to stress the social systems of interdependence to the breaking point.

The economies of societies are as big as they are because of abundance that comes from interdependence, and a history of interdependence in forming core stories about products and distribution that work to provide that abundance. However those systems, which are all based on the Proxy of Capital are inefficient because they pursue profit, not efficiency. Vast quantities of food, energy, water, and livable environment are wasted. (40% of food grown, 80% of water available, only a fraction of the energy of transportation goes to transporting what is moved...)

The problem is that the systems we use to process and distribute what we need are extremely fragile, and are based on the goal of Profit, not the goal of processing and distributing what we need. When something is needed that cannot be profitable because the economic system restricts its profitability, there is no recourse to provide it. So despite the abundance, or the ability for abundance, the product is not provided.

This means even small constraints on profitability regardless of actual scarcity bugger the system and cause it to collapse.
(cont)

>>9005166
>>9005167

Wrong. It states with adaptations it will still increase yields.

>truth is you want to see the world become a shithole, because you think it will affect southern locations more
Oh shit, WHAT?? PLEASE tell me how you came to this conclusion, fucking christ.

>>9005172

Bad management is bad management and the world without exception is managed badly.

Interdependence through trade relies on agreements, not just physics. No one person has the skills and the knowledge to provide themselves with everything they use in an interdependent system. That knowledge is collective knowledge, and it disappears when people aren't depending on each other.

There is a reverse Economy of Scale when everyone goes their own way, that reduces what is available. The abundance that allows our mishmash of social disorganization to function disappears, which breaks down the agreements that hold us together, which increases each individual's responsibility for what was shared through interdependence.

This results in the reduction of variety of products offered, and a return to basics that further reduced interdependence.

The collapse becomes an avalanche failure and is exponential. Societies that have been around for hundreds of years collapse overnight.

Any substantial breakdown of the agreements of interdependence result in total collapse, even if we measurably have plenty of everything we need.

>>9005176
>Wrong. It states with adaptations it will still increase yields.
Buddy, I literally cited the part of the article that directly contradicts that statement. I'm the person who posted it in the first place you goddamn retard, I've read it in full.

>>9005176
>Oh shit, WHAT?? PLEASE tell me how you came to this conclusion, fucking christ.
aah, you're just not very thoughtful
ok

>>9005177

(cont)

And the Planet, no matter its condition, cannot provide for the population that is not interdependent.

>>9005179
You stated the abstract. The paper is clear about the yields increase with adaptations.
http://m.pnas.org/content/104/50/19691
Is a cited source of that very paper.

>>9005181
No, please inform me about how I WANT the negative impacts of global warming. Please tell me how me stating the objective fucking fact that we will have moderate warming this century means I want the negative side effects. Let's hear it.

>>9005185
Christ, I'm done arguing with a concrete wall. If you don't wanna admit you're wrong, that's fine. Just read the paper in full when you have the time for it. You'll see.

Here's a little teaser:
>Adaptation involves planning across a range of timescales. It is therefore important to know the magnitude of expected impacts on mean yield as a function of time. Despite uncertainty in global and regional patterns of climate change and in the emissions scenarios used, some time dependency is seen in the data when the yields of all crops are analysed by decade and for 20-year periods (Fig. 3). There is a majority consensus that yield changes will be negative from the 2030s onwards. More than 70% of projections indicate yield decreases for the 2040s and 2050s, and more than 45% of all projections for the second half of the century indicate yield decreases greater than 10%. The magnitude of the yield impact generally increases with time: 67% of yield decreases in the second half of the century are greater than 10% and 26% are greater than 25%, compared with 33.2% and 10.4%, respectively, for the first half of the century. These projections include simulations with adaptation, suggesting that farmer adaptation earlier in the twenty-first century can ameliorate some, but not all, risk of yield reductions.
>yield reductions
>yield reductions
>yield reductions
>yield reductions
>These projections include simulations with adaptation
>These projections include simulations with adaptation
>These projections include simulations with adaptation
>These projections include simulations with adaptation

>>9005193
>Aggregate yields of adaptations yields and non adaption yields are net negitive

No. Fucking. Shit.

Damn near all projections indicate negative yields until you throw in adaption yields. Aggregate adaption yields alone indicates a net positive (well most of them) 2nd half. Don't cherry pick.

>>9001187
>solar power 10 years ago was shit

Do you actually think it was simply the passage of time which made it better? Because you are implying such, with the way you phrased your comment

>>9005200
>yields will increase! I'm telling you guys, really, it will!
>farmer adaptation earlier in the twenty-first century can ameliorate some, but not all, risk of yield reductions
guy, honestly

>>9005206
Yes, if you combine non adaptive and adaptive rates in aggregate. Furthermore risk is ever present. But you know the article states this, hence why you are now avoiding the issue.

>>8999918
>fossil fuels are very limited
Brainlets shouldn't be allowed to post on /sci/.

>>9005209
>Yes, if you combine non adaptive and adaptive rates in aggregate.
Guess what: you can extrapolate conclusions about the effectiveness of adaptation from aggregate data.

> Furthermore risk is ever present. But you know the article states this, hence why you are now avoiding the issue.
Are you making shit up now? This never entered the discussion.

Look, I don't deny that there are articles out there that suggest yields MAY increase under climate change. But this is not one of them. Read the paper or don't, I'm done with this idiotic conversation.

>>9005213
>can't win argument
>Just read the paper it's not my job to educate you!
typical

>>9001593
Half the concerns you listed have a casual relation with climate conditions

How exactly do you reckon famines and resource depletion occurs?

>>9005213
>Guess what: you can extrapolate conclusions about the effectiveness of adaptation from aggregate data.
When the argument is about adaptive changes, it's kind of dishonest to throw in non adaptive changes in aggregate.

>Look, I don't deny that there are articles out there that suggest yields MAY increase under climate change. But this is not one of them
Except it is. Directly and sourced.

>>9001988
>exaggerated news articles aren't accurate
>therefore we can draw a conclusion about a different topic

File: laugh face drawn.jpg (109KB, 640x626px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 640x626px

>>8999702
>Billions of dead
>collapse of global community
you /x/tards are hilarious

>>9005217
The climate has a not so casual relationship with the sun.
Does that mean we can achieve world peace by controlling the sun's energy input towards the global system?

>>9003654
Underrated kek

>>8999710
this

>>9003729
This map makes me happy I just got a job in oregon

Maybe we should be trying to convince Texas to actually go through with their attempts to secede. Extract all their resources first though

>>9005226
Yeah we probably could

>>9005224
>what is positive feedback

also, >>8999910

>>9005238
Positive feedback won't give you billions dead senpai. Not yet. Don't ignore the problem but don't fall for the hype memes.

