Definitive Proof of Climate Change

[Luziyca]

You know, maybe we should fix this climate change thing...

Seriously though, on one hand, I think it’s a great way to catch people’s attention. On the other another, idk if people are going to connect the two together in any meaningful way.

Though it does make for a great comedy sketch of a scientist explaining to an angry crowd why this is a big deal, only for them to all shout “so when can you bring the beer back?!?”

Agreed, Teachian.

But realistically, I feel that this point, the best we can do is to mitigate the effects of climate change, since we're definitely past the point of no return. If we try and adapt our lives so we can survive the coming storms (no pun intended), then humanity might be able to survive the changing climate.

[Petrasylvania]

You know, maybe we should fix this climate change thing...

Seriously though, on one hand, I think it’s a great way to catch people’s attention. On the other another, idk if people are going to connect the two together in any meaningful way.

Though it does make for a great comedy sketch of a scientist explaining to an angry crowd why this is a big deal, only for them to all shout “so when can you bring the beer back?!?”

Agreed, Teachian.

But realistically, I feel that this point, the best we can do is to mitigate the effects of climate change, since we're definitely past the point of no return. If we try and adapt our lives so we can survive the coming storms (no pun intended), then humanity might be able to survive the changing climate.

Survive long enough and technology to actually repair and reverse the damage may come to being.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You know, maybe we should fix this climate change thing...

Seriously though, on one hand, I think it’s a great way to catch people’s attention. On the other another, idk if people are going to connect the two together in any meaningful way.

Though it does make for a great comedy sketch of a scientist explaining to an angry crowd why this is a big deal, only for them to all shout “so when can you bring the beer back?!?”

Agreed, Teachian.

But realistically, I feel that this point, the best we can do is to mitigate the effects of climate change, since we're definitely past the point of no return. If we try and adapt our lives so we can survive the coming storms (no pun intended), then humanity might be able to survive the changing climate.

Then let's tax carbon polluters so that the people who made these messes can clean them up.

[Oil exporting People]

Agreed, Teachian.

But realistically, I feel that this point, the best we can do is to mitigate the effects of climate change, since we're definitely past the point of no return. If we try and adapt our lives so we can survive the coming storms (no pun intended), then humanity might be able to survive the changing climate.

Then let's tax carbon polluters so that the people who made these messes can clean them up.

Carbon taxes are inherently regressive and hit the poor the hardest.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Then let's tax carbon polluters so that the people who made these messes can clean them up.

Carbon taxes are inherently regressive and hit the poor the hardest.

At some point something needs to be done
We can't just debate it forever

[Kaggeceria]

"Could" go up? Or is it a definitive thing? Cause this sort of shit never seems to pan out.

[Internationalist Bastard]

"Could" go up? Or is it a definitive thing? Cause this sort of shit never seems to pan out.

Report says that climate change could hurt barley production

[Rostavykhan]

I'm a liquor man, jokes on ya'll.

Whiskey is the bee's knees.

Mead is also alright.

The gall of liberals asking if higher beer prices will make more people care about climate change. As if the price of beer is something that is make-or-break for people's views and the only way to talk to them is take away beer, NASCAR or red hats.

Yup, keep considering the average right-wing voter as a food stamp beer-swilling full-denim moron who fell out of high school. Genuinely. Please do. I'm already planning my Kanye West 2024 party because there's nothing to worry about. Have fun with the 60-40 Senate.

It's insulting, but in a funny way.

> Implying only Right-Wingers drink beer.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Then let's tax carbon polluters so that the people who made these messes can clean them up.

Carbon taxes are inherently regressive and hit the poor the hardest.

So does climate change itself. We can't let poverty be an excuse to do nothing. We need to tax everyone, including the poor, to give the poor less environmentally harmful ways to climb out of poverty.

I'm a liquor man, jokes on ya'll.

Whiskey is the bee's knees.

Mead is also alright.

The gall of liberals asking if higher beer prices will make more people care about climate change. As if the price of beer is something that is make-or-break for people's views and the only way to talk to them is take away beer, NASCAR or red hats.

