Climate change

source or books on this topic?

watchers.news/2019/07/01/valentina-zharkova-on-the-upcoming-grand-solar-minimum/

The science tells us that the climate is changing. The science doesn't tell that the world is ending. Be very skeptical of anyone who claims we're all going to die if who don't enact such and such policy. Even if we assume the absolute worst, humans are some of the most adaptable animals in the world. We live in every climate and we're going to be fine. In fact, it's looking like people in North America and Europe are going to be extra fine because are crop will become more productive.

If you want to clean the environment that's great, you'll find a lot of allies all across the political spectrum but don't get sucked into this apocalyptic shit. Bernie Sanders and Al Gore are the biggest proponents of that shit yet they invest their savings in beachfront property. I'll start taking their predictions seriously when they do.

Holy... this really makes you think

Alright great stuff user, I am already agreeing on you with this. However, I'd love some books on this. The statistics, what the calculations show, the cold hard facts.

Thanks, interesting stuff.

Read the IPCC report.

This. The UN has biodiversity reports too for example.

I liked The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change. A Guide to the Debate by Dessler and Parson

hahhahahahahahahahahaahahahahahhajahj

China and India can simply opt out. Theyre not part of the Western millieu, and the West is heavily reliant on them to produce all this "wasteful" shit. It starts with the consumer - we're the ones driving production.

Its a cause to rally people around while simultaneously giving those in power the ability to dictate how the commoners live their lives AND bathe themselves in moral superiority. Its perfect for the demagogues

Seriously though its not like muh carbon tax will make any sort of dent. At least the green new dealers have earnest solutions

Is not real. See geo-engineering

>The science tells us

Attached: 1561723340273.jpg (542x475, 63K)

The sooner we are all dead the better

Weather manipulation does not negate the reality of this shifting climate cycle.

climate has never been static
anyone who says its manmade change should be shot like cambodian wearing glasses and turned into soilent

>implying humanity over the course of 200+ years of mass worldwide industrialization and population growth cannot affect the climate just because the climate can change on its own

Dont sell yourself short, were capable of big things! Weve almost exterminated whole species

They can eradicate "climate change" if they really wanted. You are underestimating what geoengineering can do.

into gulag you go

Science fiction thread now?

This is why democracy is stupid.
Even those interested and passionate about the topic know nothing about it. The rest know less than nothing yet they're expected to make a decision on it.

Why no Ellul???

>reading something to get a grasp of a phenomenon means agreeing with the whole narrative they surround it with or reducing reality to statistics and projections
>critical thinking skills: no

make me not believe there's a climate collapse coming frens, i don't want to but there's so much to support it :(

>but there's so much to support it
>literally "something bad might happen in ten years maybe 80 we dont know NOW PAY OUR RENT TAXPAYERS!!!!"

Take the Deep Adaptation pill. The time for preparing against climate change is past, now is the time for preparing for global ecological collapse.

Attached: hqdefault[1].jpg (480x360, 33K)

modesofexistence.org/isabelle-stengers-the-intrusion-of-gaia/

Attached: serveimage.jpg (331x499, 32K)

Climate change is simply a guise for socialism. Anyone who disagrees with me is a yellow bellied sodomite.

The climate has always changed. The problem is when it starts changing too quickly for Earth's ecosystems to adapt and they collapse in a mass extinction. That mass extinction is currently taking place and humanity is gonna get btfo'd if we don't sort our shit out

>might

Attached: IMG_1751.jpg (521x589, 19K)

co2 ppm went up 150ppm in 50 years, that's higher than it has ever been in earth's history. how is that not going to cause problems. just 500 more and it affects human cognitive ability

a way i think about it is in terms of WW2. world war 2 was this horrific, bloody, violent moment in human history. however, only 3% of the global population died. all that, and 97% of humans get to keep living their lives. and while it went on, movies kept coming out, children went to school, people got married. aka humans are adaptable even during the worst moments.

i do believe climate change will happen. the 3 degree Celsius will probably happen, and major parts of coastal cities will probably get flooded, and there probably be crop shortages. that being said, i don't anticipate it being the end of humanity, it'll just be another shitty thing that we get through

but i'm with you OP, i want some academic readings on true collapse. because i haven't read a single paper that anticipates the earth ending in 30 years, yet i hear people around my age (25) claim its gonna happen all the time.

Climate change isn’t the only worry. We have another recession coming soon. Don’t act like if climate change is false life will suddenly get great for the 99%

Yeah I dont think windmills and china panels are going to solve this, Likely way out of our control by now.