>>9005238
droughts will cause crop failures and forest fires

once food security is gone, political tensions will explode

at the current rate this will take 20-30 years

>>9005234
You vastly overestimate the size of human civilization in proportion to the size of the globe. You also overestimate our ability to hyper engineer solutions to "problems".

>>9005247
>20-30 years
Why is it always 20-30 years in the future? It's been 20-30 years for 15 years now, and was 20-30 years back in the 70s too.

>>9005253
Don't just buy shit you read on 4chan, or hear on the news. Read the primary literature.

It won't be an abrupt apocalypse, just a gradual slide down hill that is too slow to notice and will occur primarily in under developed countries. Shit will get bad, but it won't happen overnight and probably not at your doorstep either.

>>9005257
unless he lives in california
their water supply will be affected
droughts will affect them
they won't get the nebulous 7-15% crop yields increase either

>>9005260
Perhaps, but like I said, it won't happen overnight.

>>9005247
>how do I exaggerate something and try to shit up an apocalypse scenario.
this is why you schizo freak /x/tards need to stay in >>>/x/

>>9001988
>ming alarmists from abc News predicted in 2008 that in 2015 we would have
>(1) Coastal Cities like New York & San Francisco underwater in 2015
>(2) Most of USA, Europe & Amazon Rain forest would become Deserts like Arizona in 2015.
>(3) All North Pole Ice would melt in 2015.
>(4) Hurricanes, Droughts, Fires....
Sometimes I think they do this because they need change now from the consequences later.

>>9001988
Interestingly enough, in the vid you post as evidence, the only predictions made is that in 2015 we will see 'more wildfires', 'more frequent and stronger hurricanes', 'drought', which is fucking exactly what we see today.

>>9005292
>implying he watched a 55 second video

>>9005119
I think the term you meant was a decreasing net locally reversing negative gross global gain

>>9005250
I meant yes we probably could achieve peace if we accomplished such a colossal feat of engineering, not yes we could accomplish such a colossal feat of engineering

>>9005253
because you don't read the news

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/roads/2015/10/turkey_goes_on_a_dam_building_spree_are_they_weapons_of_war.html

I think we have done so much but the other countries have not. I don't believe in global warming or change but I like the new technology for fossel fuels. Solar power is horrible as is batteries! If you think coal mining is bad research lithium mining! Research the massive solar plants in the deserts that create massive radiant heat reflection back into the atmosphere. Not to mention the amounts of birds that are fried to death. Windmills, so many in the West that many do not operate do to California does not need it and the grid can not handle it. Do you know the chemicals that are needed to make solar panels and those windmills? Think about it.
Now the ice pack problem. The earth at its beginning had no ice. There are palm trees under the pack. The both is melting quicker because there is less mass. Will I full glass of ice melt at the same rate as a half glass? Hear loss! It goes quicker when there is less of it!!! Lol. The South pole is growing, why? I feel that the earth has gone into it's wobble phase. Research that for a new out look on the matter.
We need to clean our earth yes! But we are actually hurting it by these so called new technology.

>>8999702
Not a climate scientist, computer scientist. We are not fucked, the scope of Global Warming really starts around 2100. AI is gonna fuck us way before that. Global warming is just a calling card for politicians. The real "existential threats" are AI and biological weapons. Honestly Global Warming isn't even worth thinking about, if we get "nice" AI we'll solve it in a fucking minute.

>>9003729
Doesn't this series not include mass migrations or environmental costs? As examples, events like the Dust Bowl or a total coral reef die-off or whatever weren't included as far as I can tell, making this wildly optimistic.

File: 1498148472131.jpg (19KB, 297x308px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 297x308px

>>9005541

File: 1491814385072.jpg (10KB, 318x313px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 318x313px

>>8999710
this

8999999
>>90000000

>>9000000

>>9005850
There is a crazy guy on this board who plans to dump methane into the atmosphere to prove that it's all hoax. Occasionally he makes threads about a "cooling tower" in central Asia that just vents cheap methane bought from Gazprom. Apparently, he's just waiting for Trump to kill the Earth Obs. which will give him a few year window where no one will notice until the Euros get their satellite up and working. I saw him discussing the salting of permafrost last time he posted.

>>9006558
fuck off back to >>>/x/

>>9006569
?

http://time.com/4800000/tim-walberg-god-climate-change/
we're gonna be fine the republicans have the solution as always

>>9006684
Republicans have all this under control.
The plan is to have Jeff Sessions and
Ted Cruz's dad stand at the shoreline
with Bibles in hand. As the sky
darkens and the water rises they will
raise their left hand holding the Bible
and command the Seas to settle, and if
that fails, plan B is to run like hell
and to blame Obama.

>>8999702
The scariest part of climate change is that, buy the estimates of some climatologists, whatever climate changes we're witnessing today are the product of what we did about 50 years ago. That fifty year lag in seeing the effect of what we've done means that the rapidly rising sea levels, melting ice caps, and thinning ozone layer are a symptom of what we were doing in the 70s, so things are going to keep getting much, much worse for a long time even if we were to stop fucking everything up this very instant.

All I want is to find an awesome girl to spend a few happy years with before the ecosystem collapses completely, but an ecological tipping point might have already been passed and the relatively stable way of life we all enjoy (internet included!) might evaporate in a matter of months starting any given day.

Thank you baby boomers for waiting to destroy the world until after you cashed in on a collapsing social security system and spent your final, detestable years doped up on prescription pain killers you've sucked out of the broken-beyond-repair health care system you voted for. That invective applies world wide, too.

>>8999927
>Yes its a problem and it will surely disrupt the food chain a bit but life is resilient and will adapt to whatever situation it finds itself in.
This is very idealistic. Sure, life on earth will continue, but a massive shift in global climate could mean that the crops we depend on for survival could die out en masse. There's a reason why botanists and other scientists were shitting bricks about honey bees dying off. Just because insects and microbes will surely survive, albeit in completely different proportions, doesn't mean large land mammals will be so lucky.

