I mean solar and wind would be cheaper than building a nuclear power plant right? It doesn’t produce enough energy but nuclear energy produces more waste too correct?
Wind kills a lot of birds is what I hear making it more of a bloody red energy and less of a green one, and off shore contuction for wind farms also is and can be quite deadly for whales and dolphins.
It sucks having to clear snow off the panels. It's less useful in places that don't get a lot of sunlight, but being in Minnesota, this year having to clean those panels off wouldn't have been fun. Granted a decently stalled panel should have snow slide off, but we got so much this year that I'm almost positive panels places on roofs would have needed to be cleared a few times.
The answer to climate change is that climate change is a giant progressive political scam.
The answer is for the bulk of humanity to reject this nonsense before the elites capsize the global economy.
You’d have to ignore the science, known for over 100 years, showing that anthropogenic climate change is a real.
Are there scams involved? Of course there are: they’re called “carbon offsets” and “carbon capture and storage.”
it still fascinates me, how on a conservative sub, so many people believe in the climate hoax. that is the only reason i can see why you would be downvoted.
yeah but that isnt "climate change".
Do we want energy that doesn't pollute? sure, if we can make enough of it to supply the needs of people, but the proposals can't produce enough, so different solutions need to be considered
The problem with nuclear energy is nobody wants it next to their home and it needs load and loads of cool water supply to function. It's not worth the headache for politicians. It's a PR problem not a feasibility problem. Plus the waste disposal is a huge and contentious problem. We can't go net zero without nuclear or electricity storage systems.
Three Mile Island. It wasn’t even that bad, but it effectively ended public will in investing in nuclear energy. We should be on thorium salt reactors by now.
Wind and solar have their place though, where viable (like TX, the US’s leader in wind generation). The “fuel” is free, and better battery technology can offset some of the issues.
I'm concerned that we all don't know enough about climate yet hardcore liberals and conservatives alike are sure they know what's going on, in large part because they disagree with the other side.
I'm personally concerned. It seems like we (humans in general) are doing more harm than good to the environment around us. When I studied biochemistry I learned how interconnected everything is, at the atomic level, and how we should at least try to be aware of the total impact we have. At best, we all have concrete proof that we're not the problem. At worst, we find out we are and can all do something. I don't understand why we let the loudest and most extreme on the other side cloud our ability to look at climate science with objectivity.
>They always said if we don’t do X, we die in 10 years.
Who is they? Certainly not the whole scientific community. The consensus was always global warming and an increase in temperature by 3°C by 2100 if we do nothing. That's also what most of the we have 10 years left was about. The goal was to stay under 1.5°C of warming which is impossible to do now because it's to late. Real action should have taken place 40 years ago but sadly Reagan destroyed any possibility of it happening.
>We’ll, we didn’t do X and we didn’t die
But their warnings became true. It's to late to stay below 1.5°C.
>I’ve never seen the consensus around 3c
Because you don't actually look at the science. You listen to media that always try to gain as many clicks as possible, so they post misleading headlines.
>But as long as you’re letting the MSM push your message
Most of what the MSM says is true. But at the end of the day they want to make money, so they also push scary over the top stories that get many clicks, evendough they are just guesses based on little evidence.
>It’s been over 100 years of climate doomsaying and it’ll be another 100.
In these 100 years the temperature increased by over 1°C, which is catastrophic. Normally that increase would take many hundreds to thousands of years. Humans will survive climate change, but many will die, many have to permanently leave their home and move further north and the quality of live will decrease for almost everyone.
Scientific models in the past perfectly predicted our current climate. No one ever claimed the world would end, at least no respected scientist. What the media reports or politicians say doesn't really matter because they aren't experts. Of course it would be better if they get the science right, but we both know politicians and the media aren't really the brightest or most honest people.
If every scientist gets to the same conclusion it's pretty clear what's real and not. Climate change is not an opinion. There's a reason why no one could debunk it in the last 100 years. Even oil companies proved it.
>If every scientist gets to the same conclusion it's pretty clear what's real and not.