Computers, smartphones, rockets, smartTvs, the internet, certain types of cars, medicine, machinery, robots in other planets.
All of them were either a fantasy or science fiction less than 100 years ago, wake the fuck up, moron.

You have a poor understanding of how those advancements happened if you want to compare them to geoengineering solutions. Just keep waiting for your technological panacea.

You have poor imagination. Man would have never gone to the moon if everyone 'thought' the same way you do, nothing at all would even exist nor even delevop, with that lack of imagination and creativity, mostly because geoingineering is just on its infant state, you feel as it will never develop because, again, you lack creativity, dickhead.

t. oil baron

Chink are doing 100x more than Americans are, and India is not even close to America when it comes to the emissions. While China is building solar farms and nuclear plants, Americans don't even believe in climate change.

Yup, capitalism is fundamentally irrational hence it would have to be curbed or outright abolished if climate change turned out to be a real things. That's why the powers that be will be telling us it's not real until we could no longer stop it.

Its because western countries need to pay.

The kewl thing right now is methane. Basically we already tripled (IIRC) the amount of methane in atmosphere since pre-industrial levels and with warming of the Earth absolute fuckton of methane will be released from polar ice. The big issue is that methane itself is highly effective greenhouse gas and thus we will cause a positive feedback loop that can't be stopped.

tl;dr It's likely planetary fart will erase large portion of humanity.

>can't be stopped.

I can think of one thing that could stop it.

>they aren't making China and India do a god-damned thing
China and India are sovereign states you mong. You can't "make them do a god-damned thing". Doesn't mean that they are doing nothing.

Daily reminder that any American who believes in climate change is a traitor and should be executed in sight

K

For what, ethics, morals, standards? Fick you chink

Wut

You gonna take a big sniff?

America is heavily cristicised for its concerns of unfair regulations that aren’t implamented in those countries but expected of us. Stop shilling

Killing cows?

Same thing that caused it.

Attached: 147915418489.png (800x800, 584K)

>cristicised
Oh noes, someone said that goblins are too fat and ought to pollute less. Guess what, "criticizing" doesn't fucking matter.

India just banned non-biodegradable plastic and will phase all of it out till 2022(despite the fact that its per capita plastic consumption is 1/10th of the US). China is building solar farms and nuclear power plants very rapidly, also it has very elaborate railway system that'll only get better to reduce vehicular pollution. Meanwhile in America half of the country thinks climate change is a hoax. The fact of the matter is they are pulling above their weight, despite being drastically poorer compared to the leader of the free world.
This current Amerilard attitude of blaming everything on others, despite being the leading cause of the problem is sickening.

for being racys

A recession is a completely normal aspect of modern life, it's just that the last one was particularly bad

China and India don't have a standard of living

>it's just that the last one was particularly bad
The next one is going to be much worse. Many countries haven't recovered from the last one and the system is held together by too much ductape.

You have to be a retard to deny climate change is happening. And you have to be a retard to not understand that it has huge negative consequences for most of the world. We will not all die no credible source is saying that. Just hard new problems will emerge in the next 30 years for which we are ill equipment right now.

What wonders me tho is how so basically all normies are thinking about this in a moralizing way. How to stop it, how it's the duty of every single country to do everything humanly possible etc. Noone is asking if the big players like US Chine India Russia etc even CAN do something. Maybe the carbon spewing industries all around the world, the transnational companies etc are a geopolitical instrument. If Russia would do everything in their power to reduce emmision they would have to cut down their gas exports etc. Less political leverage.

I see it like mutual assured destruction. No global power can do anything of substance because that would mean to loose global influence in some way. A vacuum which will be filled by the power which wasn't stupid enough to blindly follow the climate fanatics demands.

What nobody is asking is what to do after climate change. Fucking world altering conditions in 30 years, questionable if it's even theoretically to do anything, questionable if it's too late and nobody is asking what do we do afterwards?

This is the big question imo. Not how to stop climate change but what do we do if we can't stop it. Be it through game theoretical inability to change, be it that we already destroyed the atmosphere, the question is what when millions of migrants come to other countries, the crops start to die and the ocean is rising.

Civilization is nothing but a heat engine. everything produces heat. The average person produces enough of it to melt 10,000 pounds of ice every year. One seat on an airplane is equal to eight months of driving in terms of c12 emissions. You're nothing but heat, and masses of plastic, styrofoam, and take-out. When I look out at long stretches of traffic on the highway I feel so much hatred I could split.

"The economy shitting itself every decade and a half is completely normal. Please do not try to change anything to remedy this"

>Civilization is nothing but a heat engine.
That's too simple, civilization produces order. It breaks the rules of thermodynamics. The heating we cause is due to effects of waste products related to our choice of energy sources. if we would have chosen hydro, solar or nuclear the effects would greatly lessen.

this

Imagination is the correct word to describe what you're talking about.