>>9007049
>ecological tipping point
not yet, that is at 450 ppm / 2C

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

... around the year 2030, at current rate

>>9007061
thumbnail explanation why food supply gets hit
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

>>9005172
That reminds me: you know the old saying about the trains running on time in Germany? The trains DON'T run on time there anymore. That ended recently when the rail industry was privatized, and now there are constant delays and repairs being made that help the companies running the show cut costs. Private central banks control the world, and for decades they've been feeding their cattle (that's us) an endless stream of propaganda that "free market" capitalism (which isn't how things actually work in any country) makes everything better by encouraging competition. In reality, corporate competition leads to deceitful marketing (scrubbing bubbles!), engineered obsolescence, corner-cutting, and the kind of inefficiency and waste that is destroying this planet. This way of life is propped up by a binary approach to politics. On one side, you have the "libruls". Their job is to increase the size and scope of government under the guise of social progress and equality. On the other, you have the "conservatards", who dismantle civil liberties and push wealth back into the hands of the ruling elite and their cronies in the name of "free market" Capitalism, "muh bible", and "muh jobs".

During WWII, there was more technological innovation than in the surrounding four decades combined. At that time, the brightest minds were assembled and given unlimited resources to do research. Imagine if that rate of tech advancement had continued. Instead, most research is done by private entities that keep their results secret from each other. Civilization thrives when it focuses on cooperation, not competition. The "Who cares about the consequences? All we're interested is profit" mindset is going to destroy human civilization as we know it, and the blame rests on the bankers, their lapdogs, the people buying into their flimsy propaganda, and the rest of us who vote for the lesser evils because we know the non-criminal politicians will never win (fulfilling our own prophecies).

File: DeerInHeadlights.gif (2MB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x300px

>>9007173
Underrated post.

File: 1485563599793.jpg (71KB, 605x372px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 605x372px

>>8999702
Not a climate scientist but I've studied this subject enough to at least give 2 cents into this conversation.

> Be human
> 1700's
> figure out how to burn shit for production
> not actual shit but things like coal, fossil fuels
> environment gives 0 fucks
> environment is exiting a mini ice age
> human start to destroy "environment
> actually killing themselves, too stupid to realize.
> environment still gives 0 fucks

...fast forward...

> 1980s
> Love Canal (no, it's not a sex joke)
> radioactive hell hole
> environment gives 0 fucks
> environment one ups them like a Chad at a party, cause humanity sucks
> Mount St. Helens
> humans die from cancer and exposure from own stupidity
> environment laughs while giving 0 fucks


Global warming is a bullshit agenda, the climate has been consistently changing for 4+ billion years and it's not going to stop because Al Gore asked it to be comfortable.

>>9007230
>Not a climate scientist
wow what a surprise

fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>>9007230
>figure out how to burn shit for production
>not actual shit
cow chips were actually an extremely important fuel for a lot of civilizations. still are for some.

>Not a climate scientist but I've studied this subject enough
>Global warming is a bullshit agenda
YouTube conspiracy videos don't count.
>the climate has been consistently changing for 4+ billion years
you don't know what "consistently" means.

>>9007061
Large land mammals may very well be fucked. However, human ingenuity will keep us alive. I sort of hope it happens and 80% of the dumbest humans on the planet die off. It really would be the best possible thing for us.

>>9007329
>best possible thing
Sure if you think it's great that everything up to the 50th latitude is open desert. That 20% is way too optimistic.

>>9007230
>I've studied this subject enough to at least give 2 cents into this conversation.
Misinterpreting Wikipedia articles does not count as studying.

>>9001277
>If there was a legislative and executive power in charge of the entire globe, we could properly solve global crisis' such as global warming. If this has to be done through strong-armed tactics, so be it.

You assume the problem with global warming is that people are ignorant.

The problem is that the evidentiary basis is inaccessible to the average person and yet you're asking them to make a leap of faith in giving broad executive powers to a group of people.

If you think a world government would makes shit more efficient...you're wrong. You assume a lack of malice, psychopathy, megalomania, and incompetence in people who would form a ruling class of the world.

>>9001323

You're demanding people accept "evidence", that they have no basis to judge or evaluate, in order to create a ruling caste that makes decisions based on said "evidence".

You're a fucking idiot.

>>9007447
>>9007452
CONT.

So explain the evidentiary basis, the hypothesis, the test, and the theory behind climate change.

Even better, in terms that an Applachian hillbilly could understand, how the model you propose will never be superseded by more advanced techniques and data. Tell me how politicians genuinely care about the planet, as opposed to using a "crisis" as a means to monopolize even more executive powers.

People aren't against climate change because they're completely fucking stupid. People are against it because nobody explains how hypothesis A necessitates a political order B with broad ranges of power to affect industry and economy.

>>9007466
CONT.

I guess in summary, people are valid in questioning something that could shake up their lives in terms of politics and industrial and economic coordination.

You can't merely dismiss people who have experience being talked down to by "experts" who ended up being wrong.

EX: Nutritionists who promoted high-carb low-fat for decades.
Electronic salesman who convinced public school districts that computers would lead to increased learning in the classroom
Pundits who fanned the flames for a war on Iraq but who would suffer none of the consequences of that conflict
Fitness trainers pushing for cardio over weight-lifting, despite the former causing heart muscle damage and the latter protecting people from muscle wastage as they age

File: stupid.jpg (79KB, 874x684px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 874x684px

>tfw my parents are both published research Scientists in the fields of Climate Science and Oceanography
>I am a retard brainlet, even in school, I failed Geography and Physics
>tfw I am 27 years old and live at home
>have been working in a old persons home for 8 years have to wipe those stinky old ass all the time
>tfw the old people at the old persons home all deny climate change
>they say things like 'is earth is getting warmer then why did betty die of pneumonia' and other stuff
>one of the old guys really fucking hates me because he found out my parents study climate change
>keeps threatning to come to my house with a shotgun and 'change the climate of my dads brain'
>the nursing staff don't believe me when I tell them because he always flirts with them and they must want his old man dick because they are all fat roasties in their 50's
>parents pretend to be proud of me but can tell they hate me
>try to read their papers and understanding them but they are too hard for me
>tfw will probably kill myself soon

>>9007475
>>9007466
>>9007452
>>9007447
CONT

With all this said, I think climate change is an actual risk. But you can't bash people with moralism and expect them to support your plan of action.

And since you have the boorishness of throwing graphs, you don't break down your understanding into terms the average person can process and evaluate.

Those fucking graphs man. 95% of people who use graphs in a fucking presentation think they're magical symbols of opinion turning.


>>9007497
>tfw the old people at the old persons home all deny climate change

Of course. You can't understand your parent's math and thusly, you can't understand why they're correct other than appeal to authority.

You have no idea the amount of snake oil they've been fed their entire life. You also have no idea how to explain why a model of climate change is correct to them.

