Personally I think we must be having some impact, it would almost be silly to think otherwise. However, i don't buy into the doomsday scenario that's being sold.
Average global temperature has increased by over 1.25°C in the past fifty years, and we have ample evidence that this has been enough to affect weather and wind systems, and affect ocean currents as well as increasing extreme weather incidents. TBH, before I moved to the US, I wasn’t even aware that anyone seriously doubted this—it’s almost unanimous scientific consensus with no serious institutions holding contrarian opinions.
I sincerely believe that climate change will severely impact the quality of life in most regions of the planet in the next 30–50 years unless humanity musters a staunch response to it.
I sincerely believe that climate change will severely impact the quality of life in most regions of the planet in the next 30–50 years unless humanity musters a staunch response to it.
I have good news! Your hypothesis of global warming was already proven wrong using the scientific method:
UN scientists in 1989 shared your theory that global warming would "severely impact the quality of life", but it turned out false. No nations were "wiped off of the face of the earth" in the year 2000 like the scientists foretold.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that that predictions are not in the process of coming true. The article describes what a temperature increase of 3-7°C would do, and we're at +1.25°C.
We have had unprecedented droughts in Europe and North America, an uptick in wildfires, hurricanes, and floods. The Maldives have experienced erosion in 90% of their country and are spending half of their national budget on combatting the effects of rising sea levels, we're seeing increased desertification and exhaustion of ground water in other parts of the world. So, the predictions seem directionally correct, if perhaps not completely accurate in magnitude.
The UN did not predict "unprecedented droughts" and they did not predict "an uptick in wildfires, hurricanes, and floods". The UN's hypothesis was that nations would be "wiped off of the face of the earth".
Why didn't you mention the benefits of a warmer planet? If you can't defend the UN's falsified hypothesis, then you should at least steelman how humanity gains from a warmer climate.
The chemtrails do not affect the amount of sunlight coming to the earth, therefore, it is ok to unload all of China’s fly ash into the atmosphere of the world and poison everything with the heavy and light metals in it. Aluminum is especially, bad for anything living, but never mind, the temp went up 1.25 degrees, especially when you measure it next to the runways where jets are taking off and landing at high intervals.
Yes, there was a stark change to temperature patterns in the last 50 years, and even with the collective action so far, greenhouse gas emissions are still trending up.
shrugs.... the vast majority of earths history there was no ice on the poles. As recent as 5000 years ago there was no summer Arctic sea ice.....for nearly 35% of the earth's history there was no ice anywhere on earth.
What does "AGW" even mean in that context?
I understand not having ice on poles for 85% of the earths history doesn't itself disprove AGW, but its going to be impossible to determine given the large variations in climate that are naturally occurring.
The AGW...sorry...Climate Change debates are one of the worlds great psyops. Take the shrug pill. Let the commies turn off their electricity and dismantle their factories.
You do know that "back then" the world looked a whole lot different, right?
Human populations were sparsely spread across continents, and still partly nomadic.
People back then were not only tougher, but could also handle changes in landscape better; Who cared if the coastline was 5 km further inland or not? A few degrees warmer or colder?
In today's day-and-age, it's all a lot more complicated and damage caused by rising water levels, droughts or too wet seasons is felt much more then back then, hence why it's a big deal.
The damage is being caused by god-like humans that think that they can control the weather with their various experiments that they perform on us without our consent. All of their EMF and dumping in the skies and radars is causing the strange weather effects. We are not doing it, THEY are.
it's all a lot more complicated and damage caused by rising water levels, droughts or too wet seasons is felt much more then back then, hence why it's a big deal.
Fair point. However, if its naturally caused what are we going to do? If its human caused, who is going to take the haircut?
Are you going to go without electricity so mega-wealthy home owners get their beachside resort?
That extreme example expands outwards... if the US / Europe "do without electricity" what does it matter if China + rest of world ignore it?
It's absolutely human-caused, and I don't see us change anything to combat it - at least not in the dimensions needed.
Humans are egoistic by nature, thus I only see AI or fusion as a last-ditch effort to barely keeps things right; that, or we'll have to adapt to new living circumstances.
While climate change is a controversial issue, my take would be 50/50. Humans aren't completely responsible because because the atmosphere they and their deeds are just not enough to do it. There's something else that's driving the climate change (if there's). I see it as temporary fluctuation. But we can't be sure and it's better we plant more trees, stop deforestation and over industrialisation.
The largest impact to climate and global ecosystems is fiat currency.
When the money supply is infinite, the natural result is infinite consumption which has devastating effects on all of the natural resources that we consume.
In short, the amount of debt that people have is a measurement of how much future resources we have consumed ahead of time.
