Life after a Global Ecological Collapse

[Antityranicals]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

No matter the cause, it’s happening, and it’ll result in millions of people being displaced

As another poster mentioned though, the OP is highly speculative and by the point we get to catastrophe temperatures tp the point of the OP, nuclear power will lift dependence on fossil fuels and atmospheric filtering tech would likely be invented

What exactly is "happening"? Certain studies have found that our planet is (gasp) one degree higher on average than it was 50 years ago? For some history, the exact same thing happened a thousand years ago...

[Rojava Free State]

ya know everybody always keeps talking about what happens after.

do we have like an actual plan to SURVIVE whatever apocalypse happens beyond "rich people will survive"?

what do we do when a meteor causes this?

and yeah, considering that we keep going straight into that abyss while conservatives ignore Climate Change, i guess fucking not.

My suggestion is convince your friends the end is near and crowd fund a cabin in the woods before buying some vegetables to plant and some live stock to raise.

In other words, every one in my town is going to die. No one will survive the cataclysm

[Rojava Free State]

No matter the cause, it’s happening, and it’ll result in millions of people being displaced

As another poster mentioned though, the OP is highly speculative and by the point we get to catastrophe temperatures tp the point of the OP, nuclear power will lift dependence on fossil fuels and atmospheric filtering tech would likely be invented

What exactly is "happening"? Certain studies have found that our planet is (gasp) one degree higher on average than it was 50 years ago? For some history, the exact same thing happened a thousand years ago...

One degree affects the climate more than you think.

[Antityranicals]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

Dude when 97% of scientists agree it's happening, it doesn't matter what you think. Climate change denial is literally becoming as ridiculous as anti vax. We could have staved off the disaster if the denialists didn't stone wall at every chance they got.

Look: Why do you become a climate scientist? You do so because you think the field is important. Who funds climate scientists? Those who think that studying un-study-able weather patterns is worth throwing around millions of dollars. Face it, there's some serious confirmation bias going on in this field... And when the numbers directly contradict the so-called "scientific consensus," I think there are grounds for raised eyebrows.

[Rojava Free State]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... w-faq.html

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... arming.htm

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0310 ... al-warming

For all the people who still try to deny that people are causing climate change

How long are you gonna stave off any efforts to survive this era?

[True Refuge]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

When you basically label all evidence that opposes you as biased, fabricated or based on lies, there's nothing to argue.

Since I bet there's no evidence I can bring from any sort of recognized mainstream/academic source that wouldn't be labelled fake, this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's by definition unscientific. Very standard for climate deniers.

What even is the point of arguing? What could I even hypothetically bring up that would convince you that human-caused climate change exists? I have a feeling there's nothing at all.

[Antityranicals]

What exactly is "happening"? Certain studies have found that our planet is (gasp) one degree higher on average than it was 50 years ago? For some history, the exact same thing happened a thousand years ago...

One degree affects the climate more than you think.

But the exact same thing happened 1,000 years or so ago, (You ever heard of the "Little Ice Age"? That was the end of this warming period) and there wasn't a mass extinction event. In fact, it brought about an improvement in crop yields in Europe. A change in temperature is not a MAD world, people.

[Surkiea II]

Dude when 97% of scientists agree it's happening, it doesn't matter what you think. Climate change denial is literally becoming as ridiculous as anti vax. We could have staved off the disaster if the denialists didn't stone wall at every chance they got.

Look: Why do you become a climate scientist? You do so because you think the field is important. Who funds climate scientists? Those who think that studying un-study-able weather patterns is worth throwing around millions of dollars. Face it, there's some serious confirmation bias going on in this field... And when the numbers directly contradict the so-called "scientific consensus," I think there are grounds for raised eyebrows.

This. I'm so sick of these environmental Marxists trying to fearmonger people into thinking the world is going to end by 2030.

[Rojava Free State]

Dude when 97% of scientists agree it's happening, it doesn't matter what you think. Climate change denial is literally becoming as ridiculous as anti vax. We could have staved off the disaster if the denialists didn't stone wall at every chance they got.

Look: Why do you become a climate scientist? You do so because you think the field is important. Who funds climate scientists? Those who think that studying un-study-able weather patterns is worth throwing around millions of dollars. Face it, there's some serious confirmation bias going on in this field... And when the numbers directly contradict the so-called "scientific consensus," I think there are grounds for raised eyebrows.

[True Refuge]

One degree affects the climate more than you think.

But the exact same thing happened 1,000 years or so ago, (You ever heard of the "Little Ice Age"? That was the end of this warming period) and there wasn't a mass extinction event. In fact, it brought about an improvement in crop yields in Europe. A change in temperature is not a MAD world, people.

Intuition and heuristics are very often very wrong, as the field of medicine would tell you.

