2004 Guardian Article: Britain will be plunged into Siberian Climate by 2020

[Hawker]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver?fbclid=IwAR3RRFERraGAjqGyldAaib bNMRZBUATuoukEan10TSXccw-vkA0KsNNAY8I


A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

Got a couple more days until Britain turns into a siberian climate! With widespread nuclear conflict.


'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

"Experts"

Also, gotta love the throw in line in a news article about the humiliation Bush would receive as a result of this report. Opinion in a news article. Just goes to show that by even being a "nice" guy, you still don't get treated well.

[CelticBaller]

So they already had stolen our dreams and future!

[FultzNationRISE]

Bro, Hawker, it

[bladefd]

Still waiting for Hawker or any Trumpeter to refute this post explaining a huuuge part of climate change:

The more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more energy gets trapped from escaping our atmosphere. The more energy gets trapped, the warmer the land/oceans/etc get as they absorb the excess heat. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation you get (ice caps/glaciers melt more too so water level rises too). The more evaporation you get, the more precipitation you get. More precipitation means more and stronger hurricanes/typhoons. More hurricanes means more destruction of people/infrastructure/forests/wildlife/etc.

^ All of those things are positive amplifications, making matters worse for us as time passes. Some of them also help contribute to forest fires, deforestation and desertification, which further amplifies climate change/global warming.

We humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere without a doubt. It's mainly two gases causing misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding (cattle) for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

Fewer ice caps/glacier coverage also means there is less sunlight being reflected back into space, which means more energy gets absorbed into the land/water rather than reflected back into space (look up 'albedo effect')... This is yet more positive amplification.



As far as the point of return goes, we will never truly know. No climate scientist or computer prediction model can tell you "Year x is the point of no-return" with 100% certainty. It could be 2020 or 2220. It will also never end the Earth. Having said that, it still does not disprove any of the facts posted above, and it certainly does not disprove climate change/global warming/whatever synonym you want to use. It also does not dispute the fact that we need to focus on expanding clean renewable energy (and nuclear energy).. We must resist coal, oil and natural gas. Coal should have been gone this decade.

[CelticBaller]

I don't OP s denying climate change, he is probably pointing how out how sensationalized it has become

The world is not going to end anytime soon. Climate change won't change that

[bladefd]

Well, lets ask that to Hawker.

Hawker - do you believe climate change is happening and human-driven?

[Patrick Chewing]

Three days of darkness in 2012.

[Hawker]

Still waiting for Hawker or any Trumpeter to refute this post explaining a huuuge part of climate change:

The more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more energy gets trapped from escaping our atmosphere. The more energy gets trapped, the warmer the land/oceans/etc get as they absorb the excess heat. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation you get (ice caps/glaciers melt more too so water level rises too). The more evaporation you get, the more precipitation you get. More precipitation means more and stronger hurricanes/typhoons. More hurricanes means more destruction of people/infrastructure/forests/wildlife/etc.

^ All of those things are positive amplifications, making matters worse for us as time passes. Some of them also help contribute to forest fires, deforestation and desertification, which further amplifies climate change/global warming.

We humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere without a doubt. It's mainly two gases causing misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding (cattle) for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

Fewer ice caps/glacier coverage also means there is less sunlight being reflected back into space, which means more energy gets absorbed into the land/water rather than reflected back into space (look up 'albedo effect')... This is yet more positive amplification.



As far as the point of return goes, we will never truly know. No climate scientist or computer prediction model can tell you "Year x is the point of no-return" with 100% certainty. It could be 2020 or 2220. It will also never end the Earth. Having said that, it still does not disprove any of the facts posted above, and it certainly does not disprove climate change/global warming/whatever synonym you want to use. It also does not dispute the fact that we need to focus on expanding clean renewable energy (and nuclear energy).. We must resist coal, oil and natural gas. Coal should have been gone this decade.

Acknowledged.

Will you acknowledge that the scientists were wrong and clearly oversensationalize all this nonsense?

Will you acknowledge that some citizens are jaded about climate change and are SKEPTICAL of the climate alarmism coming from your crowd? And justified in that line of thought? Scientists make these claims, those who question it get called stupid and uneducated and then they get proven to be wrong. Proclaiming "97% consensus" and "anti-science" on those that challenge you tend to fall flat when predictions and scaremongering - by scientists - turn out to be BS.

Just read the article - even the writer was calling this "humiliating" to the Bush administration and the liberal culture had no issue calling skeptics backwood uneducated idiots. Well, the prediction of the report was completely off base. That is WAY more humiliating.

It's time for a little bit of self awareness and humility from the climate change crowd and admit there is legitimate reason to question the climate change world religion. That article proves it.

You're also an energy amateur. With the population growth in China and India, no way to meet the demand without Coal. You live in a bubble.

[FultzNationRISE]

Acknowledged.

Will you acknowledge that the scientists were wrong and clearly oversensationalize all this nonsense?

Will you acknowledge that some citizens are jaded about climate change and are SKEPTICAL of the climate alarmism coming from your crowd? And justified in that line of thought? Scientists make these claims, those who question it get called stupid and uneducated and then they get proven to be wrong.

Just read the article - even the writer was calling this "humiliating" to the Bush administration and the liberal culture had no issue calling skeptics backwood uneducated idiots. Well, the prediction of the report was completely off base. That is WAY more humiliating.

It's time for a little bit of self awareness and humility from the climate change crowd and admit there is legitimate reason to question the climate change world religion. That article proves it.

You're also an energy amateur. With the population growth in China and India, no way to meet the demand without Coal. You live in a bubble.



Personally I vote for not meeting the demand.

[Hawker]

Personally I vote for not meeting the demand.

You're consistent with your views on this though. Bladefd is a woke type so he'll deflect in some way and make an excuse why it's ok for them to burn coal but not the US.

If that's the actual belief, then climate change is not the urgent emergency he claims to be.

[Hawker]

If you click on the article now, there is an alert saying, "this article is more than 15 years old."

It wasn't there before. This article is getting a lot of clicks! Pretty embarrassing.

[FultzNationRISE]

You're consistent with your views on this though. Bladefd is a woke type so he'll deflect in some way and make an excuse why it's ok for them to burn coal but not the US.

If that's the actual belief, then climate change is not the urgent emergency he claims to be.


Agreed

[bladefd]

Acknowledged.

Will you acknowledge that the scientists were wrong and clearly oversensationalize all this nonsense?

Will you acknowledge that some citizens are jaded about climate change and are SKEPTICAL of the climate alarmism coming from your crowd? And justified in that line of thought? Scientists make these claims, those who question it get called stupid and uneducated and then they get proven to be wrong. Proclaiming "97% consensus" and "anti-science" on those that challenge you tend to fall flat when predictions and scaremongering - by scientists - turn out to be BS.

Just read the article - even the writer was calling this "humiliating" to the Bush administration and the liberal culture had no issue calling skeptics backwood uneducated idiots. Well, the prediction of the report was completely off base. That is WAY more humiliating.

It's time for a little bit of self awareness and humility from the climate change crowd and admit there is legitimate reason to question the climate change world religion. That article proves it.

You're also an energy amateur. With the population growth in China and India, no way to meet the demand without Coal. You live in a bubble.

Like I said, people can only estimate things like point of no return. That includes scientists, engineers, researchers and computer models. We don't know the exact limit the Earth can take and we also do not know when people will get desperate enough to start wars over control of resources and energy. We don't know if that will start a nuclear war and if it can then when. We don't know.

We can only model future of climate change and predict approximately. Yes, scientists can certainly be off on their timescales or models could be off, but that doesn't disprove climate change or the effects.

We do know that climate change is definitely impacting nations and people around the globe and destabilizing countries by making it difficult to grow crops or acquire water and energy. Droughts, desertification and stronger storms are increasing in probability. Many animal species are going extinct or at least losing their natural habitats. This is not science fiction.

Also, don't confuse an article you found with views of the entire scientific community. Also, the Bush administration was not only questioning the timescale but they were questioning whether climate change was even happening. I would also wonder who wrote that report being cited in the article - was it by a group of scientists or non-scientists? The article does not say if actual climate scientists predicted 2020 or non-scientists/politicians. Scientists are not typically in the business of predicting. They focus on probabilities and results/collecting data/compiling knowledge/etc. The writer of that article is also not a scientist but a journalist.

[bladefd]

You're consistent with your views on this though. Bladefd is a woke type so he'll deflect in some way and make an excuse why it's ok for them to burn coal but not the US.

If that's the actual belief, then climate change is not the urgent emergency he claims to be.

The energy needs of the world can be met without coal. Coal is extremely dirty and inefficient. We need to move away from coal asap and that includes China/India. USA, EU, Canada and the other developed countries have the resources & money to move away faster and not cripple our economies. China/India lack the money and resources to shift away from coal at the same speed as the developed countries but even they should be moving far away from coal. I have always been consistent with that view.

[Hawker]

The energy needs of the world can be met without coal. Coal is extremely dirty and inefficient. We need to move away from coal asap and that includes China/India. USA, EU, Canada and the other developed countries have the resources & money to move away faster and not cripple our economies. China/India lack the money and resources to shift away from coal at the same speed as the developed countries but even they should be moving far away from coal. I have always been consistent with that view.

