- cross-posted to:
- bertstrips@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- bertstrips@feddit.de
You must log in or register to comment.
Don’t just wait passively for it, take action. Everyone can contribute and together we will achieve big things. If we all work together the collapse is not just a dream.
Dont use plastic straws, drive public transport or bike, buy bio food, donate to orgs, glue yourself to the street
and maybe… just maybe… you will change fuck all
Plastic straws have almost zero to none impact on climate change. It is one of the biggest virtue signaling campaings that managed to scam shit ton of gullible people. Climate change is a never ending process, those who can alter the process have way bigger means to affect it than you and me. Regulate the companies, end the “too big to fail” market monopoly, tax the shit out of billioners. Dont fall to their diversion strategy that we are to blame for any of this shit.
Not only did it do fuck all to help, it was also really annoying.
Likely on purpose to make people not want to help the environment at all if it means having soggy paper in your drinks.
The paper straws couldn’t even be recycled.
Not defending paper straws specifically but recycling is a scam. Anything common household material that is not plastic is inherently better than plastic from an environmental standpoint.
It wasn’t about climate change, it was about plastic waste giving turtles straws up their nostrils.
And they still eat floating plastic that they mistake for jellyfish.
No the straw thing was about a cute kid making a science fair project about “The Dangers of Straws!” With all the thought an elementary school student could offer to the conversation that was latched onto by the media to fill a time slot and get more media buzz.
… did everyone misread your comment or am I crazy? I have faith that we can make horrible climate change a reality if we just put our minds to it.
Nuclear Posadism is so Cold War. We need a new apocalyptic accelerationism.
Apocalyptic accelerationism from home. Learn these 5 easy steps how YOU! can increase your contribution to annihilation.
Some sure did, but I don’t mind it :)
If we all work together the collapse is not just a dream.
Hoping to speed up the collapse I see lol.
I drive a hybrid.
I recycle everything I can.
I pickup litter.
I try to be as power efficient as possible.
I’m not a vegetarian but I don’t eat meat everyday.
Plus, I post memes that stimulate conversation like this!
I am vegan since 5 years, before I was (don’t judge me, or do- its deserved) 10 years vegetarian. Since ~15 years? PV on my roof which feed into the grid many times more power than I used I rarely travel, not one flight. I advocate and work towards a sustainable future. Demonstrations and some political work. Go on, check my my posts and judge for yourself if I was maybe sarcastic?
I just assumed you were joking. Good job on all you do!
People say that but it would help if they mention things to actually do.
Went vegan. Got 35 solar cells. Replaced lawn with native plants. Work from home. Spending a lot of time advocating online and to friends and family. Raising kids as environmentalists.
And you and kids are still gonna die from the effects of climate change and the collapse of society because a handful of billionaires and corporations only care about making more money next quarter in spite of every single other human being on the planet.
And also because of the billions of individuals such as yourself that decided it was hopeless.
THanks
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/27/climate-crisis-villains-americas-dirty-dozen I mean, … the current profiteers which steer society into collapse have names.
What I notice is a lot of petrochemical companies, conglomerates, politicians and attorneys. And Facebook.Our best bet would be to steer clear of those, or at least as much as possible.
I have personally switched to a cleaner car (no electric since I cannot yet afford them), walk and cycle more often, no longer buy Unilever or Nestle products (though that’s more of a moral reason) and am even stricter with my energy consumption. I try to use most of my belongings as long as possible (unless they consume a lot of power) and try to repair everything until it is so broken and worn out that I have to replace it. Which I will replace it with something of a good quality that will last many years and preferably made locally, always trying to prevent buying from Chinese companies. My landlord (it’s a company but I can’t think of the word for it) has installed solar panels on my home 4 years ago and I am using LED lights and have replaced all CRT tv’s/monitors with LCD. Built newer computers with lower energy CPU’s. Lights that are frequently used have been put on a timer or sensor so they are automatically switched off. Other lights are turned off when leaving the room. I have switched to an electrical stove to prevent the need for fracking gas and earthquakes caused by natural gas pumping. Oh and my gardens mostly consist of grass and plants.
I think that’s about it.
Going vegan is according to the IPCC the single biggest step a individual can take. This does not take anything away from other actions we can simultaneous pursue. Veganism is growing and has despite being a small percentage of the population the potential for a change.