That old guy is a bigger man than you.

>tfw will probably kill myself soon

There's nothing absolutely terrible about running away from your problems. Moving to another country, or area of the country, is not a forbidden option. You wouldn't have as much comfort but it would prune a lot of shitty minor thoughts. You'd gain confidence as an actual individual.

It's better than suicide at any rate.You haven't seen a fraction of the world but you're contemplating suicide? Ha ha ha

>>9007497
No homie, you can take those classes again. Go to school. You can do it. You don't have to wipe stinky old asses your whole life.

File: ZIcgTyb6_400x400[1].jpg (29KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x400px

>>9007447
>>9007452
>The problem is that the evidentiary basis is inaccessible to the average person and yet you're asking them to make a leap of faith in giving broad executive powers to a group of people.
>You're demanding people accept "evidence", that they have no basis to judge or evaluate, in order to create a ruling caste that makes decisions based on said "evidence".
This is true of practically any technical field, and yet nobody sees a NWO conspiracy in the development of antibiotics or the production of better fertilizers.
It sounds like you're arguing against basing crucial decision-making on anything too complicated for the Average Joe to understand. And that's how we get Trumpian foreign policy tbqh.

>>9007645
>This is true of practically any technical field, and yet nobody sees a NWO conspiracy in the development of antibiotics or the production of better fertilizers.

Because those lent themselves to concrete results.

>It sounds like you're arguing against basing crucial decision-making on anything too complicated for the Average Joe to understand.

Of course. Do you think the Average Joe has learned anything past algebra? Why the fuck would you flood people with shit they can't even begin to understand without training?

>And that's how we get Trumpian foreign policy tbqh.

Because Hillary would've been a superior CiC. You're fucking delusional. Trump wasn't a "positive" victory, it was a "negative" defeat of cancerous political parasites.

>>9007662
CONT.

Btw, for those lurking, this faggot is using an ideal vision of Average Joe so he can mock the concrete examples of an "average" person with average abilities.

"Ha you can't do calculus what a fucking moron"

File: Lord Buckethead.png (465KB, 748x503px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 748x503px

>>9007662
>those lent themselves to concrete results
and so does climatology. the South and Southwest in particular have already seen increases in severe weather and especially drought, these past years. of course, most people don't have the background to understand HOW emissions cause warming/antibiotics cure disease/fertilizer improves crops...but they sure as shit can see the results.
thank you for playing.

>Do you think the Average Joe has learned anything past algebra? Why the fuck would you flood people with shit they can't even begin to understand without training?
blimey, you actually think we shouldn't use anything that most people can't understand!
the whole point of civilization is division of labor, which allows us to designate experts to get REALLY REALLY GOOD at things. if we only used things that everyone could understand, we'd still be living in huts. meanwhile, Average Joe drives an automobile that he couldn't begin to build from scratch, much less engineer to its current state. but amazingly enough, he appreciates what it does for him even if he doesn't understand it.
the problem is not the existence of experts; the problem is anti-intellectualism masquerading as egalitarianism, which drives people to disdain and resent experts.

>>9007777
>the whole point of civilization is division of labor, which allows us to designate experts to get REALLY REALLY GOOD at things.

https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577

"The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited."

>>9007786
CONT.

"The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right."

File: put the deplorable in the basket.jpg (30KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 720x480px

>>9007662
>You're fucking delusional. Trump wasn't a "positive" victory, it was a "negative" defeat of cancerous political parasites.
Trump literally needed it explained to him EIGHT FUCKING TIMES that he couldn't negotiate with Germany individually, that he'd have to talk to the EU as a whole on economic matters.
Trump unironically thinks he knows better than the generals, and his strategy doesn't go beyond "drop a lot of bombs".
Trump literally couldn't remember which country he'd ordered an airstrike in, but didn't really care because he had a slice of cake in front of him.
Administration officials have found it necessary to slip Trump's name into every paragraph in briefings, because he doesn't fucking read anything unless it's about him.

The difference between Trump and literally every other American premier is that Trump doesn't really listen to his advisors; he packs his inner circle with cronies and yes-men, and just says and does whatever seems like a good idea at any given moment. You say "cancerous political parasites"? I say "people who spend literal decades learning every last thing about one particular aspect of policy, and who can give you actually informed advice". But brainlets like you resent the idea that maybe someone who spent their life studying might know more than some kiddie, so they just dismiss as worthless whatever they don't understand.

Trump is a backlash against intellectualism, the rebellion of (among others) morons and ignoramuses who fervently believe that any idiot can do the job. And now that they've elected an idiot, look how well he's doing. Our traditional allies are going behind our backs because they can't trust anything we tell them, our rivals are outwitting Trump at every turn, and our enemies have just been given the green light to do whatever they want to our allies now that Trump says he won't honor our treaty obligations. And on the homefront, Trump can't get legislation through a body controlled by his own party!

>>9007797
>Trump is a backlash against intellectualism,

>>9007786
>>9007791

And you're a fucking idiot if you think Hilary was a better choice.

>But brainlets like you resent the idea that maybe someone who spent their life studying might know more than some kiddie, so they just dismiss as worthless whatever they don't understand.

Calling me a brainlet and yet you don't understand the massive failure of the mainstream establishment.

File: ease off the ass.jpg (893KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 3264x2448px

>>9007786
>>9007791
>hurr durr pampered elites
>hurr durr they don't know what real life is like
dude, I grew up in a middle-class family. I've spent the past five years working stockroom jobs (most recently while putting myself through grad school). I've lived in big blue cities and small red cities. I'm a beer-swilling GEOSCIENTIST living in Texoma for fuck sake.
believe me, I understand WHY rural working-class conservatives think what they do about experts, and why they so consistently vote against their own interests, and how easily a healthy skepticism turns into a pathological contrarianism. but that doesn't mean it's in anyone's interests to go along with that line of thinking.

is it literally all you've got that some academics are out of touch? reads like a lot of whining desu senpai

File: doggolution.jpg (32KB, 480x430px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x430px

>>9007807
>you're a fucking idiot if you think Hilary was a better choice
call me what you like, but I prefer to be led by people who have some idea what they're doing. also, the whole "calling for violence against political opponents" and "egotistically lying about the pettiest of things" things are kind of a turn-off.

but isn't it telling that your only defense of Orange Daddy is to try and change the subject to someone else? you (on some level) know how thoroughly incompetent he is, so you immediately try to distract from the embarrassment of his tenure by asserting (without evidence, naturally) that the counterfactual scenario would have been even worse.

