nikolino840
Member
Yes,i speaking Philosophically...the problem was Born with cutting trees and put a lot of carbon dioxide creating the
Climate change report predicts end of human civilisation and climate apocalypse could start by 2050
- Thread starter Falcs
- Start date
Tesseract
Banned
we're not in the food chain
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
That is some honk honk, crazy talk.
We eat plants or we eat animals that eat plants. No insects = No plants. Insects will be the last ones on This rock.
Stuart360
Member
I used to believe all this years ago, until scientists let slip that the volcano that erruptd over Europe a few years ago, that effected all the flights, let off twice as much CO2 than the human race has in its entire history. And then you look at how many volcano's erupt every year, and you start to realize that maybe humanites effetc on this is being a little overstated. Also if you actually research this stuff, there are just as many scientists saying that climate change is natural and can prove it by looking at hundreds of years old trees etc.
Also any older users may remember the whole 'Global Cooling' fiasco from the 70's, whatever happened to that?.
Also any older users may remember the whole 'Global Cooling' fiasco from the 70's, whatever happened to that?.
Last edited:
DKehoe
Gold Member
Can you explain the agenda?
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Do you also remember the arctic ozone layer weakened by a dangerous gas from fridges and air conditions? Back in 80's
Nasa science helped repair the ozone layers so we didnt have a doomsday earlier Like 2012.
Now there is another threat we better take that serious as well.
#Phonepunk#
Banned
i frequent a lot of thrift store and buy a lot of conspiracy books from back in the day. this talk was all the rage in the 1970s. here i am 40 years later reading how we will run out of food in 1999 or whatever
the agenda is not addressing pollution or connecting corporate poisoning of our atmosphere to physical harm on the individual level. more corporate bail outs. a new speculative market. you have to be fooling yourself if you think corporations won't manipulate the carbon market the way they do the stock market. in the future they will be able to counter any environmental disasters that without question will continue to occur with ("well we will spend a few million more on carbon credits this year") and act like the problem is solved.
look the USA had a democratic president and majority dem congress during the Deepwater Horizon and what happened? nothing. the companies got off scott free. people were arrested for just going to the site.
they don't actually care they just want another way to take our money.
Last edited:
C
Contica
Unconfirmed Member
I think some of you need to understand something fundamental here.
This isn't just climate politics (which is horseshit anyways, show me ONE government who has actually done any harsh measures instead of just saying "it's horrible and we must act"), it's much bigger than that.
We are seeing extinctions on a massive scale. We have an entire island made of plastic waste out in the pacific. Beached whales have suffocated from eating plastic, same with birds and many marine animals. It's escalating fast. Untouched areas of nature are disappearing at an alarming rate.
And yes, the planet will be fine. Nature will always thrive in some way.
But we won't. We are not as adaptable as weeds and insects, and when the pillars we depend on to live start to crumble. We are fucked.
The planet however, will be fine.
This isn't just climate politics (which is horseshit anyways, show me ONE government who has actually done any harsh measures instead of just saying "it's horrible and we must act"), it's much bigger than that.
We are seeing extinctions on a massive scale. We have an entire island made of plastic waste out in the pacific. Beached whales have suffocated from eating plastic, same with birds and many marine animals. It's escalating fast. Untouched areas of nature are disappearing at an alarming rate.
And yes, the planet will be fine. Nature will always thrive in some way.
But we won't. We are not as adaptable as weeds and insects, and when the pillars we depend on to live start to crumble. We are fucked.
The planet however, will be fine.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
We And life as we know it, plants, animals, insects. we are all fucked.
it will take 1000 of years for the earth to get rid of the methane / co2. it could take millions of years for small bacteria to get legs and walk on earth again if that ever happens.
Last edited:
mcz117chief
Member
The "Great Garbage Patch" is not an island, do some research. Unless you mean something else.
Humans are by far and wide the most adaptable organism in the existence of this planet and you know why? Because while others have to change because of the environment we change the environment to adapt to us, that makes us quite literally unbeatable. Whatever happens human ingenuity will find a way, 100% guaranteed. Maybe we will face a massive decline in population but humans will not be gone unless the entire biosphere explodes and Earth suddenly turns into a lifeless rock, then yes, we would die too. Look at people living in deepest jungles or driest deserts, they found ways to survive and thrive.