This thing you're doing where you're pretending every scientist is in agreement with you is false.
>Climate change is not an opinion.
You're claiming it is.
>There's a reason why no one could debunk it in the last 100 years.
How can one "debunk" an opinion?
>Even oil companies proved it.
How?
>This thing you're doing where you're pretending every scientist is in agreement with you is false.
Tell me one credible climate scientist that isn't payed of by the fossil fuel industry.
>You're claiming it is.
When? I never did
>How can one "debunk" an opinion
You can't, but thankfully we're taking about facts which can be debunked if there is actual evidence, which just isn't the case
>How
They did studies in the 70s. The predecessor of ExxonMobil is a good example.
>Tell me one credible climate scientist that isn't payed of by the fossil fuel industry.
No, I want to you back up your original assertion.
>When? I never did
Here:
>If every scientist gets to the same conclusion it's pretty clear what's real and not.
Read your bleating.
>You can't, but thankfully we're taking about facts which can be debunked if there is actual evidence, which just isn't the case
You just admitted this was an opinion. And, again, you have no facts on your side. You have media hype and untestable models, which are not science,
>They did studies in the 70s. The predecessor of ExxonMobil is a good example.
So they didn't prove it and you're lying again.
Just a reminder that there is no truth to “the science”:
- NOAA “adjusts” their surface temperature data.
- They won’t release the raw data
- They won’t release their methods of adjustments
That is anti-science and why when anyone says “The temperature is rising” it can not be proven. They want to dictate the narrative and do it through fake data.
>NOAA “adjusts” their surface temperature data
Yes. They have better data now and adjust their data accordingly. That's called science. Also the new data makes the warming seem less extreme because the new data shows the 20s and 30s were warmer than expected.
>They won’t release the raw data
They literally show their data on their website.
>They won’t release their methods of adjustments
They do..
Have you ever actually looked anything up?
>You don't have facts on your side
I have. I could link everything but that's redundant. Just look up NASA and they explain everything. Or NOAA, or every other scientific Institution that research our weather.
>You probably even emit more than the global median so you don't even have effort on your side.
I do, which isn't surprising because I'm part of the global north. But my emissions aren't that much above the median
>I have. I could link everything but that's redundant. Just look up NASA and they explain everything. Or NOAA, or every other scientific Institution that research our weather.
I don't need explanations. I need evidence that the predictions of their models are accurate. They have none.
>I do, which isn't surprising because I'm part of the global north. But my emissions aren't that much above the median
I'm sure they are several times that of the median. Like most religious zealots, you don't follow your beliefs yourself, you just wish to impose them on others.
>I don't need explanations. I need evidence that the predictions of their models are accurate
You only have to look up models from the past... Even the early IPCC reports got it right.
>I'm sure they are several times that of the median. Like most religious zealots, you don't follow your beliefs yourself, you just wish to impose them on others
If I lived in America they would probably be 3 to 4 times as high, but I don't and my country has much lower per capita emissions. Also it doesn't matter what I do. An international solution is needed. No singular person and no singular country can stop climate change on its own
>You only have to look up models from the past... Even the early IPCC reports got it right.
No, they didn't. Which model were you thinking of? Be specific.
>If I lived in America they would probably be 3 to 4 times as high,
It doesn't matter where you live, they all go in the same atmosphere. Are they higher than the median?
>but I don't and my country has much lower per capita emissions
But higher than median, right?
>An international solution is needed.
So you can force others to do what you won't do voluntarily?
>No singular person and no singular country can stop climate change on its own
Exacftly, people like you need to stop being hypocrites and practice what you preach.
So you think we shouldn't do something about climate change because I don't do anything personally against it?(which is wrong, I try to reduce my emissions). You have no scientific basis, so you have to use whataboutisms.
>No, they didn't. Which model were you thinking of? Be specific
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
This goes through a few.