Yeah and without it nothing would have ever existed nor created,

Attached: inertia3.jpg (1300x1083, 93K)

Takes a bit more than imagination.

That's just a rightwing reading list of stuff barely related to climate change and focused on how to deal with nature in general

But still has to be Present, whether you accept it or not.

china and india each have more than 1b people

Attached: CO2-emissions-per-capita-in-selected-countries-and-world-regions-5.png.jpg (691x603, 90K)

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

The carbon dioxide emissions of the average american are among the highest in the world. Compare it to China and you'll see the average Chinese pollutes way less than you obese idiots. So yes, change your way of life if you can, please, or stop complaining about tsunamis of mexican immigrants

Scientific papers probably

> When I look out at long stretches of traffic on the highway I feel so much hatred I could split.

So long as you recognize yourself among the source of your hatred. And don't cite that obnoxious political hack cartoonist comic with the medieval peasant, you know the one. It is an entirely valid point to make that you are yourself the very same heat you speak of, and the object of your hatred and revulsion involves yourself. Failure to recognize this point produces the Al-Gores and Dicaprios who preach a great deal about averting climate change and do absolutely nothing themselves to remedy it. Worse, they almost always practice far greater impact on the environment than the average person.

I honestly hate that comic I mention because it is a conscious choice to participate in a flawed system one has a serious issue with (like the chick complaining about apple worker policies on her iphone). One is just too chickenshit to take the step to actually put their money where their mouth is. You could not drive a car and not go on the highway and pay tolls. You just don't.

Don’t complain about America not participating in treaties that don’t treat them fairly then fuck head

Kinda nationalistic don’t ya think, nazi fuck

I assure you nothing breaks the laws of thermodynamics

>implying I don't illegally lane split through traffic every single morning
Also implying I don't hate myself. Do you know where you are?

Only one that's complaining is (you).

This post does.

take the mass extinction pill
95% of species lost
it has happened before and it will happen again
Antarctica is our White bastion

Attached: KmmTS29tfnGbnpVvmr73ea-970-80.jpg (970x568, 88K)

u.s. will get left behind wondering what happened when it was really quite obvious from the start.

that doesn't have to be a fault of democracy its a fault of the information systems of the society, imo.

People don't need to know much, just the basic idea.
>Do you want to preserve current system and our elites at the risk of catastrophe?
>Do you want to curb the elites and the economy in order to try to prevent the catastrophe?

Anyone ITT who doesn't have a garden and doesn't use a bicycle for 90% of his transportation is a fraud.
Also fuck anglos, you're the cancer of this world.

Attached: ehehehe.jpg (1320x800, 388K)

>Muh individual responsibility
Mein gott, fuck off with this bourgeiose nonsense.

>EVRY BODY MUST EMBRACE CHANGE OR ELSE YOURE A BIGOT
>EXCEPT THE CLIMATE(that changes no matter what), I DONT WANNA HAVE MY BEACH FRONT REAL ESTATE BE WORTHLESS YOU FUCKING PROLES NOW PAY THE CARBON TAX!!!!

Good goy, continue to consume, it has nothing to do with the current situation.

Forgot about the fact that every capitalist pig should be shot and most of the industries closed. Now it's clear?

You can survive in 40 Celsius with shit atmosphere and shit oceans, how about your food? The fact that retards don't do anything doesn't mean you also should not.

>Good goy, continue to consume, it has nothing to do with the current situation.
Your petty moralization or gay ass bike isn't going to save anyone. Political action must be carried out.

Where does it say that it should not? Are you blind or you actually want mommy politics and daddy state to do all the lifting? Motherfucker fight all the fights and stop being a pussy.

> POLITICAL ACTION MUST BE CARRIED OUT
cried the liberal, go and start carrying it out, while also doing things on the local level you cunt

based

Attached: Who-wants-change-Who-wants-to-change.jpg (589x732, 49K)

>Where does it say that it should not?
At the time you started with your bike. Change in behaviour amongst woke middle class individuals is irrelevant in the big picture. Your bicycle doesn't matter, ratio between mass transit and individual transit does. Your garden doesn't matter, mass production of meat does.
>Are you blind or you actually want mommy politics and daddy state to do all the lifting?
State is tool to preserve current order, but it must be used since I don't really see the possibility of violent revolt against industrial or financial elite any time soon. Re-armament and radicalization of the left ought to be the long term goal.
>cried the liberal
Liberal? What are you on you fuckhead, my position was explicitely anti-liberal.

