Global Warming

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Are we sure the Earth is warming up? Or did you forget about the whole spring snow the United States has been getting.

Senator James Inhofe, is that you?

[Foxfound]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not nearly as well-versed in the science as I should be, but from what I have read and seen climate change seems to be a very real thing indeed.

We aren't doing a great job of fighting it, though. The media, at least here in America, tends to either spread poorly-sourced doubt about climate change or make extravagant or alarmist claims about its extent that cause people doubt. Politicians tend to be either dismissive of climate change or demanding we work to change things so fast that we'd probably wreck the economy and wouldn't be able to solve anything. There isn't much voice for a rational middle ground, mostly because that doesn't get views or clicks or attention.

Global warming isn't real.

I'm also not real.

None of this is real.

Wake up.

I've been seeing messages like these on the internet more and more lately and I'm starting to get worried.

[Fjordbjorg]

natural means it has to happen. It is a cycle, a loop, it gets colder, then warmer. I live in a country which is very cold.
There are many reasons why they are pushing it. They are running out of oil and it's better for them if you waste less. Stop driving your car, they say, flying on their private jets. Also they tell you to have less children to combat global warming and then.. low birthrates! importing humans from overseas..
LEARN to SEE with your eyes wide open. This is just a small piece of the truth.
Look here:
https://i.imgur.com/junUS0x.png

No it doesn't. Fuck nature. This planet is ours.

That is evil to say. You might fuck nature, but soon enough she'll strike back.

[Saiwania]

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It's in everyone's interest to get off of fossil fuels and cool the planet back down to where it should be via removing enough carbon from the atmosphere. We don't have the means to do this at scale cheaply, but it at least can be done and maybe improved over time.

The reason why climate change denial is so tempting for many people to cling to, is because clean energy costs more to produce and deliver than to continue with the status quo. Solar and wind and etc. is becoming more cost effective than even coal or natural gas. So the situation is improving to some extent, but not fast enough or at a big enough scale to make a difference.

I'd recommend a mass deployment of Klaus Lackner's Artificial Trees. Removes more CO2 than real plants and thus can be thought of as an improvement over nature.

If the world's best chemists figured out how to remove CO2 from the air really fast via some process, and this was combined with a technology like Direct Air Capture that was deployed at a large enough scale, we could definitely go back towards 270 ppm of CO2 within 50 to 100 years of devoting resources to remove excess carbon if we didn't add any more carbon via fossil fuels in the meantime.

Getting to clean energy only is only part of the solution, but a major component. It'd be cleaning up some of the mess we've made from industrialization without necessarily giving up our developed lifestyles.

[Novus America]

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It's in everyone's interest to get off of fossil fuels and cool the planet back down to where it should be via removing enough carbon from the atmosphere. We don't have the means to do this at scale cheaply, but it at least can be done and maybe improved over time.

The reason why climate change denial is so tempting for many people to cling to, is because clean energy costs more to produce and deliver than to continue with the status quo. Solar and wind and etc. is becoming more cost effective than even coal or natural gas. So the situation is improving to some extent, but not fast enough or at a big enough scale to make a difference.

I'd recommend a mass deployment of Klaus Lackner's Artificial Trees. Removes more CO2 than real plants and thus can be thought of as an improvement over nature.

If the world's best chemists figured out how to remove CO2 from the air really fast via some process, and this was combined with a technology like Direct Air Capture that was deployed at a large enough scale, we could definitely go back towards 270 ppm of CO2 within 50 to 100 years of devoting resources to remove excess carbon if we didn't add any more carbon via fossil fuels in the meantime.

Getting to clean energy only is only part of the solution, but a major component. It'd be cleaning up some of the mess we've made from industrialization without necessarily giving up our developed lifestyles.

Wind and solar are part, but only part of the solution.
They are too unreliable and too land and resource intensive to provide all we need.

Nuclear is the solution. While not cheap, converting all of our existing fossil to nuclear allows us to do so without destroying millions of acres of land (no additional land is used) and building absurd storage capacity.

Again we could have solved this by 1980.
19 fucking 80!

We could have solved this 39 years ago. But we still can.
We have had the technology. Just we refused to use it.

[New Udonia]

Is climate change real?
Yes, you have probably observed the seasons either in real life or on television.

Is climate change anthropogenic?
No, I will explain below.

Climate change is a completely natural process which the planet uses to sustain itself. During the Early Middle Ages the planet experienced a cooling period, one which would continue till the Late Middle Ages. The subsequent warming period would continue till around the 20th century, when the planet would reverse itself again.
Do humans cause global climate change? It all depends on if you believe in rain dances or not. Climate change politics is just a modern re-invention of alleged human-weather control, something which has dominated mythology for ages.

I believe that humans should be investing in methods of preparation for natural climatic cycles, instead of wasting money on geopolitical games.
If our ancestors had invested in legislation to stop precipitation rather than roofs, we wouldn't be here.