It is nice to be able to blame such a good villain for almost everything, but, alas, it is the people doing the isht and not just the fiat. The fiat currencies are just tools for f*ckery.
I meant to say the people are employing the fiat to do their thieving. The fiat, by itself, is just like a pen, a stick, a knife or a firearm, just a tool. It is the human behind them that is the danger.
The mere existence of fiat is evil because money is absolutely necessary for society to function. The monopolization over the money production (fiat) automatically distorts incentives for every human that uses it.
Sticks, guns, and pens are just tools that are not necessary for society to function.
Libertarians prefer to deny the scientific consensus and deny that climate change is a problem.
Despite the facts such as recent years being the hottest ever recorded in modern history and demonstrable increase in severity of extreme weather events.
The reason Libertarians prefer to deny is two fold imo-
1- they are closely aligned with and influenced by vested interests like the Koch brothers and other environmental vandals in the oil industry who have long sought to sow disinformation/FUD and thereby stall any meaningful action on climate change.
2- they are horrified at the implications of accepting climate change is a real crisis as the obvious solution IF you accept the crisis is collective government led action. For Libertarians who believe 'the market' will fix all problems this is too much to swallow and so they continue to deny the science and present themselves as a fringe lunatic death cult.
I look at it this way. If you had pets living in a terrarium and you started filling it with smoke without an outlet for enough filtration there will be problems. How is the earth and atmosphere different considering the industrial revolution?
Did you notice, lately, that they found that trees actually took out a lot more CO2 than they thought? So, more trees and plants would probably provide enough filtration for that disastrous pollutant, CO2, to keep us breathing for a while. Don’t know if they got the plankton measurement correct, either.
I think talking to them is a waste of time!! You have to give them the proper incentives to keep the jungle as it is. If we don’t, they have all the incentives to turn the whole jungle into soybean farming to feed the Chinese and the pigs in China. I don’t know if they even realize that they have to rotate the crops.
It's the amount of humans, not what we do per se, I'd say, which causes problems; but of course it's only good and wishful to try and cram even more people onto planet earth. (/S)
I think we don’t have enough people in this world!! With more people we can get more geniuses and more scientists and more engineers to get us out of our problems. Also, ZPT is on its way. We may have to learn to deal with a world of abundance rather than scarcity.
Meanwhile I'm daydreaming about a "Black Death 3.0" which selectively kills of bad genes in the populace; not only would the amount of humans decline, but the chances of conceiving children with a predisposition for developing serious / deadly diseases / handicaps would also shrink greatly.
ZPT is zero point technology. This is the technology that we had, once upon a time, that gets “free” energy and makes it useful to us as electricity. No wires, every house or car has its own power supply, in other words an abundance of electricity (power).
Yes, but the issue has become so politicized and the scientific research so perversely incentivized that it is difficult to know what it true, what is false and what is somewhere in between and what is being used to manipulate you.
"Responsibility" implies more than causation. It suggests accountability.
Are humans causing change on our planet? Yes.
Are humans accountable for "protecting" or "undo-ing" our effect on the planet? Hell no!
Its up to the planet to adapt in response to its pinnacle species, even if it means drought, famine, extinction of other species etc. Its the "invisible hand" at work.
Humans are not separate from nature. Human flourishing is the only responsibility humans should be accountable for. Too often, policies will put "the planet" ahead of human flourishing.
There's definitely exist the human factor. It is known that the world has been emptied many times. Later, the population recovered.
But most of these extinctions were not human-involved.
What is happening now is that the carbon underground is burned and warms the atmosphere. I don't know if we're past the point of no return. Even if we haven't, it wouldn't make sense to expect human habits to change. Radical changes can only be made after seeing the bad results. If we're starting to see bad results, it's over.
P. S. :
Normally, we should be in the cycle of ice age, but we complain about the high temperatures. Yes, we should be in a ice age.
indeed we certainly are fucking shit up pretty good. but at this point i believe any such 'solutions' that will certainly be worse than letting things play out as they will play out. we aint gonna band together and figure it out, fairly and all that... it's all just corruption, greed and control for resources all the way down from here forward. So, I say let people do what they are going to do as far as carbon dioxide and all that goes.
Humans have little to no effect on the atmospheric CO2, end of story. However, the climate is changing, the planet is boiling, the seas are arising and we will all be dead in ten years if we don’’t start taxing all the rich countries at very high rates and deindustrialize them whilst giving the money to the rich people in the poor countries. Don’t open those curtains because behind them you will see all the volcanos going off and the clouds of stuff coming out of them. That other set of curtains has a bunch of tyrants behind them, so don’t open them, either.
AGW...sorry...Climate Change debates are one of the worlds great psyops. Take the shrug pill. Let the commies turn off their electricity and dismantle their factories.