Saying that climate change is a good thing is impressively wrong, even by their own standards.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Just think about it. Yes, plenty of things are getting killed off through climate change, but the strong will survive. It's like how drinking kills off brain cells, but the stronger brain cells remain unharmed. That's why you feel smarter after drinking!
I may need to point out this is a Cheers reference, but I hope I don't have to point out to those who didn't get it that I'm not being serious.
I may need to point out this is a Cheers reference, but I hope I don't have to point out to those who didn't get it that I'm not being serious.
Well, undoubtedly it makes some parts of the world more habitable. The problem is the parts of the world it makes less habitable, which will involve considerable human suffering, loss of food production, economic damage and almost guaranteed mass migration and conflict. I think that's too much of a cost to bear even to sink Florida under the waves.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,552
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Not certain. A climate shift at this speed can have devastating cascading effects on the global ecosystem, not only accelerating the climate change itself but also impoverishing the biosphere - from the oceans up (chemistry, plankton, algaes, fish, etc), but also from other starting points (vegetation shifts, insects, birds, etc) - and collapsing its network of interdependences.
I don't think any part of the world can be spared its effects. And that's even without talking about the shifts in population densities.
Sure, it's overall catastrophic. But even still, arguably a few places in the world might become easier places to live. Like Siberia, maybe?
But the North West Passage. It would cure all our problems
So, no matter what, the increase in temperature is going to be at least 1 to 1.5 degrees by the end of the century, even if we completely stopped now. It already is up about a degree.
Just for reference, the Ice Age was, on average, about 5 degrees cooler. And it was a planet wide catastrophe. We are already halfway to a planet wide catastrophe if we stop using carbon right now
Yes, and we're not going to stop using carbon now. Not even close. Barely even starting, with half the world currently having no intention of even starting.
We either develop a technology to remove these gases or... it's just going to get plenty hotter and the sea levels a lot higher. Luckily we'll all be dead before it gets too bad. Even by 2100 it'll probably be tolerable for our great-grandchildren, although 2300 might be very unpleasant.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,552
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Not if the whole of Earth population has to fit in Siberia. And not if, beyond a critical point, a loop gets triggered that keeps increasing heat in a vicious circle (heating itself liberating more captured greenhouse gas -within the permafrost for instance- that further increase heating, etc). And not if there is a cascading collapse of the global biosphere (loss of pollinating insects, etc). And not if global markets, products, if plants, foods and other resources diversity, all that our "easy lives" demand, get crippled worlwide. And not if a global ecological crisis (therefore economy crisis) triggers geopolitical conflicts. And not if oxygen restoration cycles get broken.
There is no "isolated" part in our world. They all depend on the whole, on many physical, societal, practical, financial levels. The living standards will be negatively impacted everywhere. "Yay it's sunnier" is really a detail.
Imagine these sections in our great grandkids' history books. "The issue of anthropogenic climate change began to accelerate with the industrial revolution, and was widely recognised as an global catastrophic threat by the mid-20th century. Nonetheless the governments of the world didn't do anything because it was deemed expensive and difficult", the teacher will read out, as fishes swim by outside the third-floor window.
Yes, the ecosystem during an ice age is different than the ecosystem outside of an ice age. The rest of your position is completely illogical. Warm, wet places are famously ecologically dense and diverse, and the fossil fuels that create the warming effects came from life that thrived on the earth while all that carbon was still in the atmosphere. Sure, some species will cease to be well adapted to their home habitat, and either migrate or die, but they will be replaced by even more new things. This is where all the world's varieties of species came from in the first place, change and adaptation.
Ice ages last millions and millions of years. If you think artificially raising the temperature over the course of >200 years is functionally comparable to the globe transitioning out of an ice age, then you have absolutely zero grasp of climatology.
Change and adaptation to global climate shifts occur over the course of millions to hundreds of millions of years. That's how long diversification through evolution takes. It categorically cannot happen with breakneck climate shifts in a couple of centuries.
What I've said is based on an observable, demonstrable trend: species extinction and ecosystem collapse are undeniably at a massive high. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that this is catastrophic for life on earth. Your naivete in thinking a couple of centuries can mirror millions of years, and that species can evolve and adapt to ecosystem collapse in a couple of decades - centuries, frankly shows a complete scientific illiteracy.
As we're talking about evolutionary timescales here, I'm just going to suggest that saying "everything will be fine in a million years" is not necessarily very comforting to a species that only has a few thousand years of civilisation. It's even getting towards the logic of arguing humans should be made extinct to protect the rest of the world from us.
That's not a coincidence, is it.
Earth's climate, for much of its history, was not well suited to human life. Even during the cretaceous period, an extremely short time ago in geological terms, summer temperatures in what is now the temperate northern hemisphere would have routinely reached levels humans cannot survive. However, the climate wasn't just warmer in general, it was more volatile and unpredictable (which is what "lively" means, I guess). Seasonal variation could be more extreme, weather was less predictable and more destructive. A relatively small number of humans could survive in the few habitable regions of that world, but our current human civilization could not.
That is the risk we take now. Beyond the mass-extinction and significant reduction in global biodiversity that is now basically inevitable, if the speed or severity of climate change goes beyond the limits of what our current civilization is capable of adapting to, the results will be extremely "subjectively bad" for many people, and many of those people will go on to become objectively dead.
I mean, at this point it's already happening. We can't stop it, but we can save millions (if not billions) of human lives by limiting the severity.
Last edited:
Well, "in a million years" is also an unrealistically truncated timeframe for major diversification.
For context, the Cambrian explosion is considered a period of extremely and uncharacteristically fast diversification... and it took over 13 million years at the very least to produce those results.
The mayor of new york suggested that people would be given money to house illegal immigrants in their homes. You may not wanna take in thousands of people you have no homes for lol.
nypost.com
Adams floats idea of New Yorkers housing migrants in ‘private residences’
Mayor Eric Adams wants regular New Yorkers to welcome thousands of asylum seekers into private dwellings while paying local homeowners and landlords.
nypost.com
Yep, what's illegal is to enter the country instead of seeking asylum first, being approved and then entering. If you're legit running for safety, once you reach mexico you have attained safety, so you can just hang out there while we process you, instead of in new york. There legit is no reason why someone would be housed in the house of a new yorker as opposed to the house of a mexican when they're already in mexico. The mayor of new york should pay mexicans to house the immigrants, the money would go a lot further in mexico too.
Think about it, we all know most of those people would be rejected since they're economic migrants and not war refugees or political prisoner escapees. Why bring them all the way over from the border to new york, only to bring them back from new york to the border, when they can just be at mexico so that when they are rejected they don't need to be moved that far to go back to whence they came.
And there's nothing in that article, or the description of the plan itself, that suggests its focused on people who have entered illegally. It's focused on those seeking asylum. You conflated the two in order to paint those seeking asylum in a negative light.
I don't really care how you think the asylum system should work.
The fact that they are inside the country and need housing while being asylum seekers (meaning they haven't been granted it yet) is proof that they have entered illegally. You can seek asylum from outside the country, and if you reach a safe country you can stop running.
Asylum seekers deserve an asylum hearing, not housing and food and so on.