"Climate politics", as you call them, exist and aren't horseshit, despite popular believe wealthy are heavily impacted by changes in the environment, they want the soil to be fertile and people to be happy so they can pay their taxes/buy their goods. The real problem are "activist" groups which fight against garbage incinerators (waste-to-energy plants), nuclear power plants and highways, all of these dramatically reduce pollution and mitigate damage to the environment.
Last edited:
pramod
Banned
I don't think most people are "climate deniers". It's not that we think climate change isn't real or that it's not a serious problem, it's just that we don't agree with the order of priorities that you guys want to impose on us.
IMHO there are other more urgent, potentially calamitous, and easier to address issues than climate change. Like plastic pollution, deforestation, etc. We can tackle those issues first before spending trillions of dollars to fix climate change RIGHT NOW. I just don't think it's that urgent. We still have time. We are already quickly adapting alternative sources of energy, I mean, we have no choice since fossil fuel supply isn't infinite. Just because of that reality I think we will never get to the cataclysmic level of climate change all these experts are predicting.
IMHO there are other more urgent, potentially calamitous, and easier to address issues than climate change. Like plastic pollution, deforestation, etc. We can tackle those issues first before spending trillions of dollars to fix climate change RIGHT NOW. I just don't think it's that urgent. We still have time. We are already quickly adapting alternative sources of energy, I mean, we have no choice since fossil fuel supply isn't infinite. Just because of that reality I think we will never get to the cataclysmic level of climate change all these experts are predicting.
Last edited:
off duty ninja
Member
I've always wanted to be part of an apocalypse, I guess I still have something to live for.
llien
Banned
We know we produce shitton of greenhouse gas.
We know, that if we have a bottle with normal air, and another one, with greenhouse gases like CO2, and just leave both in the sun, the latter one will:
It is INEVITABLE that releasing greenhouse gases makes planet warmer (not necessarily in all spots, as streams/winds that shape it can be stronger, but overall energy that system consumes) it is not that we just noticed that planet is getting hotter we know hy it should be getting hotter and want to exclude that factor.
But let's risk playing with fire, since half of americans hate american democrats so much, shall we...
Last edited:
Super Mario
Banned
If I have to explain this to you, you obviously haven't already seen it, and will refuse to see it.
Everything that comes from Liberals is about more government, more taxes, more regulations, more control.
We've been through decades of climate scare tactics already which have all been wrong. But NOW. Now, we got the right science. What a coincidence that it's targeted towards the younger crowd, who won't know better. Disguised as the "generation to save the planet from the rich old men, who don't care".
DKehoe
Gold Member
I'm curious because it's a view I don't quite get. I've always found the "it's so the government can control us" argument to be rather vague. So I want to try and understand it better. What sort of control do you mean? What specific changes do they want to bring and how do these relate to what they claim about climate change?
Druz
Member
The Liberal boogie men are coming for your thoughts.
All I am reading here is the utterly embarrassing ability to contort your spine perfectly forward and bury your head in a mound of sand. I would want specifically you to be the first affected by a catastrophic event but it's going to affect everyone. Saying "I told you so" would be too late for everyone.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Look i am by no mean a fan of the state controlling everything. But we cant ignore science, and we cant ignore people acting like they own the world. There needs to be limits.
Why we need to have limits is due to living on a finite place and the only place we know where life curerntly exists. Its precious, we dont know how precious but it would be wise to do everything we can to protect it. Which is also why nuclear power is no No. If you know the half Life of the radioactive matter that can be caused by a nuclear power malplaced would be disasterious. Its a dangerous game. I advice you to look up chernobul incident so you can get a idea, the whole of Europe was extremely close to being uninhabitable for 1000 of years. Nuclear power is tempting but extremely dangerous if you count the increased storms, increased magnitude of earthquakes due to the earth not spinning as fast. We really need to think things through instead of rushing to certain annihilation.
Last edited:
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Your willing to risk radioactivity with a half-life of a billion years before half of it is away?? The sun will engulf us making literally the lands uninhabitable the rest of our lifes. If a disasterious event happens. Which i mean thats what the future will be, if we by some miracle survive global warming. And stops our co2 from tomorrow. Then the co2 caused is delayed by 10 years, meaning our co2 right now is in the atmosphere for 10 years ahead. We already have a really hard life ahead and will cross 2 degrees global temperature. That means weather will be quite unstable. With that knowledge of increased instability on land does nuclear seem like a remotely good idea??