You will most likely either strongly agree or disagree with me at this point. However the important thing is that we rationally discuss the manner and not resort to calling those who disagree conspiracy theorists. Two can play the conspiracy theory game, and then where would we be? Divided back into camps, red and blue, slinging insults and emotions at each other in an attempt to punish the other side for failing to believe in a theory.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

How to fix GW:

green energy sources (solar wind) nuclear fission

heavy investment in fusion

electric cars

plant trees

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

Is climate change real?
Yes, you have probably observed the seasons either in real life or on television.

Is climate change anthropogenic?
No, I will explain below.

Climate change is a completely natural process which the planet uses to sustain itself. During the Early Middle Ages the planet experienced a cooling period, one which would continue till the Late Middle Ages. The subsequent warming period would continue till around the 20th century, when the planet would reverse itself again.
Do humans cause global climate change? It all depends on if you believe in rain dances or not. Climate change politics is just a modern re-invention of alleged human-weather control, something which has dominated mythology for ages.

I believe that humans should be investing in methods of preparation for natural climatic cycles, instead of wasting money on geopolitical games.
If our ancestors had invested in legislation to stop precipitation rather than roofs, we wouldn't be here.

You will most likely either strongly agree or disagree with me at this point. However the important thing is that we rationally discuss the manner and not resort to calling those who disagree conspiracy theorists. Two can play the conspiracy theory game, and then where would we be? Divided back into camps, red and blue, slinging insults and emotions at each other in an attempt to punish the other side for failing to believe in a theory.

The Gaia model your talking about right?

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

I believe global warming is happening but we aren't doing much to stop it. In my biology class I learned many changes that are happening to our planet due to global warming. More ice in the north and South Pole is melting. This is affecting the polar bears and many other different species. What are ways we can help our planet?

Well there is a chance but honestly nothing will be done until the last minute or it is too late unfortunately that is an inherent property of human nature you can't change it for most people for example if you were to have a test about what you learnt next month chances are most people will either revise the night before or not at all. If you look around you there are so many examples of this. So that is the harsh answer to your question.

[Novus America]

How to fix GW:

green energy sources (solar wind) nuclear fission

heavy investment in fusion

electric cars

plant trees

I think the focus on JUST global warming is a critical mistake though.
The fact is that air pollution does far more than just impacting the carbon cycle.

It also kills you via cancer, lung disease and all.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

Look how many lives we could save, two million a year just by converting our coal to nuclear.
That is lives lost not because of global warming either.

Dying because of indirect affects through climate change is still dying of course.

But much more abstract than dying from lung cancer.

[Novus America]

I believe global warming is happening but we aren't doing much to stop it. In my biology class I learned many changes that are happening to our planet due to global warming. More ice in the north and South Pole is melting. This is affecting the polar bears and many other different species. What are ways we can help our planet?

Well there is a chance but honestly nothing will be done until the last minute or it is too late unfortunately that is an inherent property of human nature you can't change it for most people for example if you were to have a test about what you learnt next month chances are most people will either revise the night before or not at all. If you look around you there are so many examples of this. So that is the harsh answer to your question.

Yes. Again Nixon had a plan to solve at least air pollution from electric power in the US by 1980.
So clearly we give zero shits about actually doing what we need to do.
Otherwise we would have done it 39 years ago.

The problem is we illogically and in the face of all facts and science think the solution (nuclear power) is somehow worse than dying of lung cancer from air pollution.

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

Well there is a chance but honestly nothing will be done until the last minute or it is too late unfortunately that is an inherent property of human nature you can't change it for most people for example if you were to have a test about what you learnt next month chances are most people will either revise the night before or not at all. If you look around you there are so many examples of this. So that is the harsh answer to your question.

Yes. Again Nixon had a plan to solve at least air pollution from electric power in the US by 1980.
So clearly we give zero shits about actually doing what we need to do.
Otherwise we would have done it 39 years ago.

The problem is we illogically and in the face of all facts and science think the solution (nuclear power) is somehow worse than dying of lung cancer from air pollution.

Why is it always politicians

[Saiwania]

Yes. Again Nixon had a plan to solve at least air pollution from electric power in the US by 1980.
So clearly we give zero shits about actually doing what we need to do.
Otherwise we would have done it 39 years ago.

I'm skeptical of this because how much would it have cost back then? Surely more expensive than it would be now, because we now have 3D printing, nanotechnology, and etc. that didn't exist back then. I think the Earth would've been in better shape today, if the US had really embraced nuclear energy to the same extent France did after 1945 and oil was used only for cars and coal for the most part, was kept in the ground or used only for steel production and minor heating as opposed to electrical generation.

Coal is said to be the worst fossil fuel overall, that has ever been used; so far as its negative impacts go.

[Novus America]

Yes. Again Nixon had a plan to solve at least air pollution from electric power in the US by 1980.
So clearly we give zero shits about actually doing what we need to do.
Otherwise we would have done it 39 years ago.