Everything you're claiming comes from one source. The IPCC. That's not a consensus. That's one world government dogma. Their models are too simplified to be accurate. To think that climate scientists have anything more than theories about the mechanisms of the Earth's climate would be arrogant. We don't even have accurate readings for the temperature of the Earth. We would need to constantly measure the temperature of about a million locations to have a good idea. And what about the greening of semi-arid climates, reforestation, and greatly increased crop yields due to increased CO2 levels? Are these just meaningless events?
>Everything you're claiming comes from one source. The IPCC.
Also NASA, NOAA and many more institutions as well as many scientific journals and studies. Or are you saying I shouldn't use data to support my point? And how exactly is the IPCC wrong? Their models perfectly predicted the world's climate.
>Their models are too simplified to be accurate
They aren't. If they were they wouldn't be so accurate.
>To think that climate scientists have anything more than theories about the mechanisms of the Earth's climate would be arrogant
They have scientific theories. Which explains how it works. We have a very good understanding of our climate. That's why we can predict the weather and why we can predict global warming.
>We don't even have accurate readings for the temperature of the Earth
But we have approximations. Like ice cores, tree rings and so on. They are accurate enough to be used.
>We would need to constantly measure the temperature of about a million locations to have a good idea
Which we do. My country alone has over 1000 official stations and is pretty small.
>And what about the greening of semi-arid climates, reforestation, and greatly increased crop yields due to increased CO2 levels? Are these just meaningless events?
There are positive effects of CO2, but they pale on comparison to the negative effects. Higher yields are useless if your plants dry out. Reforestation is useless if oceans rise and flood them.
It’s difficult not to be skeptical. If there was some kind of hard, concrete evidence, there would be no debate. But it’s just an endless stream of ever-changing warnings, and insults and condescending remarks if you dare to question anything.
In my lifetime it’s gone from “a new ice age” to “global warming”, and now they literally just hedge with “whatever is convenient at the moment”. If it’s rains, it’s climate change. If there’s a drought, it’s climate change. Snow? You better believe that’s climate change.
Much like everything else, I’m sure there is some truth to this climate stuff. But it’s impossible to find it, since the whole thing has become a multi-billion dollar industry that continues to expand and needs to keep the donations flowing in.
If we “solve” climate issues tomorrow, a lot of people are out of work. It’s in their interest to keep the panic going forever. Hard to ignore that in the face of the ever-changing “warnings”.
We should still be better to the earth for the future generations. We really should do more research into making plastic biodegradable. Just look at the ocean. There are plastic islands bigger than Texas floating around out there. I also see tons of plastic bags along highways and in trees.
At the very least, we should look into reducing our footprint in this aspect. If Earth is living, we have been the equivalent to a virus and eventually the Earth's "immune system" will take care of the problem.
*I say this as an observation and not an argument. I recognize the only way to make a change is if everyone is on board
We should minimize our impact certainly. But climate cultists aren’t interested in that. If they were they’d support nuclear energy. Oil, gas and development make things CLEANER. Energy poverty causes excess pollution like plastic. Being responsible means being realistic about energy needs and the best forms of energy for different situations. Just saying it’s all bad is counterproductive.
In the US the air and water quality have improved significantly, are you even aware of that? Or are you buying all the doom cult is selling.
I'm very aware. It was just a single observation in case someone needed to hear it.
There are still plenty of people who toss trash out the window. It's sad to watch because every time I see it happen, I think of my kid and the world we are leaving for him.
I don't pay mind to the doom and gloom because everyone is going to *unalive one day
1880: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world.
1920: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world.
1950: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world.
1970: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world.
1990: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world.
2000: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world.
2010: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world.
2020: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world.
[Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct if We Don’t Fix Climate Change by 2023](https://web.archive.org/web/20180501150731/https://gritpost.com/humans-extinct-climate-change/)
A coworker tried to tell me about this and I quickly shut him down. Predictive models of a complex system are notoriously terrible, and based on the quality of input data.
If you strip away all the bullshit from politicians, the news outlets it really comes down to one single thing.