And it’d probably be a lot more convincing if my experience with vegans outside the past year or so weren’t composed entirely of people pushing it on the basis of “killing animals is wrong.”
Its a multitude of reasons for people to go vegan: The animals, their own health, the probability of not creating a living hell on earth. The reason why vegans try to convince others is often because after a few years most are so disconnected from the killing of others for taste where it is a giant argument. The suffering and abuse of 90 billion sentient land animals per year alone is for most good enough to stop supporting it. I have surrendered that argument for most discussions because it is hard to have that empathy while it is a part in your live. It wasn’t for me, although is was not challenged in that view back then. So now my arguments moved more towards egoism which sometimes works.
Yeah. At least when nuclear war was the existential threat hanging over humanity you had the comfort that it would all be over in an instant. Now we get to watch a slow unraveling of civilization over decades while things continue to get worse. Fun times.
It’d be over in an instant for the lucky ones.
expect they’ve found a way to ‘profit’ off the collapse already. might be one of the reasons they’re doing nothing to stop it
And when the last land is a desert, the last river dry, the last field poisoned, the last tree cut down, will they realise that one cannot eat money.
Deflection towards hydrogen mining. Shell UK got absolutely grilled over it, showing that it was nowhere close to carbon neutral.
You people think it will be a night and day collapse? Get real. The rich will continue to get richer and you’ll toil away in relative comfort as you do now.
It will seem far away until the day that your home is burning down or under water. And that day is coming.
Even if your particular house is in a safe location, you’re still fucked from all the other houses being flooded and burned down because that means disastrous effects on global supply chains including food and a massive refugee crisis the likes of which the world has literally never seen.
You people think it will be a night and day collapse? Get real.
You know that’s the thing, nobody really knows. It’s all predictions based on necessarily flawed models. And they range from relatively mild changes until the turn of the century on the one hand, over methane released from thawing permafrost leading to a steep acceleration of warming in the middle, to having crossed an irreversible tipping point decades ago that will lead to an algae bloom in the oceans which will render the atmosphere unbreathable on the other hand. We can only hope it’s on the former end of the spectrum, but I wouldn’t bet on it personally.
We could do more than just hope… And we really should.
I meant we can only hope we haven’t crossed a tipping point yet without knowing. Carbon cycles are thousands of years long. We might have already killed our species.
But I agree, we should do what we can to fight climate change.
The interesting part are those who still don’t write letters to their congressmen and still vote for climate deniers. I just can’t.
It would be insanely easy to solve: Not one of the billionaires out there would recognize if they only had 999 mil left and neither would anybody else. That‘s a cool 10 trillion to pay towards climate change. You‘re welcome.
That money was earned using earth, so to saving earth it goes back (because no earth, no money and our billionaire overlords suprisingly havent saved us yet.)
Though I agree with you on taking money from the rich people, that’s mostly not how it works. Most rich persons has most of his “worth” in stocks. Even scammer musk’s worth mostly is “worth” because of his ownership of Tesla and the such. He doesn’t actually have that money.
Most importantly: It’s not insanely easy to solve, Sven if you pump in trillions. Even if we stop pumping carbon in the air tomorrow it will still take centuries until the atmosphere is back to normal, barring any carbon capture.
The problem with is that the extra CO2 in the air comes from energy we took from burning fossil fuels. If we want to capture it back, we need to spend the same mount of energy that the world spent for the past, say, 2 centuries, from non carbon sources to get that done. This energy does not include the energy that the world needs to function.
That is an insane amount of energy that, again, has to come from non carbon emitting sources.
Also, until all energy comes from non carbon emitting sources, carbon capture is useless because if both you’ll spent 100 carbon for each, say, 50-70 (optimistically) carbon you capture.
If I say “Were not even close to 100% non carbon emissions in energy creation” it’s a huge understatement. I believe something around 10% of our energy production is non carbon emitting. Cars are not included.
Making all out cars electrical is also cute. It’s a nice thought if it weren’t that all that electricity still mostly comes from CO2 emitting sources so including conversion losses electrical cars may actually send more CO2 in the atmosphere.
You want to actually solve this?
Make ALL our electrical generation non CO2 emitting in the next 10 years. Air and solar are cute, but fractional and will remain that, probably for ever. We need nuclear power plants like there is no tomorrow in all countries, even the “bad” ones.