If the energy needs of those countries could be met without coal, they would've been.

It's just a false and uneducated statement.

[Hawker]

Like I said, people can only estimate things like point of no return. That includes scientists, engineers, researchers and computer models. We don't know the exact limit the Earth can take and we also do not know when people will get desperate enough to start wars over control of resources and energy. We don't know if that will start a nuclear war and if it can then when. We don't know.

We can only model future of climate change and predict approximately. Yes, scientists can certainly be off on their timescales or models could be off, but that doesn't disprove climate change or the effects.

We do know that climate change is definitely impacting nations and people around the globe and destabilizing countries by making it difficult to grow crops or acquire water and energy. Droughts, desertification and stronger storms are increasing in probability. Many animal species are going extinct or at least losing their natural habitats. This is not science fiction.

Also, don't confuse an article you found with views of the entire scientific community. Also, the Bush administration was not only questioning the timescale but they were questioning whether climate change was even happening. I would also wonder who wrote that report being cited in the article - was it by a group of scientists or non-scientists? The article does not say if actual climate scientists predicted 2020 or non-scientists/politicians. Scientists are not typically in the business of predicting. They focus on probabilities and results/collecting data/compiling knowledge/etc. The writer of that article is also not a scientist but a journalist.

Instead of making predictions then maybe they should just say, "I don't know or we don't know."

You're not even predicting approximately if Britain is supposed to be sent into Siberian climate y 2020. That's WAY off.

Of course the article is written by a journalist but the journalist is clearly writing from the side of liberals. These smug journalists AFFECT opinions and they should be point in their place. Saying, "prove humilitaring for the Bush admin" is an opinion - not a fact. This type of journalism is why you got Trump. Despite being "nice," journalists and the general media still mocked him. This stuff has been going on well before Trump.

From the article btw:


Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

[Long Duck Dong]

According to scientists, we are heading towards a solar minimum in the next decade or 2 which will cause a mini-ice age that could last up to 50 years. By the end of it, I imagine there won't be a developed nation on Earth still using fossil fuels in significant amounts. But let's run around and scream at the sky in panic.

[bladefd]

If the energy needs of those countries could be met without coal, they would've been.

It's just a false and uneducated statement.

They can be met. It's just more expensive to not use coal.. Countries like India and China can't afford to not use coal, which is a cheap source. They are trying though - China leads the world in solar panel manufacturing. India is trying to subsidize solar and install more panels. Both are building many more nuclear plants (fyi, USA are not). Both are also in Paris agreement and actively trying to push renewable energy (USA is increasing renewable energy too).

US is down from generating 40% of energy from coal to like 27% since 2016. Hopefully that number hits single digits in next 5yrs.

USA uses around 25% of the world's total electricity yet we have easily been able to drop coal usage from contributing 40% of electricity to 27%. Will you claim that USA wouldn't be able to meet our electricity needs without coal? If you will then I will tell you right now that it wouldn't be true.

So how is China or India any different? The only reason why they use so much coal is because they can't afford not to use coal strictly monetarily speaking. Both countries are poor if you haven't checked with average person making around $5/day and even then are still trying to shift away from coal, which they should.

[Hawker]

They can be met. It's just more expensive to not use coal.. Countries like India and China can't afford to not use coal, which is a cheap source. They are trying though - China leads the world in solar panel manufacturing. India is trying to subsidize solar and install more panels. Both are building many more nuclear plants (fyi, USA are not). Both are also in Paris agreement and actively trying to push renewable energy (USA is increasing renewable energy too).

US is down from generating 40% of energy from coal to like 27% since 2016. Hopefully that number hits single digits in next 5yrs.

USA uses around 25% of the world's total electricity yet we have easily been able to drop coal usage from contributing 40% of electricity to 27%. Will you claim that USA wouldn't be able to meet our electricity needs without coal? If you will then I will tell you right now that it wouldn't be true.

So how is China or India any different? The only reason why they use so much coal is because they can't afford not to use coal strictly monetarily speaking. Both countries are poor if you haven't checked with average person making around $5/day and even then are still trying to shift away from coal, which they should.

China and India is different due to economic realities for the obvious economic realities that you mention which is my point.

Coal kept the northeast going during the bad winter they had last year. I'm fine with coal usage going downward but your statement energy demand can be met without coal is just factually untrue and just ignorance of the current infrastructure.

[bladefd]

Instead of making predictions then maybe they should just say, "I don't know or we don't know."

You're not even predicting approximately if Britain is supposed to be sent into Siberian climate y 2020. That's WAY off.

Of course the article is written by a journalist but the journalist is clearly writing from the side of liberals. These smug journalists AFFECT opinions and they should be point in their place. Saying, "prove humilitaring for the Bush admin" is an opinion - not a fact. This type of journalism is why you got Trump. Despite being "nice," journalists and the general media still mocked him. This stuff has been going on well before Trump.

Scientists don't predict stuff like Nostradamus. They model and estimate off the data collected. I guarantee you that 2020 Siberian winter prediction in Pentagon report wasn't made by a group of climate scientists. Pentagon analysts and non-scientists were most likely closely involved in much of the writing. To group all or even most of the scientific community in that is not only incorrect but disingenuous.

Journalists get paid by the media outlet based on how popular their articles are so of course they will sensationalize for more clicks. Again, that person is a non-scientist. I bet you most of them can't even tell you exactly what the scientific method is. Ask them if they know that gravity and evolution are theories. I bet you that many of them will argue that evolution and gravity have been proved. Many won't realize that a 'scientific theory' is not the same thing as the layman's term of 'theory'. Layman's term for theory is equivalent to 'hypothesis' in science, which is veeeeery different from scientific theory.

Nothing is ever proven in science like the average person believes. Science deals more in probability and 'proved until a more substantiated concept comes up'. You can disprove things in science by showing contradictory evidence but you can never prove something in science. Evolution is still on the table - if you can provide evidence of say creationism then you have just became famous overnight (many have tried to disprove evolution over last 150 years but failed). The average journalist is not as scientifically educated as say someone who majored in STEM or better yet has a degree in climate science.

Having said that, too many journalists sensationalize and editorialize nowadays. Journalism was once a well-reputed career, but quality in journalism has gone downhill. What too much editorializing does unfortunately is muck up the actual news. Readers start to think the scientists are all saying the year 2020 is the end even if the actual report doesn't predict any specific year and even if it is a journalist editorializing. Then when 2020 comes and folks like yourself start clamoring that the science was wrong and then questioning science itself even if some editorializing journalist is to blame or some non-scientist political analyst. So it ends up hurting the very study, the data and the science itself.


From the article btw:

He was not involved in the actual research or prediction or writing of that report. He is merely citing the report. The journalist probably reached out to him asking what he thinks about the Pentagon report. He doesn't even comment on the actual data but rather says that Bush cannot ignore the report.

The authors of the Pentagon report: the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network." I suspect that neither of them are scientists.

Even if they were scientists, no person (and no model) can accurately predict exactly when countries will go to war over the effects of climate change or tell when this icecap will melt or that forest will be completely chopped down or when Amazon forest will reach the point of no-return or whether if we are even close to a point of no-return. We don't know. But what we definitely know is that climate change IS taking place and we are the biggest reason why. What we also know is that droughts, desertification, etc is on the rise.

[bladefd]

China and India is different due to economic realities for the obvious economic realities that you mention which is my point.

Coal kept the northeast going during the bad winter they had last year. I'm fine with coal usage going downward but your statement energy demand can be met without coal is just factually untrue and just ignorance of the current infrastructure.

We wouldn't need coal in northeast if we put in more nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors emits no co2 and generates enough power to the grid day & night, summer or winter.

Countries (including USA too) don't use coal because they have no other alternative means to power. Countries use coal because it's the cheapest. In fact, many of the poorer countries can't afford nuclear power or solar or wind or hydro on large scale. Under desperation, they will take whatever source is the cheapest.

[Kblaze8855]

Id bet anything in 50 years we will still be talking about the looming point of no return just like I said we would be in 20 years when we talked about it here around 9/11. The only way to get attention is to sensationalize and pretend things are an immediate emergency but it has the downside of destroying credibility long term.

The people making these grand claims do more to hurt public opinion on the issue than they do to help.

The "We must act noooooooooooow!" crowd just makes people tune out the reasonable people who must know none of this has a known time table.

But "We have growing problems that will eventually be hard for the general public to ignore" doesnt get anyone to care but its absolutely the truth.



But what we definitely know is that climate change IS taking place and we are the biggest reason why. What we also know is that droughts, desertification, etc is on the rise.

This is the kinda thing that always gets my attention. Its so easy to say without looking into. We barely even have any information on earths history beyond the extreme broad strokes about what happened over millions of years. How on earth does anyone know the rate of droughts in a 100 year period on land masses that were entirely different which changed the ocean currents that do so much to really change local weather?

When people mention droughts or other small scale things increasing they mean relative to the incredibly brief time we have records. There is no historical worldwide record of such things to really compare to. We have people looking at sediment layers and checking the rates of gases and so on estimating shit for periods of tens of thousands of years but people will talk about the rate of droughts going up vs history as if we even have good records from before our great grand parents.

