No One Gives A Shit About That Climate Change Thing That's Going to Kill Us All

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by Aldurin

The luxury of precise and worldwide climate data has not existed long enough to properly settle the dispute of whether this shift of climate is a recurring trend or a snowballing disaster caused by CO2 excess, and will require more time to settle.

Modern-day society is not environmentally-friendly, and that is something that should definitely be changed using our technology and resources. My disagreement with the environmentalist point of view is that it is 100% our fault that climate is changing, and also with the way that it sometimes gets overpoliticized.

The trend of 98% of scientists saying climate change is man made is up from 97%

[Aerozord]

to be fair it isn't 100% our fault. like .00001% of it is the Earth's natural warming cycle.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Technically its all the suns fault. Fuck you sun.

[Amake]

To be fair we would benefit from fighting the Earth's natural warming cycle just as much as our self-caused warming, no matter how much easier it would be to ignore the problems if we were not responsible for causing them.

[Aerozord]

I dont know I wonder if part of it is because while some, or even most, humans will suffer people aren't as worried because this cant kill us as a species. Worst case scenario is we have a massive war over farmlands and water. Probably aimed at United States because we have lots of both. Lots of people will die but there will be a winner and they will survive.

Or perhaps sadder alot of the people in charge are old and they will be dead by the time things get really bad so what do they care. Frankly assuming we dont get some life extending tech in 50 years I am not that worried about me personally. It will be hot/cold and chunks of the world will be stricken with civil strife but it will be livable and we wont be at the full blown war point. But our children and grandchildren will be left with a hell hole created by a short sighted people that have been dead for decades by then.

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

I dont know I wonder if part of it is because while some, or even most, humans will suffer people aren't as worried because this cant kill us as a species. Worst case scenario is we have a massive war over farmlands and water. Probably aimed at United States because we have lots of both. Lots of people will die but there will be a winner and they will survive.

Or perhaps sadder alot of the people in charge are old and they will be dead by the time things get really bad so what do they care. Frankly assuming we dont get some life extending tech in 50 years I am not that worried about me personally. It will be hot/cold and chunks of the world will be stricken with civil strife but it will be livable and we wont be at the full blown war point. But our children and grandchildren will be left with a hell hole created by a short sighted people that have been dead for decades by then.

Nah no one going to go to war with america for your farm land it will all be desert in 30 years time.

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by Ryong

*snip*
Emphasis mine. Naw, I'm sure a fuckton of species will do just fine, but humanity is probably fucked.

I missed this post earlier, this is completely and utterly wrong. Animals unlike humanity are incapable of adapting their environment to their needs. When the environment changes their adaptation takes the form of genetic adaptation over tens of thousands of years. Nothing will be able to adapt to the sudden shift in climate that is coming, we will lose over 70% of all life on the planet by 2050 unless we make huge inroads into the co2 we are pumping out.


At the moment all we've done is decrease the rate at which our total co2 output is increasing

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

I dont know I wonder if part of it is because while some, or even most, humans will suffer people aren't as worried because this cant kill us as a species. Worst case scenario is we have a massive war over farmlands and water. Probably aimed at United States because we have lots of both. Lots of people will die but there will be a winner and they will survive.

I'm honestly not convinced of what I've bolded.
At the rate we're increasing, and not decreasing, our dependence on fossil fuels, and to the extent that the developing world is just starting to pollute at levels necessary to lift their populations out of abject poverty, I'm pretty convinced that climate change isn't just irreversible, but that it will continue to worsen, and as effects are exacerbated, the world's eventually going to be essentially uninhabitable.

It's hard to imagine humans surviving without basic things like an Ozone layer or large plots of land suited for sustainable agricultural production.

At one point or another, we'll also run out of fossil fuels, and at that point, good look surviving without all the gizmos and gadgets we're increasingly dependent on, like these computers we're typing with. Given our severe lack of investment into renewable energy, there's going to be a heck of a lot of people left out of the equation, and it's hard to imagine that at some point WMDs won't enter into the equation to procure what's needed.

Most the graphics I've seen suggest that the heartland of America is, perhaps in deserving fashion, going to be hit hardest. If that's true, there's a certain degree of inherent danger in the fact that the country most impacted by droughts, floods and other catastrophes will have sufficient access to WMDs and a massive military with a history of imposing it on other nations at will.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

It seems sort of weird to assume that someone who could gain the authority and capacity to launch nukes would use them to nuke the resources they want.

[Jagos]

I bet no one even analyzed the fact that we've lost over 25% of the phytoplankton in the oceans because of things like Fukushima and global warming.