Let me be more explicit since you don't understand shit, there's individual transit because your fag ass don't want to use a gay bike, there's mass production of meat because your fag ass wants to eat gay meat. Now the quick and easy solution is to say "Let's stop and calm down, collectively", while you go and work towards that(also my objective), why should the individuals not start already consuming less? Why not both things?

>Re-armament and radicalization of the left ought to be the long term goal.
I completely agree, climate change should be one of the new main struggles of the left, when there are lives at stake, suddenly people are more willing to get armed and fight for their cause. You won't help this by shutting down local and small initiatives, as they are the main things left from the various movements of the last century.

Bitch ass makes me write more than 2 sentences, fuck you

>as they say on their chin slave labor media machines made of heavy metals and plastic

>Let me be more explicit since you don't understand shit, there's individual transit because your fag ass don't want to use a gay bike, there's mass production of meat because your fag ass wants to eat gay meat.
Because the meat is cheap and individual transit is more comfortable. I don't care about what the result my individual actions aggregate to, because I'm just a stupid sheep that does what the billboards tell me to do. If you want me to change my ways, you have to force me to do so.
>why should the individuals not start already consuming less?
Feel free to do so, but that's not the solution. Solution is using power to force the owning class into producing less, use power to regulate consumption and build alternative solutions.
>You won't help this by shutting down local and small initiatives
Who said anything about shutting down local initiatives? These are good. Problem are liberal faggots who pay extra money to get green sticker on their commodity so they could act smug without challenging the system in any way.

Attached: kwronon.jpg (814x578, 102K)

Yes, we are all disgusting, immoral sinners. Let's just sell our computers and communicate via pigeons, that will totally matter. Let's ignore all the advertisement that rapes cognitive instruments of humanity, lets ignore mr. whateverstein lobbying against regulation, lets ignore those McMutt families with 2 cars per household, lets ignore all the neoliberals telling us only thing that matters is "the economy"...

if youre so concerned for the planet, kill yourself, thats more alleviation than recycling cans and your $3000 "green" non-durable good bicycle will ever do

What if I kill Jeff Bezos instead?

The bootlicker will not reply

To be clear, we don't know what the precise effects will be or how long it will take. But we have 11 years to get our shit together before shtf down the road. A majority will die due to famine.

>antinatalist
>bootlicker
go consume some "green" product to make yourself feel better cuck

>what they said ten years ago, and 20 years before that

Slavs will survive and inherit the Earth

Attached: ClimateChangeMap.png (843x315, 87K)

The only other time this kind of warning came out we met the emission requirements for the deadline.

Broke:
Just choose to ride a bike bro
Woke:
Outlaw cars and only allow bikes and public transportation
And no, producing electric cars also creates emissions

We are going to be BTFO. IPCC reports all turned out to be too conservative. Just don't read about feedback loops if you want to save your sanity.

>met the emission requirements
>russia and canada blasting out emissions from melting permafrost
>WERE TOTALLY FINE GUYS YOU GAVE US OUR RENT MONEY, THE INEVITABLE HAS CHANGED

>Waaaaaah! It's not fair! Waaaah!

A curiosity of mine, why do right wingers deny climate change while also at the same time spewing bullshit about wanting to make children and save their race?

>fly over state
>effected by climate change

The Ben Shapiro BBC appearance summed it up best
>The right wing intelligentsia has all sorts of interesting ideas like whether climate change is real or if the free market has that one in the bag
I.e. their ideology makes it so they don't want to do shit about it.

Basically, most right-wingers are libertartian about economy. Because climate change requires international cooperation that suggests to them communism, they want to save market principles by denying cc.

Right wing is all about preservation of the system and it's hiearchy. Our system is the rootcause of this problem and if we want to solve it, we must topple the hiearchy.

Not really. There are at average two coal power plants being made in China each month. These things produce more CO2 than all households in Norway combined.

Not really. The coal isn't rising anymore and the goverment set up plan for renewables.

Attached: China-next-energy-revolution-pic-1.jpg (495x249, 31K)

I've now read through every single reply in this thread, and can confirm that nobody has no idea what is going on, what will happen, how to solve it, how to survive it, or anything at all.

It is means to push mass immigration to white countries and simultaneously have means to increase taxes endlessly

Enlighten us

>meanwhile: one american pollutes like two and a half chinamen

Well thats pretty fair, considering one American weights as much as two and half Chinamen.

>implying the market isnt international cooperation

Free market is internation competition who can felate the corporations best.

Environmental problems are just a symptom of the lack of unifying myths and long term plans for the future.