>>9007807
>Calling me a brainlet and yet you don't understand the massive failure of the mainstream establishment.
the failure of the mainstream establishment is that it wasn't able to stop the anti-intellectual fringe from breaking everything. if you look back at the past 30 years or so, the mainstream establishment has actually done a pretty good job.
and yes, you are a brainlet if you think that governance should only make use of things simple enough for the Average Joe to understand. worse, you're an insecure brainlet; you're terrified of the idea that someone might be superior to you.

>>9007832
>and yes, you are a brainlet if you think that governance should only make use of things simple enough for the Average Joe to understand

My point was that it doesn't make sense to moralize people who don't "believe" in climate change. If you make conclusions using tools that only a very small minority can utilize and understand, it makes no sense to be angry at people who don't work with the data and tools.

If you want a political will in a democracy, you have to break things down for "Average Joe".

Otherwise you're just being a sadistic cunt when you berate other people for not "believing" in climate change. And even more importantly, for not believing in establishing some government thing with the power to meddle with industry and economy.

>>9007857
But the basics of AGW are really simple (CO2 is a blanket, etc.), and scientists HAVE done a decent job of explaining them. The people who deny AGW aren't doing so from clear ignorance - they're either confused by propaganda, hiding in fear denial and anti-intellectualisim, or lying their asses off.

Askimg scientists to explain harder is a waste of everyone's time.

>>9007900
>But the basics of AGW are really simple (CO2 is a blanket, etc.), and scientists HAVE done a decent job of explaining them.

Not really. At least on climate change. You fucked up when promoting global warming without explaining that it meant different weather patterns as opposed to an image of the sun being more merciless.

When you trotted out climate change, people experiencing colder weather got the idea it was just bullshit.

> The people who deny AGW aren't doing so from clear ignorance

Most of the population doesn't understand the notion of thermodynamics other than in edge cases where they work day-to-day.

>Askimg scientists to explain harder is a waste of everyone's time.

Of course. But then you have the political question. A lot of people are, rightfully, scared of policies shoved in the name of a force they can't even grasp.

As I said, I support viewing climate change as a threat on simple conservatism and threat evaluation. It's something that could get really fucked up, therefore we should explore ways not to get fucked up.

At the same time, remember that people have been through threats of global cooling than global warming than climate change...

Crying wolf all the time makes people less urgent about the dangers you espouse.

>>9007950
not the anon you're replying to but scientists didn't do any of those things, that was all media
and media like to scare people, news at 11
this issue affects the future of the entire planet so it's easy to 'accidentally appear' hyperbolic when writing that clickbait article about runaway methane of whichever is the scare of the week

but that said i would still rather see a lot of false positives than know nothing, at least they are easy enough to spot

>>9000110

Haha, well said. As a kid in the 1970's I believed we lived in a progressive ( scientifically, rational and well educated ) society where scientists would eventually be listened to, where the pollution and environment problems would be eventually rectified and we would all live happily in a sustainable future in a world run by wise and enlightened people.

Haha, it makes me laugh to think about how wrong my parents and I were.
We knew all about this shit back in the 1970's, and I watched in disbelief as the decades rolled by and nothing, other than the application of ineffectual bandaids, was done.

You haven't even mentioned soil degradation. The worlds soils, with few exceptions, are fucked. Yes. Absolutely fucked. They are like sponges to which we must add all manner of nutrients to in order to achieve an economically viable crop. For that we rely heavily upon petroleum products. Yeah most people ignore that shit. Its not fashionable to think about something so mundane as the fucking grubby soils. They will fuck every single last inch of the Earth, wipe out every natural habitat, exterminate countless millions of species, even when a few scream in their faces that such insanity is merely assuring their eventual self destruction. The dumbfucks.They will die in their billions. Not millions. Billions. And ya know what? Good fucking job.

File: 1480537544019.png (509KB, 313x415px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 313x415px

>people itt throwing around predictions about the XXIIIc.
That's why normalplebs or anyone at all, for that matter, doesn't take you seriously. You started scaremongering way too early and people just got tired of being guilt-tripped for 40 years and nothing actually happening. That's why you get the rampant anti-scientism. Because people don't want to be told they should sacrifice their way of life to lower emmisions while 3rd world subhumans commission another 100 coal guzzlerz this year and get paid on top of that and self-righteous faggots like Al Gore, bitching about GW, rack up a thousand lifetimes of emmisions with their private jets.

File: Can I come in now.jpg (73KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 700x525px

>>9007857
>it doesn't make sense to moralize people who don't "believe" in climate change
why not? we moralize to people who don't "believe" in evolution, right? we moralize to people who don't "believe" in vaccines, don't we?
the information is available, provided even, to give everyone a novice's understanding of how climate change works. (burning fuel emits carbon dioxide -> carbon dioxide traps heat -> trapped heat causes surface of planet to warm -> more drought, crop failures, etc.) Average Joe won't be able to understand the intricacies of the models, or how we quantify various contributions, or how atmospheric circulation is being affected, but he'll get the gist.
and not only can Average Joe reasonably learn the basic framework, there is a moral responsibility. there is a very real cost to inaction, and people encouraging inaction should be taken to task for it.
I will say this in Joe's defense: he's not entirely responsible for his own denialism. he's been fed a steady diet of misinformation by a right-wing media operation that actively spreads conspiracy theories seeking to delegitimize everything from evolutionary biology to climatology to respiratory medicine (for a mixture of cultural and financial reasons). he's been taken in, and yet he rails against anyone who tries to tell him so (because this would entail admitting a mistake, which humans naturally dislike).

but really, you're trying to move the goalposts. just a few posts up you were claiming that we shouldn't base policy on anything too complicated for the common man to understand. now you're saying that we just need to explain it in simple terms.

>>9000110
>>9000312
>>9005238
>>9007049
>>9007497
>life on Earth will end because of little greenhouse effects
Take your meds, schizos. We're not turning into Venus. Literally nobody cares about several billion thirdworlders dying.

>>9007950
>You fucked up when promoting global warming without explaining that it meant different weather patterns
Climatologists have been bringing up changing weather every chance they get. And I'm not sure it's fair to blame them for not making it simple, when the connection between climate and weather is fundamentally complex.

>When you trotted out climate change, people experiencing colder weather got the idea it was just bullshit.
They didn't get that idea on their own. It took a massive PR campaign to push that bullshit.

>Most of the population doesn't understand the notion of thermodynamics other than in edge cases where they work day-to-day.
They don't need to. But they do need to accept that some people do.