All of this shit is forever changing. Deserts come and go without humans. The Sahara was under water at one point. And it actually gets MORE rainfall when the ice caps melt. You can read scientist reports on the potential of global warming to cause a green Sahara.....like it was recently(relatively recent in geological terms). There are plenty of deserts in Africa with manatee bones. The largest lake in the world(like 50 times the size of some of the great lakes) was smack in the middle of what now looks like a wasteland. The ice caps melting raises the sea level and changes currents in such a way as to REDUCE those deserts.



Stager has co-authored a study with scientists around the world modeling how climate change – the new version of climate change caused by us by humans – could change the Sahara again. "As we heat the planet, the central climate belt that girdles the earth, which is kind of a rain belt basically where the rain forests are, is getting wider. That's pushing into the southern boundary of the Sahara."

If we keep heating the planet by adding more carbon to the atmosphere, that rain belt could "turn the Sahara green and wet again," Stager predicted.

So says an "ecologist, paleoclimatologist, and science journalist with a Ph.D. in biology and geology from Duke University".

All of this shit...ALL of it is so mired in conflicting theory and guesses its almost not worth reporting.

You dont change all of the climate to be one way or another. This planet is not at risk. We are talking about nothing but moving the sweet spots. Dry up this place....more rain falls in that place. This warm spot freezes.....this freezing spot is now beautiful. There is really no serious threat here. Depending on a thousand factors we will get stronger storms in some places....some places where life can barely exist will flourish....some droughts will get worse...some places with no water will get it. Wild fires one place....10,000 years of beautiful weather somewhere else. We arent creating or destroying....we are altering the natural processes which would alter themselves in time. But you look into it enough all the dramatic nightmare scenarios used to get attention have already happened and likely will happen again. Massive species ending droughts, crazy storms, coast destroying flooding and all...which...if they happened now...you just know the green lobby would blame entirely on humanity.

We live on a giant engine of heat and water churning away in constant motion and dropping a pebble in ****s it up....but its all relative...because its chaos to begin with. Humanity is pretty much throwing pennies into a mixing bowl full of cake batter. Its in constant change already....we just gum up the works a bit. We are gonna blame ourselves for every bit of major climate change going forward with absolutely no way to know what would have happened without us....but with all the evidence in the world that its been known to be significant.

Thats my main issue with all this. We blame humanity for things we have no way to compare to a world without us. Our real history of good accurate worldwide records goes back to like...my grandmas dad. Past that its all guessing, scraps of conflicting reports, like 200 people taking serious readings on a planet of a billion+, and oral legend.

If we could peer into a world we never existed we would probably see half the shit we link to global warming happening anyway just like our best guesses suggest it always has. We just have the tools to make short term comparisons we didnt have in the past. We are only like 200 years from a Volcano blowing up in Asia and kicking so much ash into the air it was snowing in June in America with frozen rivers in august and doom sayers predicting the world was ending because they had no better explanation.

We just started understanding the world. In 200 years humanity will probably think all of us were morons for making the predictions we make now.

I bet the Sahara will get steady rainfall and turn back into a paradise, Russia will be 65 in winter, florida weather will be closer to phoenix, and hurricanes will hit New York more often and some other place less as life goes on.


Some asshole will release small pox in a population center and wipe out a portion of humanity before the weather does it.

I worry about people a lot more than I do the weather....especially when all its gonna do is move the comfortable places to live. Thats all the weather really can do. You couldnt turn much more of the world uninhabitable through weather if you wanted to. Its gonna annoy those of us in the sweet spots and help out the people who get the new sweet spots. Simplistic way to look at it but its probably true. The people on camels riding 12 miles for some water in north Africa are gonna thank whoever their god is when it starts raining and crops grow. They arent gonna give a **** about a category 5 hitting Boston. Boston had it good for 3,000 years. They will figure its their turn.

There is no right way for the weather to be. It just is what it is...and its always temporary.

[Norcaliblunt]

If nations can stockpile and sit on hundreds of nuclear bombs for national security reasons, then I would think we could build some modern nuclear fusion power plants to help with the energy and climate crisis.

Lmao at coal.

And this is the real reason why they don’t want Iran or anywhere with a nuclear program. Keep their scientists and people from having modern energy.

[sammichoffate]

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]If nations can stockpile and sit on hundreds of nuclear bombs for national security reasons, then I would think we could build some modern nuclear fusion power plants to help with the energy and climate crisis.

Lmao at coal.

[B]And this is the real reason why they don

[bladefd]

This is the kinda thing that always gets my attention. Its so easy to say without looking into. We barely even have any information on earths history beyond the extreme broad strokes about what happened over millions of years. How on earth does anyone know the rate of droughts in a 100 year period on land masses that were entirely different which changed the ocean currents that do so much to really change local weather?

When people mention droughts or other small scale things increasing they mean relative to the incredibly brief time we have records. There is no historical worldwide record of such things to really compare to. We have people looking at sediment layers and checking the rates of gases and so on estimating shit for periods of tens of thousands of years but people will talk about the rate of droughts going up vs history as if we even have good records from before our great grand parents.

All of this shit is forever changing. Deserts come and go without humans. The Sahara was under water at one point. And it actually gets MORE rainfall when the ice caps melt. You can read scientist reports on the potential of global warming to cause a green Sahara.....like it was recently(relatively recent in geological terms). There are plenty of deserts in Africa with manatee bones. The largest lake in the world(like 50 times the size of some of the great lakes) was smack in the middle of what now looks like a wasteland. The ice caps melting raises the sea level and changes currents in such a way as to REDUCE those deserts.

Yes, deserts come and go. Ice caps come and go. Forests come and go. But not over a period of century or less but hundreds of thousands of years and in many cases over millions of years.

The one exception is if you have a natural disaster like an asteroid, supervolcano or something that significantly alters the environment or the region. Have we had such a natural disaster in the past century and half? Not naturally. Only thing I know is that we humans began burning coal and pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere like co2 and chopping down forests left and right for the wood (and to create agriculture land for animals). Other than that, I don't see anything that happened naturally that would have driven global warming into top gear.

In fact, I believe we are in the midst of an ice age at this very moment. Yet ice caps are melting and temperatures are rising. The exact opposite should be happening - ice caps should be growing and on the rise across the planet. The biggest reason for that is the carbon and other greenhouse gases we are pumping into the atmosphere, which artificially warms up the atmosphere and the oceans by trapping more of the sun's energy.

[bladefd]

If nations can stockpile and sit on hundreds of nuclear bombs for national security reasons, then I would think we could build some modern nuclear fusion power plants to help with the energy and climate crisis.

Lmao at coal.

And this is the real reason why they don’t want Iran or anywhere with a nuclear program. Keep their scientists and people from having modern energy.

Not enough money and resources are being allocated into nuclear energy research., which is frustrating. That includes fission and fusion.

People need to stop citing Chernobyl and Fukushima. Both took shortcuts and were fu<kups because they did not follow the safety protocols appropriately. Chernobyl used a sh!tty designed reactor even while knowing it had issues while taking even more shortcuts in safety protocols, and Fukushima did not build the safety wall high enough to keep out 30ft waves even after they were advised to raise the wall height (and they put the backup power generators below sea-level so water seeped in, knocking out the backup power generators).

The issue in all this is faulty information leading to fear. If a politician pushed for creating new nuclear generators of the latest generation, it would be political suicide essentially because too many people are too foolish to think for themselves.

[Kblaze8855]

Yes, deserts come and go. Ice caps come and go. Forests come and go. But not over a period of century or less but hundreds of thousands of years and in many cases over millions of years.

The one exception is if you have a natural disaster like an asteroid, supervolcano or something that significantly alters the environment or the region. Have we had such a natural disaster in the past century and half? Not naturally. Only thing I know is that we humans began burning coal and pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere like co2 and chopping down forests left and right for the wood (and to create agriculture land for animals). Other than that, I don't see anything that happened naturally that would have driven global warming into top gear.

In fact, I believe we are in the midst of an ice age at this very moment. Yet ice caps are melting and temperatures are rising. The exact opposite should be happening - ice caps should be growing and on the rise across the planet. The biggest reason for that is the carbon and other greenhouse gases we are pumping into the atmosphere, which artificially warms up the atmosphere and the oceans by trapping more of the sun's energy.


So....humans are putting off a new ice age?

Tell me please....where did the glaciers go that carved the Great Lakes? Where is that land bridge from Alaska to Asia?

Where did all that go?

The glaciers have been shrinking the entirety of human history. Perhaps we shrank them faster....but this process began well before we could change it and may well not be complete for thousands of years.

From what I

[FultzNationRISE]

We wouldn't need coal in northeast if we put in more nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors emits no co2 and generates enough power to the grid day & night, summer or winter.

Countries (including USA too) don't use coal because they have no other alternative means to power. Countries use coal because it's the cheapest. In fact, many of the poorer countries can't afford nuclear power or solar or wind or hydro on large scale. Under desperation, they will take whatever source is the cheapest.


Let me ask you something:

If you're worried about climate change... what you're essentially saying is youre worried about the environment, correct?

So if you're worried about the environment... why aren't you as concerned about global population?