I'm skeptical of this because how much would it have cost back then? Surely more expensive than it would be now, because we now have 3D printing, nanotechnology, and etc. that didn't exist back then. I think the Earth would've been in better shape today, if the US had really embraced nuclear energy to the same extent France did after 1945 and oil was used only for cars and coal for the most part, was kept in the ground or used only for steel production and minor heating as opposed to electrical generation.

It would not be cheap, but if France could do it so could have done it.
And so could we do it now.

It was politics, not money that killed it.
http://environmentalprogress.org/why-cl ... in-crisis/

If we gave nuclear the same subsidies and protection as other sources considered green we would not have the problem. The problem is anti nuclear fanatics deliberately have targeted nuclear for destruction.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Is climate change real?
Yes, you have probably observed the seasons either in real life or on television.

Is climate change anthropogenic?
No, I will explain below.

Climate change is a completely natural process which the planet uses to sustain itself. During the Early Middle Ages the planet experienced a cooling period, one which would continue till the Late Middle Ages. The subsequent warming period would continue till around the 20th century, when the planet would reverse itself again.
Do humans cause global climate change? It all depends on if you believe in rain dances or not. Climate change politics is just a modern re-invention of alleged human-weather control, something which has dominated mythology for ages.

I believe that humans should be investing in methods of preparation for natural climatic cycles, instead of wasting money on geopolitical games.
If our ancestors had invested in legislation to stop precipitation rather than roofs, we wouldn't be here.

You will most likely either strongly agree or disagree with me at this point. However the important thing is that we rationally discuss the manner and not resort to calling those who disagree conspiracy theorists. Two can play the conspiracy theory game, and then where would we be? Divided back into camps, red and blue, slinging insults and emotions at each other in an attempt to punish the other side for failing to believe in a theory.

It's not about believing in rain dances. That is just moronically disingenuous.

[Hatterleigh]

Get rid of technology

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

Get rid of technology

If you want a riot from half the worlds children/teenagers losing their mobile phones.... Sure why not it'll be fun.

[Karu Nadu]

Global warming isn't real.

Give. Me. Some. Proof.

[Aeritai]

Global warming isn't real.

Give. Me. Some. Proof.

Its snowing in SPRING

[Saiwania]

If we gave nuclear the same subsidies and protection as other sources considered green we would not have the problem. The problem is anti nuclear fanatics deliberately have targeted nuclear for destruction.

Radiation and how to store or get rid of radioactive waste is going to be a problem for any sort of nuclear fission, hence the excessive opposition to nuclear.

It is still a big risk if something goes wrong. Chernobyl and Fukushima happened, so some people are going to consider nuclear energy's risks to outweigh its benefits. Nuclear fusion is said to be perfectly safe, but it's very difficult to get that sort of reaction even started. Maybe one of these days.

[Karu Nadu]

Give. Me. Some. Proof.

Its snowing in SPRING

So? that doesn't change the fact that Bangladesh is sinking.

[Novus America]

If we gave nuclear the same subsidies and protection as other sources considered green we would not have the problem. The problem is anti nuclear fanatics deliberately have targeted nuclear for destruction.

Radiation and how to store or get rid of radioactive waste is going to be a problem for any sort of nuclear fission, hence the excessive opposition to nuclear.

It is still a big risk if something goes wrong. Chernobyl and Fukushima happened, so some people are going to consider nuclear energy's risks to outweigh its benefits. Nuclear fusion is said to be perfectly safe, but it's very difficult to get that sort of reaction even started. Maybe one of these days.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/

Also even when it goes wrong it still kills fewer people.
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the- ... -of-energy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... david-king
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -paid/amp/

The hostility to nuclear power has nothing to do with reality.

And sure better forms of nuclear power like fusion would be great.
But waiting while our current power kills millions when we already have the safest, for an even better version of it is silly. Implement fission now, save millions of lives, save the environment and when fusion becomes viable we switch out nuclear reactors to run on that.

Also nuclear meltdowns can be completely contained with adequate structures.
Three Mile Island proves that.

Fukushima and Chernobyl could have been completely mitigated with a proper containment structure.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Give. Me. Some. Proof.

Its snowing in SPRING

Wait. You're actually serious? You truly think global warming is a sham based solely on the fact that snow exists in spring? Oh boy. I suggest you start doing some actual research because you clearly do lot have any grasp on the concept of global warming outside of the name itself.

[New Udonia]

Is climate change real?
It's not about believing in rain dances. That is just moronically disingenuous.

Here come the insults. It is so disappointing that nobody is interested in dialectic dialogue.
Remember everyone, just because something was taught in school, doesn't mean it was right.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Didn't we finally have a complete comprehensive intergovernmental thoroughly-reviewed climate report sometimes ago? And I believe that "peer-reviewed intergovernmental panel" is more trustworthy than, say, my or your obervation. Also afaik they're working on economically plausible approaches to global warming, but it's going to be published in 2021 iirc.

Nuclear is safe, but imo, in the end the war between nuclear and renewables should be determined by market forces. Of course we'll have to switch to solar eventually as we transform into a Level 1 Kardashev scale in ~2119 CE.