>A lot of people are, rightfully, scared of policies shoved in the name of a force they can't even grasp.
But the not of people forcing the exact opposite view?

>At the same time, remember that people have been through threats of global cooling than global warming than climate change...
Exactly. People aren't listing to scientists because they're listening to propaganda instead.

>Crying wolf all the time makes people less urgent about the dangers you espouse.
That seems like a stunningly bad idea if there's an actual wolf running around.

>>9008012
>How dare scientists actually warn us about a problem before it becomes a disaster.
What the fuck?

>Al Gore Al Gore AlGore AlGoreAlGoreAlGore
What the fuck?

>>9008155
The lack of concrete evience of a concept and hypocrisy from its most vocal preachers lead the average brainletto to contrarianism and anti-scientism. First it was flooding and desertification by 2000. Then by 2010. Then by 2020. And now the "things will get serious fo'sho dis time, I swear" goalpost is already at +2050 and people kind of stopped minding scaremongers crying wolf every decade.

>>9008200
Except none of that has happened, because you just made it up.

>>9008205
Whatever, schizo. Enjoy rising chink emissions.

>>9008072
>not turning into Venus
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

>>9008072
First of all, if you're not some billionaire family trust fund baby, your survival is hardly assured. Second, if you live within a hundred miles of an airport, you're going to be surrounded by refugees and/or soldiers when shit hits the fan. I don't think you understand what a global scale disaster entails; this isn't going to be some little proxy war or regional destabilization you laugh at as you sit in your underwear watching CNN, this is going to be the end of your comfy, mundane life as you know it and the beginning of a hellish fight for survival.

>>9008012
>That's why you get the rampant anti-scientism
BS, that came from a systematic propaganda campaign, modeled by the one big tobacco used.
Even some of the spin doctors are the same. Nothing random about it.

https://youtu.be/pRenGy0cg5s?t=4m

>>9008213
>arts degree journalist is somehow an authority on climate change

>>9008220
>you're going to be surrounded by refugees
>letting refugees in at all
I don't live in western european faggotland. Nobody will compromise his own scarce resources to house and feed brown people.
>mundane life as you know it and the beginning of a hellish fight for survival
Whatever your paranoia and misanthropy tells you. Somebody made you think civilized society will just roll over and die, mad max style, because water rises 1m over the next century and there's a more turbolent weather pattern. The truth is that society will adapt, populations will be moved, GMO will bring higher yields to compensate for arable land loss, a predominantly vegetarian diet will bring the amound of food needed down, fusion, fission and renewables will take over, public transport, cycling and electromopeds will replace cars, the built-to-last mentality will replace consumerism once again. The problem currently is that there isn't a visible and perceivable threat.

>>9008226
>systematic propaganda campaign
What does the 0.0001% has to gain from living in a shittier world of disorder and lowered quality of life? Their children breathe the same air, drink the same water and eat the same food. The flat currency that gives them authority will be the first thing to collapse. it doesn't make any sense.

>>9008259
>Somebody made you think civilized society will just roll over and die
You think billions of people are just going to roll over and die? You think they're going to ask PERMISSION to take refuge for survival?

This is what cradle-to-grave propaganda creates: little more than bipedal cattle that think they'll always have the same roofs over their heads and the same square meals a day for the rest of their unremarkable lives, and they wouldn't have it any other way. Whether they're Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Yugoslav, or, in this case obviously american, everyone thinks that, while things might get a little dire for people in less developed countries, THEIR comfy little farm is never going to see any real chaos. What a hole in the air you are.

>>9008267
so true, reminds me of
https://youtu.be/IESYMFtLIis?t=10m40s

File: Cash Money.jpg (69KB, 489x362px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 489x362px

>>9008259
>society will adapt, populations will be moved, GMO will bring higher yields to compensate for arable land loss
yes, everything will just magically fix itself!
>fusion, fission and renewables will take over, public transport, cycling and electromopeds will replace cars
this won't happen on its own. what environmentalists are trying to do is support research in those directions so that we can switch over sooner rather than later, with a minimum of hardship and suffering.

none of this adaptation happens on its own; we as a society have to put in the effort. and it's hard to do that when ~30% of our society denies the need to do so. don't just assume we'll do something about it before it's too late.

>>9008267
>What does the 0.0001% has to gain from living in a shittier world of disorder and lowered quality of life?
they're thinking only of the short term.
Après moi, le déluge.

>>9008277
>PERMISSION
Yeah, what permission can they get when you gun them down at the border, amirite.

>>9008284
>none of this adaptation happens on its own
You have no idea what a capacity for adaptation humans have when actual danger comes. All the "vices" of modern fossil consumerist society can be unfucked in a decade if real danger is present.

>they're thinking only of the short term.
Do they? Seems highly improbable that the old wealth class that usually plans 2-3 generations ahead hasn't considered the risks of climate change.

>>9008286
Because gunning down disaster refugees at the border is definitely going to get you reelected, amirite. We live in the cellphone and internet age; you can't just gun down mobs of refugees, pile them into mass graves, and call it a day like the old days, my friend. You're a delusional imbecile that thinks anyone at the top of the pile cares about the consequences of their short term greed or how it will totally destroy your way of life. They might be mostly fine, you won't.

>>9001241
>be astrowizard dwelling on Earth
>finally finished constructing my astral concentrator
>suck up the spiritual power from all the dead life on Earth
>use it to ascend to a new plane
>laugh at Mars cucks from my cozy pocket dimension

>>9008301
I'm obviously talking for the time when supranational bodies become overwhelmed by lack of resources and political will. What would other countries care about what you do to protect your borders when they are swarmed in the very same way?

>>9008295
>ll the "vices" of modern fossil consumerist society can be unfucked in a decade if real danger is present.
Thats like not worrying about getting into a car crash, because you could press the brakes if you hit something.

>Do they? Seems highly improbable that
Why are you presenting this as a hypothetical?
We know they don't care, because we know they published propaganda that helped create this mess. Pretending otherwise is just denial.

>>9008155
>>9008226
>thinking it will actually become disaster soon
The level of cognitive dissonance among climate alarmists is just amazing. No one is saying climate isn't getting warmer, the speed at which it is, is literally impossible to model and predict. The earth's temperature hasn't been rising the past 19 years, since they started recording proper ocean temperatures in the data.

Is it really delusional to believe, humans put their own self-importance and exaggerated capacities to affect the entire world, over reality(the fact humans aren't that powerful)?