Common sense is useless in dealing within complex scientific fields.

[Antityranicals]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

When you basically label all evidence that opposes you as biased, fabricated or based on lies, there's nothing to argue.

Since I bet there's no evidence I can bring from any sort of recognized mainstream/academic source that wouldn't be labelled fake, this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's by definition unscientific. Very standard for climate deniers.

What even is the point of arguing? What could I even hypothetically bring up that would convince you that human-caused climate change exists? I have a feeling there's nothing at all.

Something I haven't heard before? I'd very much appreciate such a thing. Besides, I imagine you are doing the same thing to my evidence in your mind...

[True Refuge]

Look: Why do you become a climate scientist? You do so because you think the field is important. Who funds climate scientists? Those who think that studying un-study-able weather patterns is worth throwing around millions of dollars. Face it, there's some serious confirmation bias going on in this field... And when the numbers directly contradict the so-called "scientific consensus," I think there are grounds for raised eyebrows.

Again, unfalsifiable hypothesis.

[Rojava Free State]

One degree affects the climate more than you think.

But the exact same thing happened 1,000 years or so ago, (You ever heard of the "Little Ice Age"? That was the end of this warming period) and there wasn't a mass extinction event. In fact, it brought about an improvement in crop yields in Europe. A change in temperature is not a MAD world, people.

Why don't you tell that to all the people whose cities, states and even countries may be under water soon? Yes the earth has gone through natural climatic cycles. THis one however is a far faster change in climate than in other historical periods.

You can deny the studies all you want. If a super majority of scientists say it's happening, it's more likely that it is and you're just denying it than it is that some grand conspiracy to achieve unknown goals is going on

[Cekoviu]

Dude when 97% of scientists agree it's happening, it doesn't matter what you think. Climate change denial is literally becoming as ridiculous as anti vax. We could have staved off the disaster if the denialists didn't stone wall at every chance they got.

Look: Why do you become a climate scientist? You do so because you think the field is important. Who funds climate scientists? Those who think that studying un-study-able weather patterns is worth throwing around millions of dollars. Face it, there's some serious confirmation bias going on in this field... And when the numbers directly contradict the so-called "scientific consensus," I think there are grounds for raised eyebrows.

What numbers? Please, I'm dying to know the magic evidence you have to contradict mountains of papers that you are so clearly knowledgeable enough to deny.

[Antityranicals]

But the exact same thing happened 1,000 years or so ago, (You ever heard of the "Little Ice Age"? That was the end of this warming period) and there wasn't a mass extinction event. In fact, it brought about an improvement in crop yields in Europe. A change in temperature is not a MAD world, people.

Intuition and heuristics are very often very wrong, as the field of medicine would tell you.

Common sense is useless in dealing within complex scientific fields.

"Common sense is useless" is the statement of a liar attempting to give legitimacy to his nonsense. I know I'm probably not going to convince you, but a historical precedent to an event beats the hell out of models made up from a mixture of theory and confirmation bias.

[Cekoviu]

When you basically label all evidence that opposes you as biased, fabricated or based on lies, there's nothing to argue.

Since I bet there's no evidence I can bring from any sort of recognized mainstream/academic source that wouldn't be labelled fake, this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's by definition unscientific. Very standard for climate deniers.

What even is the point of arguing? What could I even hypothetically bring up that would convince you that human-caused climate change exists? I have a feeling there's nothing at all.

Something I haven't heard before? I'd very much appreciate such a thing. Besides, I imagine you are doing the same thing to my evidence in your mind...

Your argument is not evidence. Your argument is unsubstantiated bullshit and the reason that we're going to be (nearly) extinct in a matter of centuries on our trajectory. Set aside whatever political ideology makes you want to deny the most important science of the modern era and actually look at real, hard facts.

[True Refuge]

When you basically label all evidence that opposes you as biased, fabricated or based on lies, there's nothing to argue.

Since I bet there's no evidence I can bring from any sort of recognized mainstream/academic source that wouldn't be labelled fake, this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's by definition unscientific. Very standard for climate deniers.

What even is the point of arguing? What could I even hypothetically bring up that would convince you that human-caused climate change exists? I have a feeling there's nothing at all.

Something I haven't heard before? I'd very much appreciate such a thing. Besides, I imagine you are doing the same thing to my evidence in your mind...

What do you mean, something you haven't heard before? That's such a ridiculously broad term. You've denounced the entirety of climate science as a field. I mean, holy shit. You ask me to give evidence when every single possible academic source I could use is lying according to you. That's why it's unfalsifiable. Would you prefer the ramblings of a 30 minute long Youtuber with no qualifications in the field? That's pretty much the only avenue I have lol.

You haven't linked your evidence, so I can't evaluate it. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

[Rojava Free State]

Intuition and heuristics are very often very wrong, as the field of medicine would tell you.