Human expansion is decimating the environment everywhere. Do you really wanna see 7 billion people, all inoculated against every disease, eating all the fish in the sea, paving over every natural environment on every continent?

Why don't you speak about the deleterious effects of population growth on natural habitats across the planet?

Are you afraid to do so? Is it too scary to talk about, because people might not think it's not PC to mention? Or even worse, the ultimate terror, someone might call you literally Hitler?

Humans are manually ****ing up the environment WAY faster the climate change is.

Do you not care about that?

[bladefd]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]So....humans are putting off a new ice age?

Tell me please....where did the glaciers go that carved the Great Lakes? Where is that land bridge from Alaska to Asia?

Where did all that go?

The glaciers have been shrinking the entirety of human history. Perhaps we shrank them faster....but this process began well before we could change it and may well not be complete for thousands of years.

From what I

[bladefd]

Overpopulation is a major issue. I personally don't think Earth can sustain more than 10 billion people. We will be fighting and going to war over resource scarcity once we hit around 10 billion, maybe sooner.

We should start to get that under control right now through education and access to birth control. Access to birth control is self-explanatory. Education is 3-fold: 1) show people they don't need to have many kids, 2) keep them in school longer and so they reproduce/marry later AKA fewer kids, and 3) teach them about birth control.

[Kblaze8855]

As I said:



From what I’ve always read we are in a relative ice age that began before humanity evolved and is ending very very gradually.



And I can promise you....us potentially preventing the return of the glaciers that only recently melted(relatively speaking) that had sheets of ice over most of europe, all of canada, and parts of south america and new zealand?

Thats not an argument you wanna use in public. Given the choice between warmer weather and glaciers pushing in and wiping out every major city in America north of like....DC....and much of Europe north of france??

Guess what? The world votes for stronger storms and worse droughts. At least the portion with the power to enforce its decisions.

This is the other side of the argument. No matter which way the climate goes something is destroyed. THe great lakes were literally made by mountain sized sheets of ice sliding away and leaving craters of melt water. They come back....cities would literally be ground to dust under them.

Well not really since it would take a long time and humanity would probably bomb the glaciers if they had to let Toronto, New York, and so on be wiped out otherwise....

But the point remains. Glaciers melt....theres a downside. The glaciers come back to where they were 100+ thousand years ago....downside.

Everything nature does climate wise will help some and hurt others.

There is no right answer. Nature is eventually gonna come in and destroy all we built no matter what we do. It might be the heat. It might be the cold. It might be something else. But its gonna win.

[bladefd]

As I said:






And I can promise you....us potentially preventing the return of the glaciers that only recently melted(relatively speaking) that had sheets of ice over most of europe, all of canada, and parts of south america and new zealand?

Thats not an argument you wanna use in public. Given the choice between warmer weather and glaciers pushing in and wiping out every major city in America north of like....DC....and much of Europe north of france??

Guess what? The world votes for stronger storms and worse droughts. At least the portion with the power to enforce its decisions.

This is the other side of the argument. No matter which way the climate goes something is destroyed. THe great lakes were literally made by mountain sized sheets of ice sliding away and leaving craters of melt water. They come back....cities would literally be ground to dust under them.

Well not really since it would take a long time and humanity would probably bomb the glaciers if they had to let Toronto, New York, and so on be wiped out otherwise....

But the point remains. Glaciers melt....theres a downside. The glaciers come back to where they were 100+ thousand years ago....downside.

Everything nature does climate wise will help some and hurt others.

There is no right answer. Nature is eventually gonna come in and destroy all we built no matter what we do. It might be the heat. It might be the cold. It might be something else. But its gonna win.

It's not a question of "do we want glaciers covering the globe or do we want severe storms and droughts?".. Why are we comparing two extremes on the opposite ends of the spectrum?

Let's still take a look at the two extremes.

Glaciers are very slow, moving in couple inches a year. They are not as difficult to keep at bay from running amok over cities. You can use c4 and use strategies to keep them from destroying cities.

The harder part is the other extreme - storms, droughts, desertification and rising sea levels. Those are much harder to solve or at least keep at bay. Storms we can't control or minimize the impact of if they are powerful enough. They build up within days and are gone within days after leaving destruction and deaths in their wake. Droughts leave us and crops desperate for fresh water that may be difficult to get to. Rising sea levels forces us to move inland and abandon cities like Miami or New Orleans or New York city. We can build walls and levees (or whatever it is called) but they are not stopping powerful storms from tearing them down. Desertification is probably few feet a year so that gives you some time (probably quicker than glacier growth).

Ultimately, one extreme is more controllable than the other extreme. Both extremes suck but are not equal.

Why can't we have a middle ground? Glaciers in the upper latitudes and average storm strength/droughts. Drop co2 levels.(ppm) back into the 200s or even 300s and we have that middle ground for as long as you maintain them, which is not hard to do as long as we keep doing agriculture and have some natural gas/use oil/etc.

[Kblaze8855]

We cant we have a middle ground?

We have been in a middle ground for thousands of years and will be for many many many many many lifetimes no matter what humans do. The extremes in question take ages to reach regardless of us. The nightmare scenarios we push of a world with little ice are STILL a middle ground compared to what the world has done to itself and the ice age at its greatest extent took tens of thousands of years of cooling too.

We accelerate the issue...but none of us...and none of our grand kids great great great great great grandkids will ever see an earth that isnt in a relative middle ground.

All the bitching people do about the disasters to come are still nothing compared to the extremes in history. The entirety of human history has been and will be middleground.

[bladefd]

We cant we have a middle ground?

We have been in a middle ground for thousands of years and will be for many many many many many lifetimes no matter what humans do. The extremes in question take ages to reach regardless of us. The nightmare scenarios we push of a world with little ice are STILL a middle ground compared to what the world has done to itself and the ice age at its greatest extent took tens of thousands of years of cooling too.

We accelerate the issue...but none of us...and none of our grand kids great great great great great grandkids will ever see an earth that isnt in a relative middle ground.

All the bitching people do about the disasters to come are still nothing compared to the extremes in history. The entirety of human history has been and will be middleground.

That bold portion is not accurate though. If we keep pumping so much co2 and other greenhouse gases, we won't be fine. Our Earth has not been anywhere close to 400 ppm of co2 in millions of years. In fact, our co2 levels were mid-200s a century ago. All of the fossil fuels we burn has increased that by 60% in a very short period of a bit longer than a hundred years.. Not a few million years but just 125 years. Think about that.


“Humanity’s ability to thrive depends on these other planetary cycles and processes working the way they now do,” he said. “Thanks to detailed observations of our planet from space, we’ve seen some changes over the last 30 years that are quite alarming: changes in precipitation patterns, in where and how plants grow, in sea and land ice, in entire ecosystems like tropical rain forests. These changes should attract our attention.

“One could say that because the atmosphere is so thin, the activity of 7.7 billion humans can actually make significant changes to the entire system,” he added. “The composition of Earth’s atmosphere has most certainly been altered. Half of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the last 300 years has occurred since 1980, and one quarter of it since 2000. Methane concentrations have increased 2.5 times since the start of the Industrial Age, with almost all of that occurring since 1980. So changes are coming faster, and they’re becoming more significant.”

The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is currently at nearly 412 parts per million (ppm) and rising. This represents a 48 percent increase since the beginning of the Industrial Age, when the concentration was near 280 ppm, and an 11 percent increase since 2000, when it was near 370 ppm. Crisp points out that scientists know the increases in carbon dioxide are caused primarily by human activities because carbon produced by burning fossil fuels has a different ratio of heavy-to-light carbon atoms, so it leaves a distinct “fingerprint” that instruments can measure. A relative decline in the amount of heavy carbon-13 isotopes in the atmosphere points to fossil fuel sources. Burning fossil fuels also depletes oxygen and lowers the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere.https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

Not only are co2 levels rising but they are accelerating due to positive feedback loops I talked about in my very first post on pg1 of this thread.

The extremes could certainly get worse, yes. We are not there yet, but don't underestimate the fact of the impact we have been having.

Even if we are not in end-of-humanity desperation, what's wrong with switching to clean renewable energy (and nuclear power)? Is there an issue with a cleaner Earth and cleaner energy generation? That's what I don't understand with conservative folks putting on such a huge fight with trying to switch away from dirty sources like coal and oil..

[CelticBaller]

Hey UK posters has the Siberian winter started yet?

[Kblaze8855]

That bold portion is not accurate though. If we keep pumping so much co2 and other greenhouse gases, we won't be fine.


Yes....we will be fine. I was right about it when we were reading pages of numbers and arguing about it here almost 20 years ago with people saying whatever was gonna happen would have happened by now and I

[Kblaze8855]

That said.....

Of course we should work towards better energy sources and generally not **** it nature when it can be avoided.

If you

[tpols]

All of what Kblaze has said can be summed up by that one George Carlin video... Good stuff nonetheless.

[bladefd]

-We are at 410ppm of co2 as of 2018. 1,000ppm is when you start to feel drowsy and poor air quality. 2,000ppm is when you begin to damage your brain, breathing, rest of body, etc. Source: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/carbondioxide.htm

We are certainly not at 1,000ppm so you can sit there and say everything is perfectly fine, but I need you to keep in mind that greenhouse gases, including co2, increase in not linear fashion but rather exponentially. Essentially, exponential growth means that growth speeds up as it increases. Also keep in mind that we don't have to hit 1,000ppm to increase temperatures up more than a few degrees fahrenheit. Apparently 560ppm is all you need to increase average global temperature by a couple degrees fahrenheit, which we will reach in around 7 years.


