By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Climate Change: What's your take?

Jumpin on 19 January 2016

Climate change, which is a euphemism for global warming, is an obvious hoax. I have been measuring temperatures for the last 6 months, since July, and have recorded a general cooling trend over that period. It is so cold now that it is even snowing!

Besides, what's to complain about? If global warming is real, then I look forward to a nice hot tropical paradise Europe in the future. And if it starts to get too hot, we can all take spaceships to the Mars colony which will probably have the planet terraformed by then.

All in all, it is going to be a very interesting next few decades.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
kurasakiichimaru on 19 January 2016

Today was abnormally hot. So f*******k climate change and the ones causing it.



SamuelRSmith on 19 January 2016
pokoko said:
The way I see it, the odds are good that human waste emissions are, at the least, exacerbating climate change. At the worst, they're the main catalyst. If we try to minimize the damage and it turns out that they aren't a major factor, then what is the real harm? However, what if we do nothing and the outcome is that they are really bad and the world is irreversibly screwed? Will people just go, "oops, my bad?"

Logic would say to err on the side of caution, especially since we know other pollutants have caused irrefutable damage to the environment.

Honestly, though, the one thing that really, really bugs me is how many people form their opinions on this based solely on the stance of their political party of choice and whichever political entertainer they follow. Think for yourself, people.
Zkuq said:
GribbleGrunger said:

My take is:

We can decide it's absolutely stupid and do nothing about it only to find out when it's too late it was true, OR, we can accept it's true, do something about it and prevent a catastrophe, leaving us with no proof whatsoever it was ever true. Scenario one is fine if you're a smoker and endangering only your own life (and perhaps a few family members and friends) but when it comes to risking the human race scenario two is your only option.

 

The issue with these points is that it assumes that fighting global warming is costless. You present it as if fighting climate change and being wrong will be without cost.

The truth is that in order to switch to green energy/manufacturing, billions will suffer reduced standards of living, and millions will die. That is the reality of these proposals.



kurasakiichimaru on 19 January 2016
SamuelRSmith said:
pokoko said:
The way I see it, the odds are good that human waste emissions are, at the least, exacerbating climate change. At the worst, they're the main catalyst. If we try to minimize the damage and it turns out that they aren't a major factor, then what is the real harm? However, what if we do nothing and the outcome is that they are really bad and the world is irreversibly screwed? Will people just go, "oops, my bad?"

Logic would say to err on the side of caution, especially since we know other pollutants have caused irrefutable damage to the environment.

Honestly, though, the one thing that really, really bugs me is how many people form their opinions on this based solely on the stance of their political party of choice and whichever political entertainer they follow. Think for yourself, people.
Zkuq said:
GribbleGrunger said:

My take is:

We can decide it's absolutely stupid and do nothing about it only to find out when it's too late it was true, OR, we can accept it's true, do something about it and prevent a catastrophe, leaving us with no proof whatsoever it was ever true. Scenario one is fine if you're a smoker and endangering only your own life (and perhaps a few family members and friends) but when it comes to risking the human race scenario two is your only option.

 

The issue with these points is that it assumes that fighting global warming is costless. You present it as if fighting climate change and being wrong will be without cost.

The truth is that in order to switch to green energy/manufacturing, billions will suffer reduced standards of living, and millions will die. That is the reality of these proposals.

In the next decade or so, oil could be depleted and regulated by whatever country has still left with tons of it and increase the price to insane levels because f**********k you, your wallet is my sugar mommy, coal will be outdated, sound energy could be the next trend, solar panels could be cheaper and more efficient etc.

I mean, the realistic positives of it clearly outweighs the worst case scenario negatives you spouted, it's not even fair tbh.



GribbleGrunger on 19 January 2016
SamuelRSmith said:

 

The issue with these points is that it assumes that fighting global warming is costless. You present it as if fighting climate change and being wrong will be without cost.

The truth is that in order to switch to green energy/manufacturing, billions will suffer reduced standards of living, and millions will die. That is the reality of these proposals.

That's a fair point but I don't think it's one we can 'afford' to take into consideration. I'm coming from an objective perspective but I believe global warming is real so I can't escape the idea it could be persuading me subconsciously to view it in a particular way. It boils down to one simple fact: If we are right and nothing is done then Earth dies and human kind ends. If we are wrong then human kind continues but with less wealth and millions of people dead. When taking your point and my point into consideration it essentially boils down to 'kulling' vesus 'killing'. Given a choice between those two things I would still go with scenario one.





 

The PS5 Exists. 


Around the Network
Zkuq on 19 January 2016
SamuelRSmith said:

The issue with these points is that it assumes that fighting global warming is costless. You present it as if fighting climate change and being wrong will be without cost.

The truth is that in order to switch to green energy/manufacturing, billions will suffer reduced standards of living, and millions will die. That is the reality of these proposals.

I didn't assume so. The switch doesn't have to be instantaneous, and it'll the rich will probably take the hardest hits instead of the poor that seem most vulnerable to the threats of climate change. Add in the risks climate change could pose like others did, and I find fighting climate change the lesser evil - especially in the long run.



Insidb on 19 January 2016
fatslob-:O said:
I don't deny that we have a role as far as climate change is concerned but what alarmists fail to realize are the benefits of a warmer environment like less deaths from freezing or more natural produce growing ...

Unfrotunately, droughts would kill said produce and the people who intend to eat them.





Aeolus451 on 19 January 2016
fatslob-:O said:
Aeolus451 said:

That's mainly because people are crowded around eachother more in colder weather but those are nothing compared to west nile virus, lyme disease, cholera, malaria, dengue and probably more. Bacteria in general, thrives in warmer weather. 

This study shows that there's efficiency to be had in viruses replicating in colder parts of the body ... 

Again your very far away from concluding that the effects of climate change will negatively skew the spread of diseases ...

The diseases I mentioned all thrive more in hotter climates. Diseases in general thrive more in hotter climates. That's a fact. You're talking about the common cold.



Leadified on 19 January 2016

Climate change and the anthropocentric impact is definitely real, however the real question is how much of an impact we have. Unfortunately though I don't think we will know when it's too late before it's already too late.

So far things are maybe not so bad, change is evident especially in the Canadian Arctic but no one really cares since hardly anyone lives there. But who knows what will happen in the future, perhaps it won't be so bad overall or maybe entire island nations will be swallowed up by the sea and hunderds of millions will be displaced. In any case, it's best to err on the side of caution.



KungKras on 19 January 2016

If it's real for the scientists that constantly have to save drill samples of the greenland ice, then it's real for me.



I LOVE ICELAND!