When nations are disintegrating and all that matters is personal enjoyment, it's hard to mobilize people to care about some hypothetical environmental disaster that will probably happen after they're dead anyway.

Attached: 1024px-NSDAP-Logo.svg.png (1024x1024, 178K)

>climate change is an international competition on who can felate rent seeking scientists the best

>Environmental problems are just a symptom of the lack of unifying myths and long term plans for the future.
Oh yea, that's why they were so common throughout history.

The media is mostly corrupt junk journalism. First you need to understand that climate change is one of the many consequences of the Industrial revolution. The picture is much, much bigger and understanding this alone already puts you leagues above the NPC dipshits that are only concerned about climate change. They didn't give a fuck about the destruction of nature until the media told them to.
This is the best you're going to get.

Attached: 1549893572083.jpg (800x574, 72K)

Sure thing man, those eggheads totes have their bank accounts in 7+ digits, rule the economy and command political power.

>those eggheads totes have their bank accounts in 7+ digits
>literally paid by governments, lobbyists and energy companies

Most c02 emissions are due to energy production and transportation.
Focus on the biggest slices of the pie first. Move away from fossil fuels by placing emissions caps and toward renewable energy by subsidizing it. At the same time invest in larger public transportation systems.
Eventually the solution will have to be nuclear but we still need to figure out how to manage it safetly. In the meantime another problem is storing renewable energy efficiently.
A government tree planting program (as in full on reforestation efforts with machinery, not some pussy plant a tree day shit) can take some of the brunt of our emissions. For now trees are more efficient than our best carbon capture technologies.
Our trade deals will have to include strong environmental regulations so people who want to sell to North America and Europe don't just keep production in somewhere where they can pollute.
Anyway, we might get half of that so hope to see you on the other side when people start dying off.

They were common, just on a smaller scale, because there were fewer people with less dangerous technology.

Understanding the causes is easy, fixing this stuff is much harder, because of the way humans and societies function.

>literally paid by governments, lobbyists and energy companies
You just btfo yourself. If there was to be a meaningful paralel they wouldn't rely on other parties to fund them.

>Focus on the biggest slices of the pie first
>anyother answer than systematic genocide or mass genocide
fucking brainlets ITT

>They were common
Name five.

Are you sure you want to go down that route?
You're basically saying we need to nuke ourselves back to primitive society.

Attached: 4d8525a5-be37-4d04-a275-ccdbd30c98b7-620x431.jpg (620x431, 31K)

>believes in literal stories made up by people not even doing science calling themselves scientists

birth rates for first world countries collapsed a decade ago, kill the kikes importing turd worlders to pad gdp and make the third world as disinterested in sex as the first world

Read some basic history. Many towns in the middle ages were polluted to the point of being harmful to people's health, for example.

>believes in literal stories made up by people not even doing science calling themselves scientists
I don't even know what are you trying to convey and I don't think it's worthy of attention. Go back to sucking banker cocks.

Stop immigration?
Sure.
The population of the poorest countries could double though and if they kept the same standard of living, it would barely dent things. High population growth is natural during the transition phase to development. It happened in the developed asian countries.

I know more history than you do.

>Many towns in the middle ages were polluted to the point of being harmful to people's health, for example.
First that isn't really "Environmental problem" in the sense we are talking about ITT. Second they lacked the development to set up sewage efficiently, it wasn't because of some stupid " personal enjoyment".

>sucks off banker propaganda, accuses others of their own behavior

youre saying this like turd worlders havent been multiplying like mosquitoes this whole time

>WAAAAAAAAH, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE CHYYYYYYYYYYNA, WITH 1 BILLION PEOPLE, EMITS SOOO MUCH POLLUTION

Attached: Carbon PP.png (497x788, 38K)

>WAH WHY DONT PEOPLE BELIEVE MY APOCALYPSE STORY
>WHY CANT I USE FEAR TO MOTIVATE PEOPLE?

He will be replaced by another CEO

Probably a nuclear winter could do the trick
Unironically nuclear tests on the poles could tackle down the greenhouse effect but I guess no one does this not to trigger military tensions

More targets, nice.

>Unironically nuclear tests on the poles could tackle down the greenhouse effect
Dude, that's some high level Deutshephysik. How do you think it would work?

Alright guys. I got this all figured out. Check this shit:
We move production to the Moon.

t. 80 iq hillbilly

gotta move to Canada when I could

Ideology

How completely irrelevant

I remember like 10-15 years ago, right wingers were less ideologically driven and believed in climate change, and wanted to do something about it too. what caused this gradual shift to outright denial?

Which is why a free press was a mistake.