Researchers found that breathing air with a CO2 concentration of 1000 ppm causes a measurable decline in intellectual capacity. At a concentration of CO2 at the level of 2500 ppm, the initiative and strategic thinking of the participants has declined to a dysfunctional level. Similarly impaired was the ability of the participants to use the available information and the breadth of approach.

...

In fact, it is not surprising that for concentrations above 600-800 ppm we observe a decline in our intellectual capacity. We have evolved in a climate in which the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (since the time of Australopithecus) has varied in the range of 180-300 ppm.

Because of burning of coal, oil and gas, we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and thereby raise its concentration, currently to about 400 ppm. Such high concentrations of carbon dioxide as today have not existed for many million years - possibly more than 10 million years ago (Tripati 2009 [full version]). Continuation of the decades-old trend of burning more and more fossil fuels will lead to an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of the century to a level of 1000 ppm, and later possibly to 2500 ppm or even more.

...


Even under the most optimistic possible scenarios of emission reductions CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 550 ppm, which is above the safe threshold. Most scenarios of emissions reduction project reaching atmospheric CO2 concentrations of the order of 750-900 ppm. Taking into account typically higher concentrations of CO2 in buildings, it follows that we will be forced to permanently reside in conditions widely considered to be harmful to health, even by the undemanding ventilation standards.

Increased concentrations of CO2 lead to metabolic acidosis and an array of adverse health effects, going far beyond lowered intelligence. Moreover, due to global warming induced heat-waves people may be forced to spend long periods indoor, in poorly ventilated environments, where ambient CO2 levels will be very high, further endangering their health (D. Zappulla, 2013).https://skepticalscience.com/how-sapiens-in-the-world-of-high-co2-concentration.html

I am not trying to change your mind but trying to explain to you that humans have more impact than you may realize. We have more than a billion cars being driven and 50,000 commercial airplanes, each emitting co2, o2 and other pollutants we don't want. Countless coal plants, natural gas plants, etc emitting greenhouse gases. You can claim humans can't alter the environment or weather or whatever else, but fact is we do significantly impact our atmosphere, oceans and environment. Fact is humanity as a species has to transition away from fossil fuels sooner than later.


-Nobody is trying to fix the weather. You spend more than half your post talking about controlling the weather, destroying the Earth, doomsday, etcetc. We don't solve the weather. You wanted to hear that, right? Well, you heard it. We also can't destroy the Earth. You are RIGHT! But we can certainly make the conditions very uncomfortable (and unsafe) for humans and other animals if we keep pumping co2 and other greenhouse gases.

What you can do rather is to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to clean renewable energy (and nuclear). That includes solar power, wind in open fields & off-shore, hydro in places near rivers/lakes, geothermal in certain areas, and of course nuclear energy (non-renewable but clean of any greenhouse gases). At the same time you can push electric cars and focus on nuclear fusion research, which has been making strides in progress but still a work-in-progress.

Switch over to clean energy and we solve the problem of climate change/global warming without having to "fix the weather" (You mention 'weather' 6 times in your post but 'climate' 0 times -- seems likely you don't know the difference between weather and climate but we will leave that aside for now). If one doesn't believe in global warming, then at least look at it from the perspective of having clean air and less pollution. Try living in Beijing or Delhi. I traveled to northern India some years back, and some areas were difficult to breathe without coughing & sensing poor air quality. The air was dirty in cities and filled with heavy smog near industrial areas. Imagine living in those conditions all year long.. There are many who have to and don't have a choice, but are those conditions what we humans really want to promote?

-Humanity ultimately has a choice. Do we want to continue to pump dirty coal and oil into the atmosphere & oceans polluting everything around us OR do we want to keep our planet's air & bodies of water as clean and healthy as possible with clean renewable energy (and nuclear)? That question does not require one to believe in climate change or not believe in climate change. The answer should be the same for both.

There is nothing else to it. Period. End of story.


P.S. Also check out this article that talks in depth about co2 levels specifically in much more detail than I can try to explain: https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html

[Kblaze8855]

Articles on the incoming doom have been posted online for literally 35 years. You can read people in the 80s arguing it on newsgroup posts. All that changes is the timeline of the threat once it comes and goes. Which is why you’ll have a different set of them to post and not be read in the future while we are still as fine as humanity usually is....meaning....alive with a lot of natural disasters and weather related inconveniences.

Far as climate vs weather you think there’s any chance that after discussing this shit for decades the difference never came up?

Yet.....whenever the disastrous effects are discussed it’s always your people bringing up weather events and conditions. Seems most of your case is articles. Rest assured....I also read. If I didn’t know what climate was I’d have looked it up 25 years ago and found out.

Your side has been talking global warming(then climate change) on here and elsewhere for 20 years when bad weather causes something terrible.

We were talking global warming on here during Katrina. None of this shit is new. There are decades of people claiming such and such is imminent and the tipping point is too close to ignore while the world mostly ignores it and the dates are pushed back. You can only cry wolf for so long. Especially when the awful times to come aren’t actually destruction(as your side always eventually admits then goes right back to saying the world needs saving). The times to come are as you said....the world being less comfortable for us and animals.

But what you again leave out is that the true concern is the parts of the world we care about being less comfortable. You can’t make it all terrible at once. It’s never happened even in times of greater extremes than humanity will endure to see return. When it’s terrible one place it’s better elsewhere.

You can’t prevent terrible conditions for some places on a world with such things being mostly decided by currents. We **** up the Gulf Stream yea....Europe is Canada. And somewhere else gets better.

The world will be changing for billions of years to come and would freeze and thaw totally without us just as it has before.

We are facing the prospect of increased inconvenience to parts of the world. That’s the reality. It’s not shocking and it won’t raise much in donations but once the prospect of true destruction is gone(as all of you eventually admit) that’s what we are left with.

We should work on other sources of energy for obvious reasons. The ones we use now are finite. Reason enough.

The climate is how you generally try to push that agenda when the common sense of “We are burning stuff that has to run out one day” is really enough for anyone with a brain.

And anyone who doesn’t have a brain won’t likely be discussing long term energy solutions to begin with.

Kinda makes me wonder who your side generally thinks is gonna be reached with these arguments.

You either care enough to realize that climate isn’t quite the threat it’s made out to be by people using it for attention(I must have seen 15 Tom Steyer ads today on how he will save the world if elected)....or you’re too stupid to even engage in these conversations.

Nobody.....noooobody is convinced to change position because of climate talk.

The common sense argument of “We mine/pump this out of the ground at a huge rate....shouldn’t we get ready for when the ground is out?” might actually get you somewhere.

[bladefd]

I have 3 questions for you.

1) Do you think climate change/global warming is a hoax or fake? Or at least a mechanism we do not impact?
2) Do you think greenhouse gases cause heating a hoax or fake? Or at least a mechanism we do not impact?
3) Are you for clean renewable energy only because coal is finite rather than the fact that it is clean & renewable? What if I told you there was a huge amount of oil and coal in Arctic and Antarctica that is so vast that it could last us a couple centuries? Would you open up Arctic and Antarctica to mine as much oil & coal as any country wants with territory ownership ("Drill, baby, drill")?

[Loco 50]

Hawker should know better, but it's interesting to see what some will lower themselves to no matter the extent of their education.

I had hope in swaying you Blaze, because you're smart and for the most part extremely rational. You've got a good toolbelt available to you that includes good logical reasoning and a healthy ration of cynicism to help decipher complex problems and that is extremely rare and almost nonexistent here on Insidehoops where this thread is now populated primarily by the dregs of mental aptitude jeering like drooling fvckwits.

You almost broke me, but I can think of one more angle to approach this from....unfortunately, it's scientific again because it's difficult to explain science without science and I know that causes a lot of eyes to glaze over.

Firstly, climate for whatever reason as you've worked out is the "sexy" concept that activists toss around. I guess it's simple, but the problem is more general and that's carbon emissions period.

In chemistry we have acid-base titration reactions/experiments:

For those that don't know, in these experiments a neutral solution, like water has a clear pH indicator placed in it that will change colors upon meeting a certain acidity or basicity. A buffer is also placed in the water to complete the solution.

This buffer protects it's world (the solution) from changes that might take place from the outside (pollution). Acid (pollution) is now dripped into the solution aka (the world) one drop at a time.

The solution/world will not be affected/change color by one drop. The world won't be changed by even multiple drops if dripped slowly and allowed to disperse. The buffer system is doing it's job.

The point of saturation in an experiment like this is the volume of acid dripped/pollution at which the color change aka (damage) aka pH change actually occurs. The buffer system has been overwhelmed and no longer can resist the acid. We've broken the buffer system.
http://www.l4labs.soton.ac.uk/general/images/endpoint.gif

We have been protected from our pollution by earth's buffer system for decades now. This is why those articles exist from the 70's and 80's.

The damage is scientifically seen, but the buffer system protects the unknowing eye from seeing change. Hawker knows this, he just insists on playing the dumbass for what I can only assume are monetary reasons. If/when the buffer system collapses shit hits the fan.