Common sense is useless in dealing within complex scientific fields.

"Common sense is useless" is the statement of a liar attempting to give legitimacy to his nonsense. I know I'm probably not going to convince you, but a historical precedent to an event beats the hell out of models made up from a mixture of theory and confirmation bias.

Why the hell would scientists make up climate change? you haven't even explained the motive behind your conspiracy theory. What is there to gain from a climate change hoax? If anything, powerful people have more to gain from denying climate change exists than to support the idea of global warming

[Cekoviu]

Intuition and heuristics are very often very wrong, as the field of medicine would tell you.

Common sense is useless in dealing within complex scientific fields.

"Common sense is useless" is the statement of a liar attempting to give legitimacy to his nonsense. I know I'm probably not going to convince you, but a historical precedent to an event beats the hell out of models made up from a mixture of theory and confirmation bias.

Common sense is garbage. It means nothing and everything, and when reality directly contradicts it, what you make up in your brain to support your version of it does not take precedent. Whether you believe it or not, reality is going to affect all of us, including you.

[Antityranicals]

Look: Why do you become a climate scientist? You do so because you think the field is important. Who funds climate scientists? Those who think that studying un-study-able weather patterns is worth throwing around millions of dollars. Face it, there's some serious confirmation bias going on in this field... And when the numbers directly contradict the so-called "scientific consensus," I think there are grounds for raised eyebrows.

What numbers? Please, I'm dying to know the magic evidence you have to contradict mountains of papers that you are so clearly knowledgeable enough to deny.

Go to the Guardian's page on the fossil fuels humans have burnt. Figure out how much of each is carbon. Multiply by 44/16, to convert to carbon dioxide. Calculate the volume of the atmosphere. Divide the amount of carbon dioxide from the fossil fuels by the volume of the atmosphere. You end up with about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from humans.

[Aureumterra]

Look: Why do you become a climate scientist? You do so because you think the field is important. Who funds climate scientists? Those who think that studying un-study-able weather patterns is worth throwing around millions of dollars. Face it, there's some serious confirmation bias going on in this field... And when the numbers directly contradict the so-called "scientific consensus," I think there are grounds for raised eyebrows.

This. I'm so sick of these environmental Marxists trying to fearmonger people into thinking the world is going to end by 2030.

Not everyone who believes climate change thinks the world will end by 2030 or that the green new deal is the best way to solve everything, really not

Also calling Rojava a marxist

[Cekoviu]

What numbers? Please, I'm dying to know the magic evidence you have to contradict mountains of papers that you are so clearly knowledgeable enough to deny.

Go to the Guardian's page on the fossil fuels humans have burnt. Figure out how much of each is carbon. Multiply by 44/16, to convert to carbon dioxide. Calculate the volume of the atmosphere. Divide the amount of carbon dioxide from the fossil fuels by the volume of the atmosphere. You end up with about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from humans.

The fact that you think 1% is insignificant and that carbon dioxide is the only relevant greenhouse gas is proof that you have done essentially no research on this topic. Congratulations on discrediting yourself.

[Aureumterra]

"Common sense is useless" is the statement of a liar attempting to give legitimacy to his nonsense. I know I'm probably not going to convince you, but a historical precedent to an event beats the hell out of models made up from a mixture of theory and confirmation bias.

Why the hell would scientists make up climate change? you haven't even explained the motive behind your conspiracy theory. What is there to gain from a climate change hoax? If anything, powerful people have more to gain from denying climate change exists than to support the idea of global warming

Renewable energy lobbyists ofc /s

[Antityranicals]

"Common sense is useless" is the statement of a liar attempting to give legitimacy to his nonsense. I know I'm probably not going to convince you, but a historical precedent to an event beats the hell out of models made up from a mixture of theory and confirmation bias.

Common sense is garbage. It means nothing and everything, and when reality directly contradicts it, what you make up in your brain to support your version of it does not take precedent. Whether you believe it or not, reality is going to affect all of us, including you.

Common sense is a simple ability to analyze reality. There was a historical global warming which directly contradicts everything you say, and to simply discard that is very bad reasoning indeed.

[True Refuge]

Something I haven't heard before? I'd very much appreciate such a thing. Besides, I imagine you are doing the same thing to my evidence in your mind...

What do you mean, something you haven't heard before? That's such a ridiculously broad term. You've denounced the entirety of climate science as a field. I mean, holy shit. You ask me to give evidence when every single possible academic source I could use is lying according to you. That's why it's unfalsifiable. Would you prefer the ramblings of a 30 minute long Youtuber with no qualifications in the field? That's pretty much the only avenue I have lol.

You haven't linked your evidence, so I can't evaluate it. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

I'd like a response to this please.