Yup, keep considering the average right-wing voter as a food stamp beer-swilling full-denim moron who fell out of high school. Genuinely. Please do. I'm already planning my Kanye West 2024 party because there's nothing to worry about. Have fun with the 60-40 Senate.

It's insulting, but in a funny way.

> Implying only Right-Wingers drink beer.

Beer is 5% alcohol by volume, which, per mL of alcohol, makes it less efficient to transport, and in turn worse for the environment, than wine or distilled liquors. So I would say choosing beer over them is a somewhat right-wing decision in itself, however slightly.

[Kaggeceria]

Carbon taxes are inherently regressive and hit the poor the hardest.

So does climate change itself. We can't let poverty be an excuse to do nothing. We need to tax everyone, including the poor, to give the poor less environmentally harmful ways to climb out of poverty.

Whiskey is the bee's knees.

Mead is also alright.




> Implying only Right-Wingers drink beer.

Beer is 5% alcohol by volume, which, per mL of alcohol, makes it worse for the environment than wine or distilled liquors. So I would say choosing beer over them is a somewhat right-wing decision in itself, however slightly.

Choosing beer over liquor is right-wing?

Do you even realize how silly that sounds?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So does climate change itself. We can't let poverty be an excuse to do nothing. We need to tax everyone, including the poor, to give the poor less environmentally harmful ways to climb out of poverty.



Beer is 5% alcohol by volume, which, per mL of alcohol, makes it worse for the environment than wine or distilled liquors. So I would say choosing beer over them is a somewhat right-wing decision in itself, however slightly.

Choosing beer over liquor is right-wing?

Do you even realize how silly that sounds?

Hence the "however slightly" qualifier.

I've since elaborated on my reasoning. Please check the post again, and next time, if you've something against it, actually refute it instead of merely calling it silly.

[Great Minarchistan]

good

Let's add in actual opium to the opioid addiction!

aside from the mortality risk incurred from acute respiratory failure by ODing on opioids, I dont recall the long term risks of comprehensible opium use as significant like the ones of tobacco

[Petrasylvania]

Let's add in actual opium to the opioid addiction!

aside from the mortality risk incurred from acute respiratory failure by ODing on opioids, I dont recall the long term risks of comprehensible opium use as significant like the ones of tobacco

Death isn't the only problem.

Association between Tooth Loss and Opium Addiction: Results of a Community-Based Study on 5900 Adult Individuals in South East of Iran in 2015

Opium

[Kaggeceria]

Choosing beer over liquor is right-wing?

Do you even realize how silly that sounds?

Hence the "however slightly" qualifier.

I've since elaborated on my reasoning. Please check the post again, and next time, if you've something against it, actually refute it instead of merely calling it silly.

Choosing a certain type of alcohol is not right-wing. That deserves no other response than to be called silly.

[-Ocelot-]

I think opium is going to thrive in these new conditions..

good

Do you know what opium is?

[Great Minarchistan]

aside from the mortality risk incurred from acute respiratory failure by ODing on opioids, I dont recall the long term risks of comprehensible opium use as significant like the ones of tobacco

Death isn't the only problem.

Association between Tooth Loss and Opium Addiction: Results of a Community-Based Study on 5900 Adult Individuals in South East of Iran in 2015

Opium

From the NCBI study: "Oral hygiene neglect in opium users can lead to tooth loss resulting in further functional, esthetic, and dieting problems."
Oral hygiene neglect can lead to tooth loss in literally anyone. The study also seems not to control for socioeconomic variables, especially when it says that addicts are far less likely to go through dental treatment (indicating an obviously higher risk of tooth loss).

On the latter link, the symptoms linked are either vague ("damaged heart, lungs, liver and brain") or seem to be the typical symptoms of high-dose use, which was specifically risked out when I mentioned "comprehensible opium use".

[Great Minarchistan]

good

Do you know what opium is?

yes

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Hence the "however slightly" qualifier.

I've since elaborated on my reasoning. Please check the post again, and next time, if you've something against it, actually refute it instead of merely calling it silly.

Choosing a certain type of alcohol is not right-wing. That deserves no other response than to be called silly.

Anyone can dismiss something. Ability to refute it is a more meaningful metric.

[Kaggeceria]

Choosing a certain type of alcohol is not right-wing. That deserves no other response than to be called silly.