The problem is we don't know where that collapse point is and once it's hit we don't have a way currently to reverse it.

Why does shit hit the fan? That goes into biology.

Most know by now everything in life is dependent and determined by what is written in your genetic code. Your DNA. It's a story that has to be translated though and it can be edited. A rearrangement here and maybe you have brown hair, a snip there and maybe you've got cancer, a deletion and maybe nothing happens at all.

Now we have to change the conversation to protein because protein is what edits exactly what and how the genetic story is told.

Protein is highly dependent on buffer systems to protect it from change.

If the buffer system is lost, the protein will change shape and this causes a loss of function. Loss of function=change. Loss of function in many cases, but of course not all, (because biology never works in an all or none fashion)=death.

We are seeing the effects of loss of nature's buffer system with the death of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The pH level of the water has changed due to the influx of carbon which causes an increase in acidity.



This causes proteins to change shape, lose function, die.


This is an entire ecosystem that is estimated to be 500,000 years old. A drop in the bucket on earth's scale, unimaginable in humanity's scale. We are killing it off in the span of decades due to our insistence on carbon deposits: careless carbon emissions from factories and our negligence in coming up with alternative fuel sources and deforestation, methane produced by cattle are a few common sources that hopefully everyone knows by now.

That's just one example of what the loss of a buffer can do. Buffers exist everywhere. Water, soil, air, our blood. When those are lost mass changes occur. Changes = death.

This leads to another biological concept, the cascade. A change in one protein can have a profound effect (an avalanche if you will) downstream on other proteins which actually enact change on a wholescale level. The loss of our ozone layer is an example of this, but I'm starting to wander.

Now, I've read your arguments and I agree. Life finds a way, the world will survive. Right? Adaptation, evolution. All that is true, but with limitations. Evolution works over grand scales of time. It's difficult to adapt in terms of change in decades when the ecosystem was previously accustomed to change over hundreds of thousands of years.

I've also read your points on priorities and again, I agree. You spoke of having to care for your mother who has now survived cancer thanks to your aid. You've had other thoughts about destruction/collapse being inevitable as well. I feel your experiences with your financial situation are largely influencing these thoughts. I will say the medical system has f'n failed you and I'm sorry for that. It shouldn't be able to ransom the life of a loved one for a cure. It needs to change and I'm attempting to be part of that change. My career may be at risk because of it.

Food, water, shelter, sex...................environment. It is the natural hierarchy of things. One can't be expected to concern themselves lower on the needs list if they are thirsty or hungry as you yourself wrote.

Each of us has to take care of ourselves before we can care for others. But in the meantime,

for those of us that are capable and have the resources, it is important to start cleaning some shit up and included in that is the necessity to educate others.

TLDR - this is more than an inconvenience.

I understand the chances of me changing your mind at this point are minimal, but I had some free time and sometimes a man has to shoot the f'n shot.

[Loco 50]

What you can do rather is to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to clean renewable energy (and nuclear). That includes solar power, wind in open fields & off-shore, hydro in places near rivers/lakes, geothermal in certain areas, and of course nuclear energy (non-renewable but clean of any greenhouse gases). At the same time you can push electric cars and focus on nuclear fusion research, which has been making strides in progress but still a work-in-progress.

Switch over to clean energy and we solve the problem of climate change/global warming without having to "fix the weather" (You mention 'weather' 6 times in your post but 'climate' 0 times -- seems likely you don't know the difference between weather and climate but we will leave that aside for now). If one doesn't believe in global warming, then at least look at it from the perspective of having clean air and less pollution. Try living in Beijing or Delhi. I traveled to northern India some years back, and some areas were difficult to breathe without coughing & sensing poor air quality. The air was dirty in cities and filled with heavy smog near industrial areas. Imagine living in those conditions all year long.. There are many who have to and don't have a choice, but are those conditions what we humans really want to promote?

-Humanity ultimately has a choice. Do we want to continue to pump dirty coal and oil into the atmosphere & oceans polluting everything around us OR do we want to keep our planet's air & bodies of water as clean and healthy as possible with clean renewable energy (and nuclear)? That question does not require one to believe in climate change or not believe in climate change. The answer should be the same for both.


Foolish to even consider nuclear until we have a reliable means to dispose/deactivate it. Current methods are unacceptable.

[Kblaze8855]

I have 3 questions for you.

1) Do you think climate change/global warming is a hoax or fake? Or at least a mechanism we do not impact?
2) Do you think greenhouse gases cause heating a hoax or fake? Or at least a mechanism we do not impact?
3) Are you for clean renewable energy only because coal is finite rather than the fact that it is clean & renewable? What if I told you there was a huge amount of oil and coal in Arctic and Antarctica that is so vast that it could last us a couple centuries? Would you open up Arctic and Antarctica to mine as much oil & coal as any country wants with territory ownership ("Drill, baby, drill")?

Of course it isn

[Shogon]

blade, you need to stfu.

You personally consume so many oil based and animal products that it's ridiculous.

I absolutely loathe people that want to tell everyone else how to live or what they should do or what we as a collective should be doing while being massively hypocritical.

Unless you don't drive a car, don't wear shoes and are a vegan, shut the **** UP.

[warriorfan]

Hawker should know better, but it's interesting to see what some will lower themselves to no matter the extent of their education.

I had hope in swaying you Blaze, because you're smart and for the most part extremely rational. You've got a good toolbelt available to you that includes good logical reasoning and a healthy ration of cynicism to help decipher complex problems and that is extremely rare and almost nonexistent here on Insidehoops where this thread is now populated primarily by the dregs of mental aptitude jeering like drooling fvckwits.

You almost broke me, but I can think of one more angle to approach this from....unfortunately, it's scientific again because it's difficult to explain science without science and I know that causes a lot of eyes to glaze over.

Firstly, climate for whatever reason as you've worked out is the "sexy" concept that activists toss around. I guess it's simple, but the problem is more general and that's carbon emissions period.

In chemistry we have acid-base titration reactions/experiments:

For those that don't know, in these experiments a neutral solution, like water has a clear pH indicator placed in it that will change colors upon meeting a certain acidity or basicity. A buffer is also placed in the water to complete the solution.

This buffer protects it's world (the solution) from changes that might take place from the outside (pollution). Acid (pollution) is now dripped into the solution aka (the world) one drop at a time.

The solution/world will not be affected/change color by one drop. The world won't be changed by even multiple drops if dripped slowly and allowed to disperse. The buffer system is doing it's job.

The point of saturation in an experiment like this is the volume of acid dripped/pollution at which the color change aka (damage) aka pH change actually occurs. The buffer system has been overwhelmed and no longer can resist the acid. We've broken the buffer system.
http://www.l4labs.soton.ac.uk/general/images/endpoint.gif

We have been protected from our pollution by earth's buffer system for decades now. This is why those articles exist from the 70's and 80's.

The damage is scientifically seen, but the buffer system protects the unknowing eye from seeing change. Hawker knows this, he just insists on playing the dumbass for what I can only assume are monetary reasons. If/when the buffer system collapses shit hits the fan.

The problem is we don't know where that collapse point is and once it's hit we don't have a way currently to reverse it.

Why does shit hit the fan? That goes into biology.

Most know by now everything in life is dependent and determined by what is written in your genetic code. Your DNA. It's a story that has to be translated though and it can be edited. A rearrangement here and maybe you have brown hair, a snip there and maybe you've got cancer, a deletion and maybe nothing happens at all.

Now we have to change the conversation to protein because protein is what edits exactly what and how the genetic story is told.

Protein is highly dependent on buffer systems to protect it from change.

If the buffer system is lost, the protein will change shape and this causes a loss of function. Loss of function=change. Loss of function in many cases, but of course not all, (because biology never works in an all or none fashion)=death.

We are seeing the effects of loss of nature's buffer system with the death of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The pH level of the water has changed due to the influx of carbon which causes an increase in acidity.



This causes proteins to change shape, lose function, die.


This is an entire ecosystem that is estimated to be 500,000 years old. A drop in the bucket on earth's scale, unimaginable in humanity's scale. We are killing it off in the span of decades due to our insistence on carbon deposits: careless carbon emissions from factories and our negligence in coming up with alternative fuel sources and deforestation, methane produced by cattle are a few common sources that hopefully everyone knows by now.

That's just one example of what the loss of a buffer can do. Buffers exist everywhere. Water, soil, air, our blood. When those are lost mass changes occur. Changes = death.

This leads to another biological concept, the cascade. A change in one protein can have a profound effect (an avalanche if you will) downstream on other proteins which actually enact change on a wholescale level. The loss of our ozone layer is an example of this, but I'm starting to wander.

Now, I've read your arguments and I agree. Life finds a way, the world will survive. Right? Adaptation, evolution. All that is true, but with limitations. Evolution works over grand scales of time. It's difficult to adapt in terms of change in decades when the ecosystem was previously accustomed to change over hundreds of thousands of years.

I've also read your points on priorities and again, I agree. You spoke of having to care for your mother who has now survived cancer thanks to your aid. You've had other thoughts about destruction/collapse being inevitable as well. I feel your experiences with your financial situation are largely influencing these thoughts. I will say the medical system has f'n failed you and I'm sorry for that. It shouldn't be able to ransom the life of a loved one for a cure. It needs to change and I'm attempting to be part of that change. My career may be at risk because of it.