This obviously isn’t going to happen.
We will likely end up with some form of atmospheric engineering where we’re going to meas with the atmosphere, seeding clouds, or pumping other chemicals in there that negate the effects of CO2. I’m unsure what the results of that will be though
Either way, you and I will NOT see the end of this, that is for our children’s children
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 7•1 year ago
Even if we stop pumping carbon in the air tomorrow it will still take centuries until the atmosphere is back to normal, barring any carbon capture.
That would, however, stop it from getting any worse, which is kind of a big deal because it’s getting worse at a frightening rate.
Making all out cars electrical is also cute. It’s a nice thought if it weren’t that all that electricity still mostly comes from CO2 emitting sources so including conversion losses electrical cars may actually send more CO2 in the atmosphere.
You severely overestimate the energy efficiency of gasoline engines. A big reason to get rid of them is not only the fuel they burn, but how much of it they waste.
We need nuclear power plants like there is no tomorrow in all countries, even the “bad” ones.
You severely underestimate the resources required to build those. It costs some $20 billion to build one nuclear power plant. There’s a reason everybody’s focusing on solar and wind.
Small modular reactors may be cheaper, but they also generate huge amounts of radioactive waste. Radioactive waste isn’t a serious problem now, but it will be if we start powering everything with SMRs.
Atom cracking will not save us. Not unless there’s some kind of breakthrough.
We will likely end up with some form of atmospheric engineering where we’re going to meas with the atmosphere, seeding clouds, or pumping other chemicals in there that negate the effects of CO2. I’m unsure what the results of that will be though
- It works.
- Big Oil chants “spray, baby, spray!”
- It works too well. Global freeze occurs. Everybody dies. Game over.
Either way, you and I will NOT see the end of this, that is for our children’s children
Have you stepped outside at any point in the last several years? Global warming is no longer a looming future threat for someone else to deal with. It’s here and now.
Yes, it would stop making it worse indeed. I’m not saying we shouldn’t stop, I’m just saying that stopping alone won’t solve the issue
Global warming is an ENORMOUS problem that will require generations of people all over the world working together to fix it and I smjsut don’t see that happening because face it: politicians and rich people don’t give a shit.
I don’t overestimate gas engine efficiency, they’re about as efficient as it gets and the same goes for fuel burning in other places. Gas / coal / fuel power plants really aren’t much more efficient and now you have energy centralized and Ned to transform it, transport it, transform again, store in batteries so more and more losses that altogether makes driving electrical really not that much better for climate change.
I know nuclear reactors are hugely expensive but I honestly don’t see we have another option here. We can’t continue with coal or gas, we need a HUGE amount of STABLE electrical energy that solar and wind simply won’t be able to supply, not to mention the amount of money that goes into building solar and wind farms that gives the same energy as nuclear. That also ignores the amount of mining required to build solar and wind farms. Those alternatives aren’t all that “clean” once you get into the nitty gritty details.
I fully agree with you about this, something must be done, but here is the realest problem of them all: Nothing will be done. A few token things will be done to say “look at us! Aren’t we awesome politicians?” There will be a lot of clapping and patting on backs, and nothing changes. The Paris accords were a joke and even that joke wasn’t followed up on anyway by most parties.
The way that I see it is that we’re fucked. I’d love to slice it if I could but I can’t. Neither can you. All we can do is hope (or pray of that’s your thing) that our leaders will get it into heir heads that humanity is dying and start doing something real.
This guy gets it!
That’s a disturbing but interesting take. Thank you very much.
The funny thing is that you can sell stocks. I know that a billionaire does not have dagoberts vault at home (maybe some do).
But their net worth is calculated somehow and in selling all assets above 999 mil, you get exactly what I‘m talking about.
I get that this is a long undertaking but we are still on the way up. This needs to stop now so we do it now. Use the money to stop the gravest polluters first and by the time you run out of money, you‘re a lot better on the scale.
Btw the estimated cost to 2030 to stop climate change is 90 trillion. So this does part of it.
Just wanted to put that out there. It’s surely gonna be a big job since most of us lack vision.
Not like we could start working only on that since we need to make stuff nobody needs to impress people we dont like./s
Also, my personal favorite in idiotic ideas is telling citizens to just not buy and suv. Just outlaw the production you maggots! We saw with covid how well voluntary behavior helped.