Hard to believe that UK has less emissions compared to Germany. Germany should've built at least a bit of nuclear power, rather than completely going all out for solar and wind

Considering China probably has 5x the total population of every country in that list combined, per person statistics areirrelevant. The question ought to be on a country by country basis, and where that pollution comes from, because "individuals" are not the sole emitters of CO2.

Only the more libertarian side of the right does this.

Democracy disincentives long term thinking.

But wait, of course population size matters. More people means more people to produce goods and services. The degree to which a country is doing its best to prevent c02 emissions shouldn't be based on an absolute measurement. It means if the U.S. was in charge of China's policies, the situation would be a lot worse. This is a collective problem where everyone ought to take on their fair share of the burden, not try to shift it over for competitive advantage.

here's a book about the left replacing the proletariat with climate change

Attached: 43687661_10156262635071633_5371940378515603456_n.jpg (319x499, 30K)

isn't bookchin a literal retard?

I think I improperly worded by argument. The average individual in China may not produce as much polutions as the average in the US. This should not abstain China from that responsibility to the citizens that do though. I would guess that the top 330 million emitters in China likely have a higher average than the US (pop 330 mil), and those people should be held to the standard that others in countries around the world are. The question ought to not be who is being fairly treated, but where emissions can be cut off in ascending order of costs on a global scale. Pretend, for a moment, that we were a global dictatorship, who's concern was the global wealth and climate pollution contribution as a whole. It would be optimal for us to regulate the sectors of the planet that had the smallest cost per emissions saved, and to steadily continue regulation until the escalating costs no longer justified the diminishing reduction of emissions. China's actual per person emission is irrelevant in this goal. The reality is that an incredible amount of pollution is generated in that country, and that much of it could reasonably be regulated away without terrible costs in comparison to other nations. The burden China would be forced to take is only relevant to the absolute amount of fixable emissions it produces now. If we, for example, told every modern, industrialzied nation to cut their emissions by 10%, that would be reasonably fair to each, but it would not actually be the most efficient method of reducing global climate change in the realm of cost per emissions saved.

>the left replacing the proletariat with climate change
What does this mean?

if you don't give all power to a global communist government the world will explode in 12 years

Attached: ENB_COP24_14Dec18_KiaraWorth-10-tn.jpg (1000x660, 224K)

I see. I'm not OP but this sounds highly relevant. I'll give it a read myself.

I'm the sure the climate is really concerned about per capita counts and will just destroy muttland

Yes, they're opening their coal plants in Africa instead now

>Pretend, for a moment, that we were a global dictatorship

Exactly. If more people would read Jacques Ellul, for example, or have a basic grasp on history/geopolitics they would understand that if one superpower has the chance to overrun and dominate another, it will.

The truth is we're probably fucked. Any intelligent person at this point understands that global warming is very real and caused by human activity. The idea that it's a scam designed by evil solar panel companies to sell more shit is absurd and you should feel ashamed if you believe this. Of course, American conservatives (and to some extent, even democrats) are beholdent to money, and as such have to pretend to believe corporate propaganda to secure reelection. Tbh there will probably be a massive population collapse within our lifetimes

>I would guess that the top 330 million emitters in China likely have a higher average than the US (pop 330 mil), and those people should be held to the standard that others in countries around the world are. The question ought to not be who is being fairly treated, but where emissions can be cut off in ascending order of costs on a global scale.
You're trying to define "responsible" which is very messy in this situation. If a corporation emits c02, who is responsible? Is it the CEO, board of directors and investors? Or is it the workers at the factory? Is it the people who rely on that business for their goods and services that prompts them to emit c02 in the first place? Have more people, you need more production. Which isn't even getting into that China is essentially the manufacturing powerhouse of the entire world right now. When you take that into account, how are they not doing a good job given all the people they're producing goods for?

> Any intelligent person at this point understands that global warming is very real and caused by human activity.

Yes, but they all disagree on to which extent. Some think only 5% of it is human activity, others think the majority of it is human activity.

My conclusion on this after even reading all of the replies to this thread, is that nobody has the faintest idea about what is going on.

apocalypse will always exists in every society and every tribe. they want a meaning in their lifes.
in a materialist empirist society they have this "the material world is ending because we are not pure enough". in other times the apocalypse will come because we dont try to have pure enough souls. its not a big deal.
anyway everybody gonna die sooner or later. earth included.

This, but unironically.

Not him but i think that it would be good for lots of people to read actual scientific texts on the subject, rather than argue about it online where probably no one knows anything substantial about it, me included

Last year I took multiple 4-5 hour maglev train rides going 100mph through the Chinese countryside. Nothing but smog the whole way. You could see maybe a quarter mile. On both sides there are 100s of skyscraper apartment building complexes with rows of identical towers receding into the gray.