Food, water, shelter, sex...................environment. It is the natural hierarchy of things. One can't be expected to concern themselves lower on the needs list if they are thirsty or hungry as you yourself wrote.

Each of us has to take care of ourselves before we can care for others. But in the meantime,

for those of us that are capable and have the resources, it is important to start cleaning some shit up and included in that is the necessity to educate others.

TLDR - this is more than an inconvenience.

I understand the chances of me changing your mind at this point are minimal, but I had some free time and sometimes a man has to shoot the f'n shot.

Thanks Bill Nye

[Shogon]

Thanks Bill Nye

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXA7djEzuLM

[Kblaze8855]

I

[bladefd]

Foolish to even consider nuclear until we have a reliable means to dispose/deactivate it. Current methods are unacceptable.

-Nuclear waste can be recycled, if you decide to go with current proven 3rd generation nuclear reactors like in France. France built facilities for recycling used nuclear fuel rods. USA has built a facility to recycle used nuclear rods due mainly to politics.
-You don't need to use uranium or plutonium. Generation 4 Molten salt reactors using Thorium are much safer but still experimental. We in USA have the technical ability and resources to focus on that & get a couple reactors up by mid-2020s. AFAIK, small experimental thorium-salt reactors have been made in the USA in the past, but funding was cut in 1970s due to politics. Last reactor to be built in the USA was 1979. We also use early 2nd generation reactors, but technology has vastly changed in 40 years.

We have been 'business-as-usual' for 40yrs, using outdated nuclear technology. It's time to change that..

[bladefd]

blade, you need to stfu.

You personally consume so many oil based and animal products that it's ridiculous.

I absolutely loathe people that want to tell everyone else how to live or what they should do or what we as a collective should be doing while being massively hypocritical.

Unless you don't drive a car, don't wear shoes and are a vegan, shut the **** UP.

I'm a vegetarian :confusedshrug:

[FultzNationRISE]

Hawker should know better, but it's interesting to see what some will lower themselves to no matter the extent of their education.

I had hope in swaying you Blaze, because you're smart and for the most part extremely rational. You've got a good toolbelt available to you that includes good logical reasoning and a healthy ration of cynicism to help decipher complex problems and that is extremely rare and almost nonexistent here on Insidehoops where this thread is now populated primarily by the dregs of mental aptitude jeering like drooling fvckwits.




You are constantly telling kblaze he's smart :lol

"here little black man, I'm approving of you! Isn't that so nice of me!? I dont say this to anyyyyone else here, just you big fella! kblaze you are just so smart, but I have to disagree with you, but hey you're so smart! I know youre black and I'm still calling you smart. Hope you're taking notice of that my friend! What can I say, I'm just a tolerant kind of guy. Hope you noticed. Not that it's why I'm telling you this. But you did notice it, right?!? I'm sure you noticed. Because you are one smart black person!!!"

I'm pretty sure kblaze is a generational peer of yours, with his own adult life; not some 16 year old you've been assigned to play table tennis with at the boys and girls club.

You constantly giving him your patronizing approval is like HELLA insulting. On a general level anyway, I cant speak for him personally. Altho I'm sure you'll take the liberty.

You just cannot help yourself being a shameless buffoon, can you?

[FultzNationRISE]

I'm a vegetarian :confusedshrug:

Why would you even type this sentence?

You do not need to tell ANYONE you're a vegetarian.

It is OBVIOUS.


You just wasted like a dozen key strokes stating something every person could easily figure out by having one conversation with you about anything.

Congrats.

You might as well have said "hey guys, I, bladefd, pee sitting down."

WE KNOW YOU DO.

Don't ****ing tell us what we already know, **** head.

[bladefd]

Of course it isn’t a hoax.

Of course putting a civilizations worth of co2 in the atmosphere causes an increased greenhouse effect.

I’m mostly for new energy sources for the Renewable aspect yes but I don’t support ****ing up the earth. I’ve never had a problem with trying to clean up some of the damage we do. My issue is mostly the language we use to justify it and a growing annoyance with people ostensibly on the side of logic and science absolutely bullshitting the public and making bad arguments.

We arent supposed to be the side misleading stupid people to achieve our goals.

And that is far too often what I see. Just because a calm reasonable explanation of the situation doesn’t get noticed is no reason to go all “Change or die” looking for attention the facts don’t generate.

The world gets better on these things without those tactics. Even the idiots and jerks don’t want the oceans full of plastic, species going extinct when it’s preventable, and their kids breathing smog.

There is a path to improvement that doesn’t require politicians trying to convince dimwits that the actual earth is at risk. And the few people you convince that way are at the expense of alienating more people who might have listened without the doom and gloom nonsense and endless predictions that keep getting pushed back.

I don’t care if there are 500 years of fossil fuels left. Or 50,000. If it can run out and humanity runs on it....figure out another option. It’s just common sense.

We don’t need all the rest. Especially when the rest makes so many people throw out your whole argument as the rantings of a tree hugger.

So we don't disagree... It's not a question of "my side" or "your side" that you kept mentioning. Some might exaggerate, including journalists who get paid by clicks, but that doesn't mean the science is wrong and unsound.

I don't even understand the 'your side' 'my side' stuff.. I'm not a scientist so what's exactly my side?? I was always science-oriented and my college degree was in IT, I minored in biological anthropology and partially completed minors in philosophy and human ecology. I guess I took a lot of science classes as my minor & for fun, but I am not a scientist. There is no 'my side'.. We disagree on the timescale, but that's about it. You might disagree with some of the science, but I don't think we disagree on wanting to transition to clean energy.

I disagree that other stuff is not necessary to mention. Earth still has plenty of coal/oil/natural gas and so if we talk about running out, we won't run out for a while. By accepting those dirty sources, we are essentially making it easy for someone to argue "Well, we have coal/oil so let's just stick to business as usual until we start to run out." It's also a continuous never-ending cycle so we will never truly run out, but it will get harder & more expensive to extract. It's important to transition to clean energy. You get much less pollution so even if someone refuses to accept climate change, pollution should still matter to that person. Coal/oil pollutes everything not only during extraction & production stages but consumption too and is known to cause things like lung cancer. We certainly don't want "business as usual" to keep pumping coal/oil. It doesn't do us any good to not stop using dirty energy sources.

[RRR3]

Look at starface desperately BEGGING for attention and getting ignored.

Here’s some of that precious social interaction, lil fella.

[FultzNationRISE]

[QUOTE=RRR3]Look at starface desperately BEGGING for attention and getting ignored.

Here

[RRR3]

Soysoysoy3...

You can trust me when I say this, Im being very serious.

The LAST thing I want

Is for you to talk to me.
Is that why you

[FultzNationRISE]

[QUOTE=RRR3]Is that why you

[FultzNationRISE]

So we don't disagree... It's not a question of "my side" or "your side" that you kept mentioning. Some might exaggerate, including journalists who get paid by clicks, but that doesn't mean the science is wrong and unsound.

I don't even understand the 'your side' 'my side' stuff.. I'm not a scientist so what's exactly my side?? I was always science-oriented and my college degree was in IT, I minored in biological anthropology and partially completed minors in philosophy and human ecology. I guess I took a lot of science classes as my minor & for fun, but I am not a scientist. There is no 'my side'.. We disagree on the timescale, but that's about it. You might disagree with some of the science, but I don't think we disagree on wanting to transition to clean energy.


Wait, do you thinks biologists and physicists dont have disagreements CONSTANTLY...??

:biggums:

You think scientific data is concretely interpreted the exact same way by everyone in the scientific community!?!

You talk about environmental predictions and claim

[RRR3]

classic starface. “I’m not following you around desperate for attention I’m just laughing at you! I’m so alpha!”

Sure, Chief. Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.

[FultzNationRISE]

[QUOTE=RRR3]classic starface.

[Proctor]

[QUOTE=RRR3]classic starface.

[FultzNationRISE]

"B-b-b-but remember that time you were gonna block me? I'm gonna block you first bro!!" :mad: :mad: :mad: :roll:

You're gonna make poor little Adderall's head pop. There's too many people and not enough paragraphs, so pardon him if he uses a few less on you. Maybe you'll get a shout-out on his next YouTube diatribe.


Proctor sitting there reading every word, finally couldnt take it any longer and had to come bursting in to defend his soy queen :lol

[Proctor]

classic starface. “I’m not following you around desperate for attention I’m just laughing at you! I’m so alpha!”

Sure, Chief. Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.
Just realized he hasn't logged off in over 8 hours :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Even Wheels would be jealous of this commitment. Jeff should send him a gift package at his UPS locker.

[RRR3]

"B-b-b-but remember that time you were gonna block me? I'm gonna block you first bro!!" :mad: :mad: :mad: :roll:

You're gonna make poor little Adderall's head pop. There's too many people and not enough paragraphs, so pardon him if he uses a few less on you. Maybe you'll get a shout-out on his next YouTube diatribe.
He’s absolutely SEETHING, bro :oldlol:

Imagine how mad he gets when his poptarts gets burnt. Probably calls up his dad and goes on a 30 minute rant about how “the librulz” are ruining everything.