Last edited:
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
I think the sun engulfing the planet would make our lands uninhabitable by default lol
There's a lot of land that can be used for controlled dumping. Have you been to some of the less inhabited states and seen how much land isn't actually being used? While doing that technology will advance and maybe we can be the assholes that shoot our nuclear waste into space.
Nuclear reactor's are pretty safe now a days. Chernobyl is a ridiculous example to go by when comparing it to a 21st century Nuclear Reactor that isn't working under USSR standards. Fukushima was an old plant.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
I know that our New reactors are a lot safer, but we do not know how strong the future hurricanes will become As well as increased plantonic activity globally. I just dont see how it is wise to gamble when a disaster could mean radioactivity for the rest of planets age spreading to a quarter of the planet by air. Personally i find the half life of the radioactive density in a nuclear plant pretty terrifying.
mango drank
Member
It's all right. The machines+AI will have much more resilient and adaptable bodies than our own delicate water-bags. They'll survive the heat and extreme weather after we all die. I mean, they would've killed us all anyway, right?
murr'cah
murr'cah
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
Fucking retard
Kenpachii
Member
You don't know anything. You follow research from researchers that have no clue themselves what goes on. You follow politician opinions that are heavily influenced by green markets and same goes for research on that front.
All i hear from both sides is lots of blablablabla.
But the reality is, if you move into "a better enviroment" it's going to cost you a ton of money and it's going to effect your markets massively not only in your country self but also on the world market.
That's why trump is against it most of all and anybody with any valid sense of realisme.
No matter how hard people try to talk about "but research proofs this" yet everything has a effect on everything. the shit we spout in the air could very well be extremely healthy for a lot of animals and vegetation that helps us at the end of the day.
I would say watch this and then realize how little people know about anything. These dam wolves basically changed the living enviroment for tons of new animals favorable at the cost of only one animal.
The same goes for oceans. How do we know if maybe the heating up of the earth is actually the deep sea that has far more vulcano activity which result in heating up the water that cools other water parts or changes water flows as result that heat up ice and make it melt? or salt flows whatever.
And then if you watch stuff like this and watch it to the end u will honestly start to realize that those scientists are more and more sounding like religieus people that honestly just end where the bible starts.
I watch scientific stuff all day long on youtube and read about it in papers. but honestly the more you read the more you start to realize that there is so much flawed data that gets misused for agenda's or twisted for gaols that you can't take most of it any serious anymore.
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows
Banned
The world could turn into a charred, crispy desert and it would still be pissing it down in England.
#Phonepunk#
Banned
is there a way we can turn this into bets? like can i throw down 10k and bet a bunch of people that we are all still alive in 2050? people should have no problem, because they know they will be dead, and won't need that money anyways. then in 2050 i collect and retire wealthy into nanobot-prolonged old age.
Last edited:
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Bullshit, if that scene from that thumbnail were Florida the lizard would have been the size of a small dog.
Tesseract
Banned
sometimes i wonder if people outside florida are living in a dream world
they aren't on our level
Kagey K
Banned
It's less of a jump then I'm going to fix 2 million years on this planet in the next 30.
I'm all for saving the planet and such, just let's get realistic here.
Last edited:
Kusanagi2086
Member
The real issue with climate is overpopulation and the effect humanity has on natural resources that is what they are talking about.
For instance marine life is slowly dying and ammount of plankton is disappearing which is vital for the ecosystem not to mention overfishing we are pulling fish out of the ocean faster than than it can reproduce.
If Marine life start dying out it will lead to a public health crisis.
In Japan they started hunting whale not because they are dicks to whales but because they have to replace the lack of fish in the sea with something but even the whale population is declining now.
If let's say all bees died on this plane that would have serious consequences they are critical pollinators: they pollinate 70 of the around 100 crop species that feed 90% of the world. Honey bees are responsible for $30 billion a year in crops. That's only the start. We may lose all the plants that bees pollinate, all of the animals that eat those plants and so on up the food chain.
So it may start tiny but remember how every ecosystem has elements that needs to be there if one element goes down it will have a ripple effect.
For instance marine life is slowly dying and ammount of plankton is disappearing which is vital for the ecosystem not to mention overfishing we are pulling fish out of the ocean faster than than it can reproduce.
If Marine life start dying out it will lead to a public health crisis.
In Japan they started hunting whale not because they are dicks to whales but because they have to replace the lack of fish in the sea with something but even the whale population is declining now.