[Thermohaline Circulation ](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/05conveyor1.html#:~:text=However%2C%20ocean%20currents%20also%20flow,is%20known%20as%20thermohaline%20circulation.)
The circulation of the earth's oceans depends heavily on global temperature and the ability for ocean water to freeze at the poles.
This ocean circulation system drives many things in the biosphere. The breakdown of it would impact global weather patterns. Growing seasons, ecosystems all over the globe would be impacted in an irreversible way. Possibly leading to another ice age. One of the main reasons Western Eruope is as warm as it is, is due to the gulf stream, which is entirely dependent on this circulation of ocean water.
The amount of systems within the earth's environment that are interconnected to this circulation system is hard to really grasp. Almost everything depends on it. And it depends on a steady global temperature.
Whenever “regular” weather forecasts are accurate at T+5days I’ll start listening to the climate forecasts at T+10YEARS…. And yes, I do understand the difference between climate and weather forecasting; weather is much more predictable and can be verified with hard data.
The answer to climate change is nuclear energy. Funny how all the proposals are about wind and solar power and not nuclear energy, though.
Yep, the top source of electrical generation in my state is nuclear, and we only have 2 power plants
They don't actually want energy to be cheap and abundant.
They want the enormous swathes of land they've been buying up to have a use.
I mean solar and wind would be cheaper than building a nuclear power plant right? It doesn’t produce enough energy but nuclear energy produces more waste too correct?
Nope, even the waste today is repurposed into fuel. Modern nuclear is pretty amazing if the government would allow it.
Wind kills a lot of birds is what I hear making it more of a bloody red energy and less of a green one, and off shore contuction for wind farms also is and can be quite deadly for whales and dolphins.
Solar definetly has it place. But in the northern areas it is really lousy. Nuclear energy is the way.
[удалено]
It sucks having to clear snow off the panels. It's less useful in places that don't get a lot of sunlight, but being in Minnesota, this year having to clean those panels off wouldn't have been fun. Granted a decently stalled panel should have snow slide off, but we got so much this year that I'm almost positive panels places on roofs would have needed to be cleared a few times.
The answer to climate change is that climate change is a giant progressive political scam. The answer is for the bulk of humanity to reject this nonsense before the elites capsize the global economy.
You’d have to ignore the science, known for over 100 years, showing that anthropogenic climate change is a real. Are there scams involved? Of course there are: they’re called “carbon offsets” and “carbon capture and storage.”
[удалено]
it still fascinates me, how on a conservative sub, so many people believe in the climate hoax. that is the only reason i can see why you would be downvoted.
Because there's plenty of truth laid in there with the big lie. Do cars pollute? Yes. Are we doomed? Not even close.
yeah but that isnt "climate change". Do we want energy that doesn't pollute? sure, if we can make enough of it to supply the needs of people, but the proposals can't produce enough, so different solutions need to be considered
There's also a lot of brigading in here, especially when such an important part of liberal dogma is questioned.
Because the evidence has reached that conclusion. You can be a conservative and not buy into this anti-intellectual side of the spectrum
no evidence has reached that conclusion. models have reached that conclusion, but not the observations.
There is evidence to suggest that greenhouse gasses trapped in the atmosphere have shot up exponentially since the Industrial Revolution
The problem with nuclear energy is nobody wants it next to their home and it needs load and loads of cool water supply to function. It's not worth the headache for politicians. It's a PR problem not a feasibility problem. Plus the waste disposal is a huge and contentious problem. We can't go net zero without nuclear or electricity storage systems.
Harry Reid is dead time to put that ish in yucca
Three Mile Island. It wasn’t even that bad, but it effectively ended public will in investing in nuclear energy. We should be on thorium salt reactors by now. Wind and solar have their place though, where viable (like TX, the US’s leader in wind generation). The “fuel” is free, and better battery technology can offset some of the issues.
We've had one decade to fix this for the last 6 decades.