[Proctor]

[QUOTE=RRR3]He

[RRR3]

Just realized he hasn't logged off in over 8 hours :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Even Wheels would be jealous of this commitment. Jeff should send him a gift package at his UPS locker.
Damn UPS hired starface? I guess they’ve really lowered their hiring standards.

[FultzNationRISE]

Just realized he hasn't logged off in over 8 hours :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Even Wheels would be jealous of this commitment. Jeff should send him a gift package at his UPS locker.


You have alerts for when I log in and out, in addition to saved shirtless photos and a subscription to my YT channel...??


Proctor...

[Loco 50]

-Nuclear waste can be recycled, if you decide to go with current proven 3rd generation nuclear reactors like in France. France built facilities for recycling used nuclear fuel rods. USA has built a facility to recycle used nuclear rods due mainly to politics.
-You don't need to use uranium or plutonium. Generation 4 Molten salt reactors using Thorium are much safer but still experimental. We in USA have the technical ability and resources to focus on that & get a couple reactors up by mid-2020s. AFAIK, small experimental thorium-salt reactors have been made in the USA in the past, but funding was cut in 1970s due to politics. Last reactor to be built in the USA was 1979. We also use early 2nd generation reactors, but technology has vastly changed in 40 years.

We have been 'business-as-usual' for 40yrs, using outdated nuclear technology. It's time to change that..
Recycling is not adequate in my view. Needs to be a way to deactivate it.

A quick google search says Thorium salt has a half-life of 200,000 years. Unacceptable.

I'm certainly not an expert in this area, so I could be completely wrong to be fair. But, I have extreme reservations with radiation.

[bladefd]

Recycling is not adequate in my view. Needs to be a way to deactivate it.

A quick google search says Thorium salt has a half-life of 200,000 years. Unacceptable.

I'm certainly not an expert in this area, so I could be completely wrong to be fair. But, I have extreme reservations with radiation.

Thorium is not as radioactive & unstable as say Uranium and certainly plutonium. It's also not fissile meaning it can't go through fission while just sitting (Uranium & plutonium are both fissile) so you actually have much more control over Thorium.

[Nanners]

blade, you need to stfu.

You personally consume so many oil based and animal products that it's ridiculous.

I absolutely loathe people that want to tell everyone else how to live or what they should do or what we as a collective should be doing while being massively hypocritical.

Unless you don't drive a car, don't wear shoes and are a vegan, shut the **** UP.

Can't believe people are still bringing up this asinine argument in 2020... are you one of starfaces alts or something?

Our society was designed around fossil fuels and animal products long before any of us on this site were ever born (except maybe rufus). Its laughably ****ing retarded to suggest that people should be forced to live like the unabomber in order to have a valid criticism on things like fossil fuels... besides, even if blade was living like the unabomber, we all know that your stupid ass would still dismiss his arguments anyway.

[Loco 50]

Thorium is not as radioactive & unstable as say Uranium and certainly plutonium. It's also not fissile meaning it can't go through fission while just sitting (Uranium & plutonium are both fissile) so you actually have much more control over Thorium.
Interesting. Did a little more skim reading and it does seem promising.

If the quantities of waste are relatively small in comparison then thorium does sound far better than Uranium and Plutonium.

[bladefd]

Interesting. Did a little more skim reading and it does seem promising.

If the quantities of waste are relatively small in comparison then thorium does sound far better than Uranium and Plutonium.

Yup. Plus you can recycle thorium as well, further minimizing the amount of waste. Since it is also not fissile or as radioactive as other substances, it might be possible to store safely underground or even shoot Thorium waste into the sun. There is also much more thorium available to us on Earth than uranium/plutonium. You also don't need to enrich high percentage of it to use in a thorium reactor so the extraction process is simplified and less costly than trying to enrich uranium/plutonium.

The biggest plus is that thorium cannot be used in a nuclear bomb because it is not fissile. So you could potentially sell the technology to countries like North Korea if you really wanted to. Any nation can have thorium reactors. I suspect it would be expensive though so it may be out of reach of poor countries. Definitely not as cheap as coal, oil or solar but at the same time you can generate a lot more consistent kWh of electricity day & night.

[Loco 50]

Yup. Plus you can recycle thorium as well, further minimizing the amount of waste. Since it is also not fissile or as radioactive as other substances, it might be possible to store safely underground or even shoot Thorium waste into the sun. There is also much more thorium available to us on Earth than uranium/plutonium. You also don't need to enrich high percentage of it to use in a thorium reactor so the extraction process is simplified and less costly than trying to enrich uranium/plutonium.

The biggest plus is that thorium cannot be used in a nuclear bomb because it is not fissile. So you could potentially sell the technology to countries like North Korea if you really wanted to. Any nation can have thorium reactors. I suspect it would be expensive though so it may be out of reach of poor countries. Definitely not as cheap as coal, oil or solar but at the same time you can generate a lot more consistent kWh of electricity day & night.
https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html

[Shogon]

Can't believe people are still bringing up this asinine argument in 2020... are you one of starfaces alts or something?

Our society was designed around fossil fuels and animal products long before any of us on this site were ever born (except maybe rufus). Its laughably ****ing retarded to suggest that people should be forced to live like the unabomber in order to have a valid criticism on things like fossil fuels... besides, even if blade was living like the unabomber, we all know that your stupid ass would still dismiss his arguments anyway.

Even with our society designed around it, he can still TRY to be better with his way of life. Does he try? Absolutely not. THAT is what makes him a huge hypocrite, you driveling imbecile.

That’s not to say we as a species shouldn’t do better... of course we should... but I don’t need or want someone in borderline hysterics obsessing over the issue telling me how to live when they aren’t doing shit about it themselves. I don’t want to hear it. Clearly he doesn’t believe it deeply enough to be inconvenienced in the slightest and yes it is annoying.

[Nanners]

Even with our society designed around it, he can still TRY to be better with his way of life. Does he try? Absolutely not. THAT is what makes him a huge hypocrite, you driveling imbecile.

How exactly would your stupid ass know whether or not he is trying to live his life a certain way?



That’s not to say we as a species shouldn’t do better... of course we should... but I don’t need or want someone in borderline hysterics obsessing over the issue telling me how to live when they aren’t doing shit about it themselves. I don’t want to hear it. Clearly he doesn’t believe it deeply enough to be inconvenienced in the slightest and yes it is annoying.

I would bet the farm that literally nobody gives a single shit about what you do or do not want to hear from other posters on this site.

You said quote "Unless you don't drive a car, don't wear shoes and are a vegan, shut the **** UP.".... are you full of shit right now or were you full of shit a couple hours ago when you posted this?

[Shogon]

How exactly would your stupid ass know whether or not he is trying to live his life a certain way?



I would bet the farm that literally nobody gives a single shit about what you do or do not want to hear from other posters on this site.

You said quote "Unless you don't drive a car, don't wear shoes and are a vegan, shut the **** UP.".... are you full of shit right now or were you full of shit a couple hours ago when you posted this?

I never denied that humans are impacting the global climate. I don’t want to hear a melting down hypocrite lecture me. It’s that simple.

Very clearly, you can also join that list.

[Nanners]

I never denied that humans are impacting the global climate. I don’t want to hear a melting down hypocrite lecture me. It’s that simple.

Very clearly, you can also join that list.

I never said you were a climate denier, you illiterate jabroni.

Even if you were a so-called climate denier, I wouldnt have any problem with that. Lets pretend for a second that our climate is changing (unproven), so what? Ancient hunter/gatherer societies of humans were able to survive sudden and extreme temperature shifts during the end of the last ice age, imo modern humans have far greater environmental concerns than the temperature of the climate. I am a left-winger with a science degree and a job associated with environmentalism, I get called a climate denier almost daily because I think Greta is full of shit (shit from her handlers), and I definitely do not think the world is gonna end any time soon...

Anyway, whether or not either of us believes in climate science is completely beside the point. The point we are arguing here is whether people should be allowed to criticize resources like oil that they use on a daily basis (they obviously should).

PS: you should keep posting about which posters you dont want to hear from or whatever... let me know how that goes for your ****ing stupid ass :oldlol:

[bladefd]

Even with our society designed around it, he can still TRY to be better with his way of life. Does he try? Absolutely not. THAT is what makes him a huge hypocrite, you driveling imbecile.

That’s not to say we as a species shouldn’t do better... of course we should... but I don’t need or want someone in borderline hysterics obsessing over the issue telling me how to live when they aren’t doing shit about it themselves. I don’t want to hear it. Clearly he doesn’t believe it deeply enough to be inconvenienced in the slightest and yes it is annoying.

-using solar power
-am a vegetarian
-am not materialistic, I don't own very much of material goods tbh
-I turn off the heat and actively try to limit my electricity usage as much as possible. i.e. I used to keep my pc on overnight in my teenage years but I stopped that habit
-I take only as much food as I need (can always return for seconds) but I sometimes still do have food waste I'm trying to change. I'm a picky eater unfortunately

Anyways, I am far from a saint and I'm not telling you how to live. How you live is up to you, but when someone [like on ISH] start questioning something like climate change, I have to bring up facts.