If let's say all bees died on this plane that would have serious consequences they are critical pollinators: they pollinate 70 of the around 100 crop species that feed 90% of the world. Honey bees are responsible for $30 billion a year in crops. That's only the start. We may lose all the plants that bees pollinate, all of the animals that eat those plants and so on up the food chain.
So it may start tiny but remember how every ecosystem has elements that needs to be there if one element goes down it will have a ripple effect.
Last edited:
Aintitcool
Banned
Did you know oil companies like exon made scientific studies about climate change as early as 1970 ? And their scientist proved it existed than and yet still companies didn't change.
I'm just thankful im in europe and probably will be in 2050, projection look not so bad where I am.
I'm just thankful im in europe and probably will be in 2050, projection look not so bad where I am.
Kusanagi2086
Member
I think in such a situation money will no longer matter anyways and if millions of people will probably have to relocate to other parts of the world they are moving the capital in indonesia because it is literally sinking.
In Venize the situation is really bad since erosion due to rising sea levels might end up sinking the city and the Italian government is just as crooked at the last 66 governments they have had in 70 years.
Super Mario
Banned
I'm with you completely on the potential downsides to nuclear. Let's dial it back into the real world though. What are real world solutions to energy, especially as we continue to grow in population and therefore, demand? The young SJWs think wind turbines and a solar panel on the roof are the answer because it sounds good. Every option has its pros and cons.
Wrong forum, I think you meant to post this in ResetEra, or at best you are on the wrong time period here
Druz
Member
What time period do you think this is? This didn't become a conservative conspiracy theorist forum just because the regressive left types found a new home. So I'm unsure what you're trying to imply here.
Kusanagi2086
Member
That we are all SJW's for daring to disagree with him because that's how political discourse works now, disagree with resetera you are a nazi disagree with an anti sjw you are a Marxist.
I frankly am sick of this nonsense let's try to have a nuanced debate instead of labeling each other how about that ?
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
My solution to increased energy demand is simply that we need be less focused on energy = good life.
We need to dial back until technology is able to be more eco friendly.
But what i am seeing instead is larger tvs, larger graphic cards, crypto currencies that uses way to much energy on calculations. We as humans are not dialing back we wants more. This way of progress is to fast without any ideas of the consequences. Im sorry but Even as a gamer i be fine just gaming doom 1993 graphics until the power structure is ready for more. We are as species creating more artificial demands this is not really atrributed to overpopulation but to life style of increasingly doing more With No regard to the consequences.
We need to dial back until technology is able to be more eco friendly.
But what i am seeing instead is larger tvs, larger graphic cards, crypto currencies that uses way to much energy on calculations. We as humans are not dialing back we wants more. This way of progress is to fast without any ideas of the consequences. Im sorry but Even as a gamer i be fine just gaming doom 1993 graphics until the power structure is ready for more. We are as species creating more artificial demands this is not really atrributed to overpopulation but to life style of increasingly doing more With No regard to the consequences.
somerset
Member
Articles like this one are written and promoted by the *Peter Bright* types. Indeed Ars Technica is at the forefront of pushing statist garbage like this to nerds.
Is the Tony Blair version of 'Climate Change' real? No. Its the best method of societal mind control they've come up with, tho- and many new game changing laws, includng the *banning* of private cars, are being rolled out on the back of it. Even the new internet censorship laws are justified at the top by the need to keep the sheeple from hearing the wrong opinions on the subject.
When you play their game, you are already their slave.
Is the Tony Blair version of 'Climate Change' real? No. Its the best method of societal mind control they've come up with, tho- and many new game changing laws, includng the *banning* of private cars, are being rolled out on the back of it. Even the new internet censorship laws are justified at the top by the need to keep the sheeple from hearing the wrong opinions on the subject.
When you play their game, you are already their slave.
MetalAlien
Banned
This fucked the climate worse than we ever could.... the earth did eventually bounce back. We will not be missed..
Kusanagi2086
Member
Tesseract
Banned
what do we do, lord?
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
We are still going to develop New things but it will be With the knowledge of science that understands consequences of ecological impacts.
Instead of considering it a by product of innovation like we treat mentally ill people With pills where the after effects is a risk factor but otherwise considered a succesful treatment.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Look at it this way you get to have humans around for 10000 more years than just 100 years. With the knowledge of climate change. Those many more years might be enough to invent space traveling but do you really think we get There just by 100 years from now??
MetalAlien
Banned
God I hope not I don't want us to be saved. I hope the dogs take over after us.