Yes, I blame governments for not doing what needs to be done to save the fucking planet. A mass of humans is easy to manipulate if you’re rich and can not be given this much responsibility. We elect people for this.
Once a major stock holder starts selling his stock like crazy, that stock will nosedive. See Elon “I’ll be the last one to sell tesla stock!” Musk dumping tesla stock and check it’s current value.
And governments should not ask not to buy SUV’s, they should ban SUV’s. Yes, ban. They are horrible for the environment, horrible for safety of the driver, horrible for the safety of others, horrible in every aspect and they only exist because car manufacturers want to sell more so they told people they look cool.
Start taxing the crap out of cars, all short distance travel (< 5 - 10 kms) should be by bike, with Electrical the engine support in mountainous areas.we use 2 tonnes of steel and plastics to mostly move single 50-100 kgs persons around. That. Is. Insane. It’s unsustainable. Redesign American cities (American being the continent here, not just the country) to no long have these horrible suburbs, make all cities human Centric, not car centric. People should be able to walk to 50% of local stores and cycle to 95% of stores. It makes for wonderful safe cities to live in (see every single city, tiny and large in the Netherlands), makes people healthier due to more exercise, makes healthier air (no car pollution) bad lowers CO2 output by a literal fucktonne.
This would make everything better, which is why it not only will never happen, politicians will beber talk about it because big oil, big car and big whatever the fuck need more bigger cars polluting more because WE WANT MONEY AND POWER.
The world is fucked, sorry.
I’m surprised this got so many upvotes, a lot of it is factually incorrect! For instance many grids worldwide are over 50% renewables. You can scrub carbon with a net carbon loss if you use solar powered to do it.
There’s also no reason that capturing the carbon would cost all the energy that was released by burning it (you don’t have to make it into the same fuel molecule).
Honestly this sounds like climate change denier shit, “it’s too late there’s nothing we can do, buy more oil.”.
On the positive side, I agree that nuclear is great!
- shiveyarbles ( @shiveyarbles@beehaw.org ) 14•1 year ago
Yeah at the end of the day, this is a failure of our government. It’s so stuck on profits and processes, it can’t save itself from certain death.
I’m thinking of moving to a state that’s colder where I can buy land that has water within the property.
I also think to do anything sizeable you need the resources a company can bring. Our problems are at scale. You need a scaled resource pool and reinvestment in that to work up to some of the issues. I like the idea of carbon extraction for example, but I don’t see any resources invested in it from US companies.
Carbon extraction isn’t a viable solution until its whole area is running on green energy. With current technology, at least, running it on a green power source will make less of an impact than hooking that green power source up to replace some fossil fuels.
In other words, don’t rely on heal spells until the battle’s over. They’ll never outpace incoming damage.
Also, as far as resource costs go, planting tree is more efficient at capturing carbon then any industrial scrubber. Research should still be done, but anyone trying to sell a scrubber plant is just fishing for VC funds.
Yes, I was going to mention trees too, but I wasn’t sure of the impact.
You need those heal spells to stop the incoming damage from killing you immediately though.
If you’re on the brink of death, yes. If you can take another round, better to take out more enemies first.
But that’s not the way our situation works. Until the whole grid is green, carbon scrubbers just give corporations a way to virtue signal without having to make changes to their supply line, and actually do more harm than good. Because the power it takes to run them puts out more carbon than they collect.
We’re on the brink of death right now so I will support people trying to start CO2 sequestration even while coal plants in other countries no one can stop are still running, please and thank you.
Does your country run on green energy? If so, cool. Go for it.
If not, it’s better to switch from existing fossil fuel plants to green energy. Running a carbon scrubber on fossil fuels puts out more carbon than it saves. It’s like casting heals from HP when they cost more than they heal. There might be a time for that, but it’s not during combat.
Even if the scrubber itself is on green energy, if the whole grid isn’t green, the energy it’s using could have gone to replace fossil fuel consumption, so it’s the same cost.
If you want to sequester CO2 without putting out more than you take, plant trees.
We are not on the brink of death. We may be on the brink of the point of no return (or past it depending who you ask,) but that’s not immediate death. The world isn’t going to die of heat in the next 10 years. There’s no need to rush to something that sounds good but does more harm.
Carbon extraction, for the moment, is useless.