File: inconvenientfacts.png (176KB, 720x324px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 720x324px

>>9008319

>>9008286
You might end up having a civil war, that's why
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=30m40s

>>9008317
>they published propaganda
If the higher echelons of power wanted climate change to be ignored, all research and news on the subject can be suppressed (aka selectively ignored by all media outlets) overnight. The only people shilling against GW are some rep. bibletards.

File: RSS.png (27KB, 835x552px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 835x552px

>>9008320
RSS is bullshit, it was shown to be so in March 2016.
Only morons like you refer to it anymore.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m55s

>>9008319
>The earth's temperature hasn't been rising the past 19 years
Lies.

>>9008320
>Old, flawed data.
>Cherry-picked start date.
You are a liar. Go away.

>>9008322
>civil war
That implies that any refugees were let in prior to that. This only happens in western Europe. It also implies that anyone will side with brown people which won't happen where I live even now.

>>9008338
idiot, watch the video
latinas are already 20% of usa, and rising fast

File: contest.png (219KB, 540x395px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 540x395px

>>9008295
>You have no idea what a capacity for adaptation humans have when actual danger comes.
Nice magical thinking bro.
>All the "vices" of modern fossil consumerist society can be unfucked in a decade if real danger is present.
There is a real danger already. What you're saying is that we'll be able to fix everything AFTER things start going to shit in earnest. Well, we may not have a decade. The whole point is to nip the problem in the bud, insofar as we can. Smaller changes now prevent or reduce massive upheavals to come.

>>9008319
>the speed at which it is, is literally impossible to model and predict
for you.
>The earth's temperature hasn't been rising the past 19 years
yes it has.
>since they started recording proper ocean temperatures
why on earth would you invoke ocean temperature measurement to explain an apparent pause (now known to be instrumental error) in tropospheric temperature increase? two completely different things, you actual retard.

>>9008320
>le 1998 graph
yeah okay fag

>>9008310
>I'm obviously talking for the time when supranational bodies become overwhelmed by lack of resources and political will.
That will happen long after your home is already completely overrun by refugees. When the violence starts, you will be in the thick of it, not sitting on your couch glad that someone is taking care of it far away from you. Unless you live in an incredibly small, densely populated country that has protected its borders, neutrality, and economic tenability (literally Switzerland and no where else), you are going to be surrounded by war and refugees if there is a global disaster. Do you understand what "global" means? A few million here, ten million there that we see in the middle east right now will seem like a few grains of sand compared to the sandstorm that will hit if there is a massive, global crop failure and a substantial amount of the remaining food is in your country.

>>9008338
What part of "people fleeing for their lives aren't going to wait politely in line for customs" aren't you understanding? Are you and your entire city going to scurry to the airports, land, and sea borders yelling "muh jobs" to stop them when they start flooding in?
>Durr, we just won't let them in.
You're a fucking imbecile.

>>9008344
>usa
I got 99 problems but a being a burgerlander ain't one.

>>9008346
>magical thinking
Humans can survive absolutely everywhere. Even if billions die (good riddance), billions will live and adapt.

>survive everywhere
>fingers in ears LALALALAlalalala can't hear you

guess you think brown people don't have nukes

>>9008349
>after your home is already completely overrun by refugees
As I said, this scenario doesn't happen the way you think
>millions
>Durr, we just won't let them in.
Do you think people trying to preserve their life will throw it away trying to storm a MG-ridden border checkpoint?
>aren't going to wait politely
Again, nobody's letting them in, politely or impolitely.

>nukes
Hmm, who has enough to literally flatten all non-white population centers in the world, I wonder. Could it be...whites? Also
>what are ABM missiles
>what are shit-tier SRBM and MRBM that third worlders use that are completely interceptable even now

>>9008371
>trying to storm a MG-ridden border checkpoint?
What is it with you fucknuts and your violence fantasies. Are you sexually aroused by the idea of finally getting to shoot people, or is this just internet toughguy bullshit taken to an absurd level?

>>9008378
>violence fantasies
>sexual arosal (here we go...)
I don't want to shoot shitskins. I'm just saying that they won't throw their life away only to enter a completely hostile territory- it's irrational. As I said, nobody here has sympathy for them.

>>9008371
I love this fantasy world you live in where politicians will allow refugees to get gunned down as they flee for their lives, starving people care about your border checkpoints, or the hundreds of thousands of MG nests you need to protect the border of even a relatively small country. For humanity's sake, I hope you're some bored shill being payed $20/hr to do the lowest level PsyOps and not some shit stain embodiment of centralized, formulated mass media.

File: Adjusted.png (441KB, 1102x848px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1102x848px

>>9008346
>>9008334
>>9008333
Ok so it had to be adjusted, but your arguments are still not very convincing, objective or even sound.

>>9008390
I love this fantasy world you live in where a country under martial law, in a world in a state of economic, migrational and energy crisis, with limited energy, food and water reserves and with no way to replenish them and with a considerably hostile to muslim immigrants population will let millions upon millions of additional resource consumers and law wreckers to leech off what little is left.

>>9008371
>will throw it away trying to storm a MG-ridden border checkpoint

No of course not. What will happed is people stuck at the border will start joining local drug and gun trafficking gangs, just to survive. Corruption will flourish on both sides of the border.
If you think Mexican cartels are bad now, just wait when you have millions of desperate people doing godknowswhat 24/7.

>>9008396
It's still the odd one out, it's a fucking wreck - into the dumpster it goes.

>>9008301
back in the good old days you could just pile them into mass graves my friend

>>9008407
>will let millions upon millions of additional resource consumers and law wreckers
Regardless of whatever idiotic fantasies you've concocted in your head, droves of refugees fleeing for their lives from starvation aren't going to be gunned down because you personally see them as law wreckers, nor will any politician who wants to keep his job or avoid a Hague tribunal when things settle down. And unless you're swiss, your sparse border checkpoints are going to do fuck all to stop millions of homeless, starving refugees from trying to survive. Serious question: are you paid to sound this stupid?

File: Faggot alert.gif (152KB, 680x453px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 680x453px

>>9008352
>Humans can survive absolutely everywhere.
niBBa it's not about the survival of humanity but rather the survival of civilization. our world is a lot more fragile than you think, and you're just assuming "oh well, things will work out somehow".

>>9008371
>Do you think people trying to preserve their life will throw it away trying to storm a MG-ridden border checkpoint?
I dunno if you've been reading "The Camp of the Saints" or something, but wholesale slaughter of starving refugees will directly lead to regime change. I guess you're arguing for a repressive dictatorial police state then? typical crypto-fascist.