In the two weeks I was in China I felt the sun 1 or 2 times. One afternoon in Chengdu we found ourselves sitting in the grass in a giant city park similar to Central Park or something. The sun was out. Kids were running around blowing bubbles. Teens were playing cards on the grass. For a few minutes I thought that maybe this place is livable. Then the police came and kicked everybody off the grass.

Right wingers generally do not tend to ignore climate change. They doubt the effect that humans have on the climate and/or how to solve the issue. You barely hear anyone talking about nuclear energy, for example.

>Man would have never gone to the moon if everyone 'thought' the same way you do
based reddit platitude poster

Due to global warming, the world has been perpetually ending every ten years since the 60's, apparantly.

Basically, it's all bullshit.

t. David Koch

>timothy morton
>right wing

Too many doomsday predictions hyped up in the media that never happened. Eventually conservatives at large decided they could fuck off.

You mean things barely changed but we have the government more money to pretend to do shot and then suddenly it wasn’t a pressing issue

So because they love all the way over there and make money selling us shit they don’t have to change but we have to change the way we produce stuff because for some reason over hear the corporation decides what the consumer gets but over there the consumer gets all the power

>let me cuck you
>wait no don’t complain about m cucking you
>it’s not my fault your ruining this relationship
It’s not America’s fault the EU are pursues and wanna suck the Asian peni

Agreed. Human extinction is preferable to humans rules by communists or anarhists.

As does this one

Y’all niggas rember when the world was supposed to be freezing

>For a few minutes I thought that maybe this place is livable. Then the police came and kicked everybody off the grass.
based cops

but what about this 16yo girl larping as a 12yo girl talking about climate change? i mean if you disagree with her you basically hate children

So..anyone read Powers' The Overstory?

No

>"if those pesky conservatives didn't get in the way we'd be living in solar powered dreamscape REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
nice cope faggot, but we all know what we have to do and it isnt investing in gay cope tech like solar panels and wind farms

Attached: 1550737999074.png (220x220, 93K)

>inbred piggy worshippers who dont want to admit humanity needs to be culled

>Tbh there will probably be a massive population collapse within our lifetimes

people say this allll the time. can you point me to a single scientific paper that predicts population collapse?

climate change is a problem and we should be doing much more to reduce global emissions, but underrated in the liberal mass media is the capacity for markets and entrepreneurship to drive technological, social, cultural and business solutions that will reduce the harmful impact.

perc.org/2016/12/14/climatopolis-revisited/

Attached: Screenshot 2019-08-16 at 15.06.03.png (1854x1450, 3.01M)

And the award for biggest brainlet ITT goes to...
>>capacity for markets and entrepreneurship to drive technological, social, cultural and business solutions that will reduce the harmful impact.

i'm just saying whatever happens adaptation will occur and markets and prices will really help with that

Attached: Terry Anderson_0.jpg (1053x1200, 135K)

Markets will help to cull humanity, so you are kinda assuming you follow Linkolian ideology.

This is based, I'm tired of seeing art hoes posting apocalyptic bullshit like they're some Revelation cult. They're always complaining about how we need radical green policy despite the fact that we live in Canada and the amount of emissions we produce is basically irrelevant. They want to destroy our entire energy industry just to clear their conscience while not actually accomplishing anything meaningful.

If the apocalyptic disaster models are correct it's going to be Asia leading us in the crisis, with or without the developed world.

And as China develops the average will only go up with their 1.4 billion people

It's always telling when your biggest supporters are retarded high school aged kids. They would believe that the sky was green if their teacher told them that.

They're gonna reach peak emissions by 2021-2022, well before Paris climate change agreements deadline of 2025

>We have another recession coming soon
if you knew this you'd be rich coming soon, but you won't be, because prediction is hard

So many shills for the oil jew.

It's coming soon, but in order to profit you need to know how can you profit (because profiteering on disasters is harder than profiteering on rising economy), you need to know precisely when it will hit because markets are becoming incraesingly short-sighted and most importantly you need to have some starting capital to begin with.

Though, don't worry much, the financial elite will profit and further consolidate their stranglehold like in the previous one.

I won't have children without a partner, what do I care lol

>people that don't use plastic, stop using plastic
So hard bro.

Canada and Russia have incentives to hurry it along. Vast wasteland and a bunch of unusable rivers that flow north. Their situations would be greatly improved. Crap look at this !

What are they doing in Trinidad?!

The "Big Freeze" was in the 70s, even their parents might not remember.

Attached: 1552154087061.jpg (1024x717, 84K)

Just wear your tinfoil hat.