Most energy production still emits carbon. Adding in loses, you’d spend 100 carbon for each maybe 50 carbon you captured. You’d literally be making it worse.
Same goes for electrical cars. Car engines are pretty much as efficient as burning fuels get, so with electrical you have extra losses (losses in electrical transmission, extra conversions, storage in batteries, then the electrical engine itself) so they may actually end up emitting more carbon than fuel cars.
Want to stop this? Make all electrical generation carbon frer
Air and sunlight are cute but fractional and likely will remain that forever
We need nuclear power plants, and loads of them. Spent fuel there IS a problem but it’s a manageable one.
Even if we replace all cars and powerplants for non carbon within the next ten years, it’ll still take centuries for the atmosphere to return to normal.
Want to carbon capture? That is HARD because of loads of technical problems but one to keep in mind: all that carbon (yes yes, CO2) in the air is because we took energy from a system and used it. CO2 was the result. You want to take out that CO2, you need to spend the same amount of energy to take it back. With losses in conversion, you’ll need to spend probably double that. With what nature can remove by itself, you mght get a 10% discount.
What does this mean? We need to spend the same amount of energy as we generated over the past two centuries on top of the energy we need every day to be able to capture all that CO2. That is a metric shit tonne of CO2 and capturing it requires first and foremost that ALL our energy production is CO2 free.
Ah also: for technical reasons airplanes will never be electrical, cargo trucks neither. Yeah yeah, tesla truck blah, nobody will use it and musk, besides being an absolute moron, is also a scammer. Electrical trucks are not worth it because of battery weight. Think batteries will magically become 2000% more efficient? They won’t. Batteries are pretty much elat the roof of what’s possible and barring some revolutionary new energy storage that may or may not exist, batteries won’t become much more efficient beyond maybe tops 30% more than we have today. Either way, cargo trucks d Airplanes need light batteries and even li-ion batteries (lithium being the lightest metal) won’t cut it. Cargo trucks would lost most of their cargo capacity in batteries or would require recharging (and waiting for hours) way WAY too many times. Fuel based trucks lose their gas whilst driving and become lighter. This adds range and cargo weight. Electrical ones don’t. Electrical (heavy) trucks aren’t practical and won’t be used.
Also, battery fires are a BITCH and are almost impossible to put out. All it takes is one electrical fire from a car in a tunnel that will kill a few hundred people to make people reconsider battery cars. Now imagine trucks.
Same for airplanes. A laptop battery in and airplane is risky. An electrical plane would require 50-70% of it’s weight in batteries (so we transport 100 people instead of 300) and of that thing catches fire, which happens a lot, those 100 people are screeeeewed.
Hydrogen also won’t work as the atoms in the gas are so small that they escape though just about everything. You’ll need very heavy tanks to transport it compressed enough so you’ll again lose the “weight war”, if you will.
So we’ll continue puahing CO2 in the air with airplanes and trucks, but cars are doable. Powerplants are doable.
But look at the will of politicians. More and more politicians are willing to lie about climate change because that’s what their conspiracy theory believing base believe, so they’ll happily parrot that bullshit because they’ll watch the world burn if it means they can rule the ashes.
Then there are the millions of scammers with perpetual motion machines or their magic clean water from air machines or their Hyperloop ideas that were refuted over a century ago yet we spend literally billions into that because humanity is stupid and dickish…
I dunno. This can be solved if we wanted to but I think humanity in part doesn’t care. The young just watch TikTok, the old are too dumb, somehow.
Call me cynical all you like but I see a humanity ending problem in front of us and it can be solved but share holders and the rich must be kept happy before that! And if you try to say anything about that, you get the army of trained retards (yes, that is the acceptable word for people that have a good brain but refuse to use it) yelling over you that theyr read a Facebook post saying that science is evil.
In a sidenote, various diseases that were nearly eradicated are coming back as well because of anti vaxxers now. Humans suck.
So before you can even start thinking about solving this you first need to fix the retard problem. People need to start believing in science and reality again because too many people are now with their heads stuck in fantasy world where “god would never allow this” or "scientists are evil because EVERY GODDAMN TV SHOW AND MOVIE NOW SHOWS EVIL SCIENTISTS.
/rant.