Anyone can dismiss something. Ability to refute it is a more meaningful metric.

Okay.

Personal preference is not political. Not even slightly. That is absurd.

[Ghost Land]

The problem is that nobody believes this stuff anymore because a few doomsday scenarios didn’t happen.

This is my point exactly. I read somewhere that the period of record these climate alarmists are basing their stuff off of would be equivalent to judging a person's lifelong health off of just 47 seconds; a lot of stuff could change within the next whatever scale of time that people don't often realise or consider. Quite a few of these doomsday scenarios are downright ridiculous, especially considering every weather event these days is blamed on global warming. It's hot? Global warming! It's cold? Global warming! It's sunny for three days in a row? Global warming! A bird took a dump on my windshield? Global warming! I'm also not seeing quite how the entire world could warm up by 10*F just in the next 82 years, either, especially considering the total amount of warming in the past century has been to the tune of only 2*F IIRC. And if we're continuing to warm faster than ever, how do we explain the pause in warming observed from the late 90s through the middle part of this decade?

Although before you think I'm outright denying scientific fact, just hear me out. I do recognise that humans have been polluting the air and water vastly more than is necessary, in addition to blatantly cutting down forests across the globe and otherwise being completely mindless of the environment, and here's a hot take: the computer age isn't helping either; it takes electricity to keep everything connected, and in areas where carbon-positive fuels are still dominant (such as the United States, which is alarmingly far behind Europe in terms of environmental rules), that's just another big consumer of energy. I also do recognise that these levels of pollutants added to the atmosphere are much higher than they "should be"; in other words, they're disrupting ecosystems large and small around the globe. And with more people being added to the world each passing second, it's getting harder to keep emission levels in check (news flash, Third World, quit popping out so many kids each!). These increased pollution and environmental harm levels are even affecting the world's climate itself (though it should be noted that Earth's climate has always been cyclical in nature, and extreme weather events have always happened; look at the Dust Bowl of the 30s or the 'Year Without a Summer' of 1816).

To sum up, we don't know of any 'Planet "B"' that can also support human life. The environment is getting worse by the second. Worldwide carbon emissions are still going up, rather quickly too; this needs to change. A lot of this has to deal with First World, particularly American, consumerism and hedonism; we think we "need" all these fancy things that in reality we barely even want. So why, pray tell, isn't the United States doing squat to help reduce its carbon emissions to an actually sustainable level? Leftists, hippies, and tree-huggers like talking about saving the environment, but the United States as a whole seems to be responding with a resounding "not my problem", and this makes my otherwise very conservative stomach sick and nauseated. The world would be better off with cleaner fuels, less technological advancement, and about a quarter of its current population.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Anyone can dismiss something. Ability to refute it is a more meaningful metric.

Okay.

Personal preference is not political. Not even slightly. That is absurd.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

However, is there not a difference between preferences and decisions? If someone "prefers" to do something harmful to the environment, but decides against that, does this not reflect on their awareness of environmental harm, and/or how much they care, both of which can carry over into their political views as well?

[Kaggeceria]

Okay.

Personal preference is not political. Not even slightly. That is absurd.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

However, is there not a difference between preferences and decisions? If someone "prefers" to do something harmful to the environment, but decides against that, does this not reflect on their awareness of environmental harm, and/or how much they care, both of which can carry over into their political views as well?

If I prefer beer to liquor because of the taste then, yes, that is indeed a preference.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

However, is there not a difference between preferences and decisions? If someone "prefers" to do something harmful to the environment, but decides against that, does this not reflect on their awareness of environmental harm, and/or how much they care, both of which can carry over into their political views as well?

If I prefer beer to liquor because of the taste then, yes, that is indeed a preference.

But for two people of comparable preference in alcoholic beverages, would choices not reflect priorities?

[Kaggeceria]

If I prefer beer to liquor because of the taste then, yes, that is indeed a preference.

But for two people of comparable preference in alcoholic beverages, would choices not reflect priorities?

I can't speak for everyone but usually when choosing the alcohol I wanna drink the environment doesn't really cross my mind.

[Bombadil]

God knows there’s a study on it.. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Do_with_It

..but this is about climate change.