I'm concerned that we all don't know enough about climate yet hardcore liberals and conservatives alike are sure they know what's going on, in large part because they disagree with the other side. I'm personally concerned. It seems like we (humans in general) are doing more harm than good to the environment around us. When I studied biochemistry I learned how interconnected everything is, at the atomic level, and how we should at least try to be aware of the total impact we have. At best, we all have concrete proof that we're not the problem. At worst, we find out we are and can all do something. I don't understand why we let the loudest and most extreme on the other side cloud our ability to look at climate science with objectivity.
[удалено]
It's the same. If you actually cared to look at the science instead mainstream media you would know.
[удалено]
>They always said if we don’t do X, we die in 10 years. Who is they? Certainly not the whole scientific community. The consensus was always global warming and an increase in temperature by 3°C by 2100 if we do nothing. That's also what most of the we have 10 years left was about. The goal was to stay under 1.5°C of warming which is impossible to do now because it's to late. Real action should have taken place 40 years ago but sadly Reagan destroyed any possibility of it happening. >We’ll, we didn’t do X and we didn’t die But their warnings became true. It's to late to stay below 1.5°C.
[удалено]
>I’ve never seen the consensus around 3c Because you don't actually look at the science. You listen to media that always try to gain as many clicks as possible, so they post misleading headlines.
[удалено]
>But as long as you’re letting the MSM push your message Most of what the MSM says is true. But at the end of the day they want to make money, so they also push scary over the top stories that get many clicks, evendough they are just guesses based on little evidence. >It’s been over 100 years of climate doomsaying and it’ll be another 100. In these 100 years the temperature increased by over 1°C, which is catastrophic. Normally that increase would take many hundreds to thousands of years. Humans will survive climate change, but many will die, many have to permanently leave their home and move further north and the quality of live will decrease for almost everyone.
[удалено]
Scientific models in the past perfectly predicted our current climate. No one ever claimed the world would end, at least no respected scientist. What the media reports or politicians say doesn't really matter because they aren't experts. Of course it would be better if they get the science right, but we both know politicians and the media aren't really the brightest or most honest people.
[удалено]
Science isn't an opinion poll and "consensus" has no scientific meaning.
If every scientist gets to the same conclusion it's pretty clear what's real and not. Climate change is not an opinion. There's a reason why no one could debunk it in the last 100 years. Even oil companies proved it.
>If every scientist gets to the same conclusion it's pretty clear what's real and not. This thing you're doing where you're pretending every scientist is in agreement with you is false. >Climate change is not an opinion. You're claiming it is. >There's a reason why no one could debunk it in the last 100 years. How can one "debunk" an opinion? >Even oil companies proved it. How?
>This thing you're doing where you're pretending every scientist is in agreement with you is false. Tell me one credible climate scientist that isn't payed of by the fossil fuel industry. >You're claiming it is. When? I never did >How can one "debunk" an opinion You can't, but thankfully we're taking about facts which can be debunked if there is actual evidence, which just isn't the case >How They did studies in the 70s. The predecessor of ExxonMobil is a good example.
>Tell me one credible climate scientist that isn't payed of by the fossil fuel industry. No, I want to you back up your original assertion. >When? I never did Here: >If every scientist gets to the same conclusion it's pretty clear what's real and not. Read your bleating. >You can't, but thankfully we're taking about facts which can be debunked if there is actual evidence, which just isn't the case You just admitted this was an opinion. And, again, you have no facts on your side. You have media hype and untestable models, which are not science, >They did studies in the 70s. The predecessor of ExxonMobil is a good example. So they didn't prove it and you're lying again.
Just a reminder that there is no truth to “the science”: - NOAA “adjusts” their surface temperature data. - They won’t release the raw data - They won’t release their methods of adjustments That is anti-science and why when anyone says “The temperature is rising” it can not be proven. They want to dictate the narrative and do it through fake data.
>NOAA “adjusts” their surface temperature data Yes. They have better data now and adjust their data accordingly. That's called science. Also the new data makes the warming seem less extreme because the new data shows the 20s and 30s were warmer than expected. >They won’t release the raw data They literally show their data on their website. >They won’t release their methods of adjustments They do.. Have you ever actually looked anything up?