But I do encourage you to tell me I’m worng in anything I said. Please, if you think there is a solution, please please tell me
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 1•1 year ago
You want to take out that CO2, you need to spend the same amount of energy to take it back.
Non sequitur. Nobody said we had to turn atmospheric carbon back into the same fuel it originally came out of.
Electrical trucks are not worth it because of battery weight.
This is only an issue for long-haul trucks, so, obvious solution: electric trains. No battery required.
Also, battery fires are a BITCH and are almost impossible to put out. All it takes is one electrical fire from a car in a tunnel that will kill a few hundred people to make people reconsider battery cars. Now imagine trucks.
There are plenty of EVs on the road already. If that was as likely as you’re trying to make it sound, it would have happened many times already.
Yeah, lithium-ion batteries are volatile, but they aren’t that volatile. Solid-state batteries are even less so.
retards (yes, that is the acceptable word for people that have a good brain but refuse to use it)
I won’t comment on whether it’s acceptable, but it definitely isn’t correct. The R word refers to people whose brains are impaired, not merely underused.
Call me cynical all you like but I see a humanity ending problem in front of us and it can be solved but share holders and the rich must be kept happy before that!
That’s the real problem, not the technology. We can solve this problem. We don’t even have to sacrifice our modern civilization and creature comforts to do it. But we won’t, because some very lucrative businesses would become obsolete in the process, and their owners would sooner burn down the world and rule over the ashes than tolerate the loss of their wealth.
non sequitur
No it’s not. If you want to lower the CO2 in the atmosphere then you need to break up the carbon bonds, that leaves you with carbon. For all I care you make diamonds out of it, it’s irrelevant. If you want to break CO2 in O2 you need to spend that same energy. That was my point. If them youale fuel or whatever out of it that is a wholly different story that too will require yet more energy.
Trains indeed resolve the long haul truck issue but they’re hardly anywhere in the US. Good luck with building new train tracks there.
We haven’t had an electrical fire in a tunnel yet. Fires in tunnels are bad but can be controlled. Electrical battery fed fires are a nightmare as they have all the ingredients to keep going all by themselves. This is why fire departments see these cars as a problem as they require more water to put out than they can carry.
Li-ion batteries are indeed volatile and no they won’t explode by the thousands but if you have hundreds of millions of them, then statistically yes, you will get thousands of fires world wide every day. Tunnel fires are just a waiting to happen. I’m not saying there is no solution, but it IS a huge problem.
I live in Michigan where we just had at least 7 tornadoes yesterday, and NOAA is basically saying get used to it, this is the new normal. I’ve been in this house for 20 years and I’ve never seen devastation like this. I’ll be without power for several more days because massive 200 year old oaks were snapped like toothpicks and my street is littered with downed power lines.
7 people have died, and when this happens in winter (which they’re saying it will), people will freeze to death in the aftermath. Things will get ugly soon.
- Hot Saucerman ( @dingus@lemmy.ml ) English6•1 year ago
It’s all already slowly spinning out of control…
That’s what the hurricane said
Just remember in 20 years when nothing changes and life proceeds as normal. No one will care what you think then because the robbery will have been done.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 12•1 year ago
Nothing changes and life proceeds as normal? Have you stepped outside in the last few years? Things are already changing.
Over the history of earth, much worse happened. Statistically, this change is nothing over the millions and even billions of years.
I maintain that nothing is changing, and we don’t even have close to enough data to judge an earth that’s 4.5 billion years old to know that anything is changing because of us, and that paying politicians more is the answer.
Wow, the denial is strong. People are actively dying this year because of events that would have been statistically improbable just 10 years ago. Considering how important agriculture is to feed billions of people on a daily basis I would argue that any change to that jeopardizes our existence; and this is just one of the many effective ways that climate change could destroy modern day society.
You can believe what you want and I hope you the luck to never encounter fires, deadly weather, water or food shortages as many people today are dying from.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 9•1 year ago
I’m afraid you are severely mistaken. This is only the sixth mass extinction in Earth’s history, and the first one that was caused by a species that knew what it was doing. Even on the scale of billions of years, what’s going on right now is highly unusual.
Nor would any of the other mass-extinction events have been considered “life proceeds as normal”, if there were any humans around to witness them. Certainly a huge asteroid hitting the planet and shrouding it in dust for years would have turned some heads.
Have you by any chance looked at a graph of average temperatures over time?