>>9008396
>half a kelvin in 30 years
>no big deal guys!
it's actually a pretty big deal. and remember, other lines of evidence show even MORE warming.

>>9008407
>a country under martial law, in a world in a state of economic, migrational and energy crisis, with limited energy, food and water reserves and with no way to replenish them
this is the crapsack future you're arguing in favor of?

>>9008424
>aren't going to be gunned down
Ok. I just loved how vibrantly the fully functioning world community reacted to the murder of georgian civilians en masse in abhazia, or in chechnya, or in Bosnia (inb4 muh intervention after 3 years and 30k civilians killed), or the 200k civilians in Syria or the US killing thousands of civilians in "woops, I didn't know that was a hospital, brah" strikes all throughout the ME.

>>9008438
>in favor of
Well, not really, but it will happen. I'm just arguing that it won't be the end of modern civilization.

>>8999702
Global warming is a bunch of overhyped political bullshit.
We have plenty of time to allow laissez-faire and let other energy become cheaper than coal with progress

>>9008444
>not understanding how people respond differently to collateral damage overseas versus deliberate mass executions at one's own borders

>it will happen, nothing we can do about it
congratulations on reaching stage 4. I hope that someday soon you'll graduate to stage 5.

>>9008453
>market forces make wind, hydro, and gas cheaper than coal
>coal industry suffers
>bunch of rednecks elect a moron who blames decline on environmental regulations
it's already happened; even without a carbon tax coal is on its way out. but the people in charge are determined to go against market forces and try to prop it up.

>>9008455
>one's own borders
Muslims aren't completely "human" by local standards.

>>9008444
You are conflating wildly different things. No one cares about the civil wars of other countries; that's their problem. When you start slaughtering refugees in or immediately outside your borders, everyone cares. Cheney and Bush haven't set foot in Europe since he left office; people still very much care about all the civilian deaths brought about by american forces in the middle east, and that was in a "war". Serious question: are you paid to sound this stupid?

>>9008460
You're a retard and everyone knows it; no need trying to save face by getting some pithy last word in.

>>9007452
>You're demanding people accept "evidence"
I'm not 'demanding' shit.
> in order to create a ruling caste
Where are you getting this garbage from? I never suggested anything of the sort.

>You're a fucking idiot.
NO U

>>9007821
>is it literally all you've got that some academics are out of touch? reads like a lot of whining desu senpai
>reads like a lot of whining desu senpai
Oh the irony...

File: society-grows-great.jpg (25KB, 236x311px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 236x311px

>We need to combat climate change with globalisms
>Need
What is wrong with environmentally concerned nationalists?

>>9007338
My bad for the late reply. The 20% was mostly not to get your feelings hurt and keep you from focusing on the percentage. And yet, that's exactly what you did. The point still stands, the vast majority of humans are garbage and need to be killed off. If im being honest, im hoping the percentage of humans killed is closer to 99%.

File: dude stop.jpg (12KB, 280x373px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 280x373px

>>9009777
>I'm not whining!
>you're the whiner!

>>9009885
I bet all the kids in the playground think you're badass,

>>8999702
We are fucked if we listen to the Marxists alarmists and make policy that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with taking power away from nation's.

>>9009869
>What is wrong with environmentally concerned nationalists?
They don't exist is whats wrong with them
Also nationalism stifles scientific progress which will only hurt the environment at this point

>>9009869
>pic
old men are shitting on our porches instead because they know they'll never have to clean it up

>>8999702
>still believing the co2 meme

>>9011158
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>9011132
/mlpol/ plz go

>>9011132
taking power away from nation's what

>>8999916
When has the EU or China ever efficiently solved their own problems, you cuck? Just look at the egregious pollution problem in China.

File: reasons for migrations.gif (8KB, 532x345px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 532x345px

>>8999742
>Climate is already the biggest determinant of (economic) migration
oh gee i believe everything I read on 4chins

>>9011386
he said climate is behind economic migration
your pic (from 2007) proves him right, in a way

the discussion is whether climate is already affecting the economy then ..

>>9003654
you're funny anon

>>9011369
>c-cuck
Cuck, short for cuckold, is the automated response given by the /pol/ user when it gets confronted with something it does not understand. This confusional state often results in frog posting and further incoherent ramblings about "muh white genocide", or "muh cultural marxism". The /pol/ user will then often retreat to a safe environment, such as /mlp/, although it is on occasion also observed to 'double down' on its muddled and often prolix confabulations. This latter phenomenon is why the /pol/ user is widely regarded as an archetypal sufferer of double down syndrome.

>Is this like "a few million 3rd world people die, but otherwise we are fine"?

This is the kind of propaganda that they are currently spreading and it works because people are selfish assholes that don't give a shit about others.

However it's completely false. The effects will be global. I mean, it's just common sense.

We know it's going to be bad but we don't know what exactly will happen because these things are hard to predict.

War could break out in multiple places. Some countries would collapse. At the very least in the west we will experience

>direct effects of extreme weather: hurricanes, forest fires, tornadoes, ...etc
>food supply shortages meaning higher food prices
>water shortages
>an influx of immigrants for all over
>displacement of people within own country because some areas become less suited for habitation
>economic problems related to our dependency on foreign economies in countries that have been affected by climate change in much more drastic ways (for example a tsunami in Japan that closes a lot of industry unexpectedly).

When you factor in the cost of all these events on our nations it's going to be massive. A big chunk of our GDP. Which is why it's kind of retarded when people talk about fighting climate change being economically unfeasible without realising that climate change effects have a cost.

>>9011510
I so fucking need this in david attenborough's voice

>>8999916

>EU
>global leadership

You gave a giggle lad.

>>8999702
Average land surface temperature in North American are going to be up 7 to 8 Celsius by 2090.

Don't mind the dumbfucks who can't actually read the literature, who are looking at ocean surface temperatures.

We are all fucked more or less and will have to just deal with the change.

>>9012323
>7 to 8 Celsius by 2090
lmao those models predict some scary things. Pity they have been proven wrong time and time again.

File: climate.png (138KB, 952x362px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 952x362px

>>9012607
You stupid fucker of a troll. Read the full report for the Physical Science IPCC 2013 literature review before you talk shit about something you don't know anything about.

These models tend to lean towards more conservative estimates to appease the 'climate doesn't exist' brainlets.

>>9012661
>models/predictions
>physical science
By 2090 the IPCC models will be proven incorrect as usual just like they have been for the past 30 years.