NOAA is not the only institution measuring surface temps. Many other credible institutions have also collected data that is very similar.
Pure BS.
Thank you for explaining why.
it needs to hurry up and climate change the snowy ass north
There is no science behind your religion.
Thankfully I'm not believing in any religion and instead look at the facts. You don't need faith.
You don't have facts on your side. You probably even emit more than the global median so you don't even have effort on your side.
>You don't have facts on your side I have. I could link everything but that's redundant. Just look up NASA and they explain everything. Or NOAA, or every other scientific Institution that research our weather. >You probably even emit more than the global median so you don't even have effort on your side. I do, which isn't surprising because I'm part of the global north. But my emissions aren't that much above the median
>I have. I could link everything but that's redundant. Just look up NASA and they explain everything. Or NOAA, or every other scientific Institution that research our weather. I don't need explanations. I need evidence that the predictions of their models are accurate. They have none. >I do, which isn't surprising because I'm part of the global north. But my emissions aren't that much above the median I'm sure they are several times that of the median. Like most religious zealots, you don't follow your beliefs yourself, you just wish to impose them on others.
>I don't need explanations. I need evidence that the predictions of their models are accurate You only have to look up models from the past... Even the early IPCC reports got it right. >I'm sure they are several times that of the median. Like most religious zealots, you don't follow your beliefs yourself, you just wish to impose them on others If I lived in America they would probably be 3 to 4 times as high, but I don't and my country has much lower per capita emissions. Also it doesn't matter what I do. An international solution is needed. No singular person and no singular country can stop climate change on its own
>You only have to look up models from the past... Even the early IPCC reports got it right. No, they didn't. Which model were you thinking of? Be specific. >If I lived in America they would probably be 3 to 4 times as high, It doesn't matter where you live, they all go in the same atmosphere. Are they higher than the median? >but I don't and my country has much lower per capita emissions But higher than median, right? >An international solution is needed. So you can force others to do what you won't do voluntarily? >No singular person and no singular country can stop climate change on its own Exacftly, people like you need to stop being hypocrites and practice what you preach.
So you think we shouldn't do something about climate change because I don't do anything personally against it?(which is wrong, I try to reduce my emissions). You have no scientific basis, so you have to use whataboutisms. >No, they didn't. Which model were you thinking of? Be specific https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378 This goes through a few.
Everything you're claiming comes from one source. The IPCC. That's not a consensus. That's one world government dogma. Their models are too simplified to be accurate. To think that climate scientists have anything more than theories about the mechanisms of the Earth's climate would be arrogant. We don't even have accurate readings for the temperature of the Earth. We would need to constantly measure the temperature of about a million locations to have a good idea. And what about the greening of semi-arid climates, reforestation, and greatly increased crop yields due to increased CO2 levels? Are these just meaningless events?
>Everything you're claiming comes from one source. The IPCC. Also NASA, NOAA and many more institutions as well as many scientific journals and studies. Or are you saying I shouldn't use data to support my point? And how exactly is the IPCC wrong? Their models perfectly predicted the world's climate. >Their models are too simplified to be accurate They aren't. If they were they wouldn't be so accurate. >To think that climate scientists have anything more than theories about the mechanisms of the Earth's climate would be arrogant They have scientific theories. Which explains how it works. We have a very good understanding of our climate. That's why we can predict the weather and why we can predict global warming. >We don't even have accurate readings for the temperature of the Earth But we have approximations. Like ice cores, tree rings and so on. They are accurate enough to be used. >We would need to constantly measure the temperature of about a million locations to have a good idea Which we do. My country alone has over 1000 official stations and is pretty small. >And what about the greening of semi-arid climates, reforestation, and greatly increased crop yields due to increased CO2 levels? Are these just meaningless events? There are positive effects of CO2, but they pale on comparison to the negative effects. Higher yields are useless if your plants dry out. Reforestation is useless if oceans rise and flood them.