>flyover reply
>affected by not knowing grammar
Look who's retarded now

I would love that its better that dying from 120° outside

>Crap look at this !
It's extremely simplistic model based solely on temperature that doesn't take in effect global economic downturn, secondary effects of climate change or even viability of living in the defrosted areas. It should be taken at best as an indicator of who will survive the potential mess, taking it literally woud be total brainletism.
t. the guy who posted it

the world is warming up, and it's pretty clearly man made.
the world won't end because it's warmer, but a lot of fertile land will turn into desert, and that may cause some serious, large scale conflicts - that's the real danger here.

Attached: 240px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png (240x180, 36K)

>1. world warms up
>2. increasing evaporation
>3. causing an increase in rainfall
>4. ???
>5. More Deserts!

Also, explain pic please

3. is false. ever notice how it rains in the winter, when it's cold, and not in the summer where there's increased evaporation?

please stop for a second to consider how confidently you wrote something that takes only a moment's thought to understand how false it is.

the graph has never been as steep as it is now. you're pkaying with the scales to make it look as steep when it isn't.
this is like watching a house on fire and saying "yeah it's been getting warmer and colder every year, nothing to worry about"

>everyone lives in my climactic zone!

Younger Dryas changed 7 degrees Celsius in a decade. When did Al Gore's movie come out?

Same desu. Even if there still was still some sort of spirit of national brotherhood (there isn't), my nation will be extinct in 50 years. So why should i care? Let the chinks, pajeets and nogs inherit fiery hell

>That mass extinction is currently taking place and humanity is gonna get btfo'd if we don't sort our shit out
>we
"We" dont need to personally do anything. It's all the shitskin countries like Brazil and China and India destroying their environment to make more money. Even in the height of the industrial revolution white people weren't consuming so short sightedly.

There’s also this things called the energy crisis.
The shit-for-brains countries need to get this through their heads. WE gotta do a hell of a lot, shithead

>Give me some books on this shit so I can actually understand it and form an opinion about it.

Attached: Catastrophe Ur-Myth.jpg (570x743, 96K)

>enough is enough!
>i will have to act!
>spoonfeed me!

you know that more than half of the humanity died with each environmental crises and that there 7 billion people living on earth right now, right?
all of this can be prevented with more irrigation and agricultural infrastructure and sustainable energy resources.
also read about the carbon cycle and Milankovitch theory

1. Where are you getting these made up facts?
2. If it's easy to fix with some irrigation, just build some irrigation?
3. By sustainable resources you better mean nuclear, or this is the most embarrassing part.

>In fact, it's looking like people in North America and Europe are going to be extra fine because are crop will become more productive.

The Midwest has been underwater for five months and crop yields are going to take years to rebound, what the fuck are you going on about you absolute dilettante

You mean, when some tabloids printed big letters about how we supposedly were going to freeze, when all the actual scientists *correctly* said the overall trend was actually warming up?
Maybe read about the topic, cunt.

Redpill me about them. Worth joining?

Attached: 1200px-Extinction_Rebellion,_green_placard_(cropped).jpg (1200x1548, 245K)

Unbiased assesment of climate change by a NASA scientist.

Attached: download (11).jpg (178x283, 12K)

Time magazine and about 1/3 of scientists. But instead of getting angry at heretics, which just makes you a religious nut, explain that science improves with new data and experiments, eg. the theory of relativity didn't mean we should just give up on ever understanding physics.

Watched some videos, middle aged hippies with absolutely retarded methods who talk about their own feelings and feelings of nonwhites in Europe just as much as they talk about climate. But hey, at least they are doing something.

>Even in the height of the industrial revolution white people weren't consuming so short sightedly.
>GreatLondonSmog.jpg

Carbon isn't the main reason for global warming, fuckwit.

Correlation does not equal causation. Al Gore was right, but he used the stupidest fucking theories to back his ideas.

Read Kaczynski. It does not matter whether it's fiction, reality or propaganda.

1. glacial period killed most europeans + following weather change lead to a huge amount of typhoons, storms, volcanoes, floods, etc that killed a lot of humans.
2. desalting water, storing water so it doesn't dry out and someway being able to farm without relying on rain and weather are very hard and expensive.
also bodies of water can stabilize temperatures and massive forests can lower CO2 in the atmosphere. those are very huge scale projects but they aren't impossible, dirt poor african countries are already working on building a green barrier to stop desertification but they are doing it slowly due to lack of finances
3. nuclear energy is the only reliable and efficient energy resource available unless something new is discovered or new fusion energy concept produces more than what it consumes

Attached: mega2.jpg (654x455, 112K)

404 data not found in post