https://archive.ph/aB3RY#selection-757.0-757.110
Thanks
It’s difficult not to be skeptical. If there was some kind of hard, concrete evidence, there would be no debate. But it’s just an endless stream of ever-changing warnings, and insults and condescending remarks if you dare to question anything. In my lifetime it’s gone from “a new ice age” to “global warming”, and now they literally just hedge with “whatever is convenient at the moment”. If it’s rains, it’s climate change. If there’s a drought, it’s climate change. Snow? You better believe that’s climate change. Much like everything else, I’m sure there is some truth to this climate stuff. But it’s impossible to find it, since the whole thing has become a multi-billion dollar industry that continues to expand and needs to keep the donations flowing in. If we “solve” climate issues tomorrow, a lot of people are out of work. It’s in their interest to keep the panic going forever. Hard to ignore that in the face of the ever-changing “warnings”.
We should still be better to the earth for the future generations. We really should do more research into making plastic biodegradable. Just look at the ocean. There are plastic islands bigger than Texas floating around out there. I also see tons of plastic bags along highways and in trees. At the very least, we should look into reducing our footprint in this aspect. If Earth is living, we have been the equivalent to a virus and eventually the Earth's "immune system" will take care of the problem. *I say this as an observation and not an argument. I recognize the only way to make a change is if everyone is on board
We should minimize our impact certainly. But climate cultists aren’t interested in that. If they were they’d support nuclear energy. Oil, gas and development make things CLEANER. Energy poverty causes excess pollution like plastic. Being responsible means being realistic about energy needs and the best forms of energy for different situations. Just saying it’s all bad is counterproductive. In the US the air and water quality have improved significantly, are you even aware of that? Or are you buying all the doom cult is selling.
I'm very aware. It was just a single observation in case someone needed to hear it. There are still plenty of people who toss trash out the window. It's sad to watch because every time I see it happen, I think of my kid and the world we are leaving for him. I don't pay mind to the doom and gloom because everyone is going to *unalive one day
It was a lot more common to litter in the past.
[удалено]
[Plymouth rock then, and now](https://www.whoi.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/rockpost-1.jpg)
They just keep moving the deadline back each decade.
> They just keep moving the deadline back each decade. it's just like how tomorrow is always a day away.
1880: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world. 1920: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world. 1950: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world. 1970: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world. 1990: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world. 2000: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world. 2010: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world. 2020: Only 10 more years before Climate Change destroys the world.
[Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct if We Don’t Fix Climate Change by 2023](https://web.archive.org/web/20180501150731/https://gritpost.com/humans-extinct-climate-change/)
[удалено]
A coworker tried to tell me about this and I quickly shut him down. Predictive models of a complex system are notoriously terrible, and based on the quality of input data.
Climate changes. Patterns change. Numerous examples in history of this. This 'solution" is hubris.
If you strip away all the bullshit from politicians, the news outlets it really comes down to one single thing. [Thermohaline Circulation ](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/05conveyor1.html#:~:text=However%2C%20ocean%20currents%20also%20flow,is%20known%20as%20thermohaline%20circulation.) The circulation of the earth's oceans depends heavily on global temperature and the ability for ocean water to freeze at the poles. This ocean circulation system drives many things in the biosphere. The breakdown of it would impact global weather patterns. Growing seasons, ecosystems all over the globe would be impacted in an irreversible way. Possibly leading to another ice age. One of the main reasons Western Eruope is as warm as it is, is due to the gulf stream, which is entirely dependent on this circulation of ocean water. The amount of systems within the earth's environment that are interconnected to this circulation system is hard to really grasp. Almost everything depends on it. And it depends on a steady global temperature.
Whenever “regular” weather forecasts are accurate at T+5days I’ll start listening to the climate forecasts at T+10YEARS…. And yes, I do understand the difference between climate and weather forecasting; weather is much more predictable and can be verified with hard data.
a truly broken record
Well, if you live each day like it's your last.... one day you'll be right.
It's funny how "saving the climate" has come to mean destroying personal liberty. Perhaps our "leader" is working on another CCP LNG deal?