Over the history of earth, much worse happened. Statistically, this change is nothing over the millions and even billions of years.
Humans did not exist for most of that time, but yes it’s inconsequential to Earth that there’s warming, Earth is a rock with spinning molten metal inside so it doesn’t care. But it’s pretty fucking important to all the things living on the Earth that there’s warming beyond what they evolved to withstand.
When it comes to climate change we know the mechanism that keeps earth warmer than other random space rocks circling the sun (Greenhouse effect, which was discovered in 1856), we know which gasses contribute to that greenhouse effect, we know that we’ve added a shit ton of them which were buried for millions of years into the atmosphere, we can measure carbon dioxide and other gasses at higher volumes than they’ve been since humans existed, which also coincides with when we started releasing them in vast quantities.
After we’ve got the means, the methods, and the triggers, what more do you need to beyond a reasonable doubt to realize man made climate change?
Temperature going up over time? Over how long? 100 years compared to billions, the age of earth? Do you even understand basic statistics to calculate the confidence in such a measurement?
All the bullshit you’re parroting from television, like green house effect, is at best circumstantial evidence but it’s not proof, and it’s evidence with negligible confidence due to the huge error margin mentioned earlier. Even worse, it’s not even evidence because of the oldest rule in the book “correlation doesn’t imply causation”, yet somehow it’s still science when basic logic is broken to support a political agenda propped by ignorant people who know nothing in math and teenagers who still don’t know the difference between integrals and derivatives and cry that “math is hard”.
I hate to break it to you, but people who can’t calculate the standard error on measurements shouldn’t open their mouths about science, and certainly shouldn’t ask us to surrender all our power and money to corrupt politicians for a fictitious goal.
I’m bored of hearing all this politicized nonsense. Maybe go find a book of someone who disagrees with your opinion and learn something outside of what you learned on television.
I don’t think I’ll respond if you bore me again.
I don’t think I’ll respond if you bore me again.
This is what climate change deniers say when they realize they are in too deep and have no idea what they are talking about.
Or people who have better things to do.
OK, teenager.
I have a degree in statistics, do you understand statistics?
Correlation doesn’t imply causation. But we have casual and testable mechanisms to validate these theories and what we’re seeing. We can measure the greenhouse effect directly by experiment.
I hear your argument, Earth’s been hotter millions of years ago, sure, but that doesn’t invalidate human climate change at all.
I have a PhD in physics. I spent half of my life in labs doing measurements and calculating systematic and statistical errors on them in an experiment that collects data over years to get a single number. A good chunk of my thesis is on how to properly estimate errors in measurements that are years long. I have even worked with complicated concepts like propagating errors through mathematical models to minimize them.
No you don’t have measurements to validate anything. You have “this line goes up, this other line goes up, and we think we can explain it with green house nonsense, and hence the correlation coefficient is 1.00000”, and hence we caused it. You think I haven’t seen this nonsense? 99.99% of the people have no idea what the hell they’re talking about.
Yes, earth went hotter and colder million times before. This invalidates climate change. We have no proof, not even statistical, that humans caused anything. We only have political agendas and research groups who get funding if they agree to come to that result. And we have dumb people who don’t understand basic logic or can add two fractions parrot what the television says in fear.
I’ve been trying to
@electriccars @memes I don’t appreciate unfunny memes. :-(
I’m sorry. Here’s a modified version of the meme:
It’s an excellent moment to remind you that even if we manage to dodge this, there is still the heat death of the universe, so it’s just a matter of how long do we want to waste energy postponing the unavoidable
You do realize that the heat death of the universe would only likely take place in literally trillions and trillions and trillions of years time? Climate change is happening now.
Yeah, and dying today or in a trillion years is indifferent in the end, if it’ll end up happening anyways
Exactly. Climate change we have the chance to mitigate, and very possibly prevent / reverse. The heat death on the other hand is not only just a theory as to how the universe might end, but also something that would likely be completely out of our control, assuming that humans even survive a fraction of the time until then. Most likely, there’ll be something else that kills us first.
.
Dont sit around and do nothing waiting for death. Grab a gun and take some rich people with you.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 7•1 year ago
Most rich people don’t just stand around outside waiting to get shot. Especially not if they know someone is gunning for them. They may be morally bankrupt, but they’re not stupid.
Of course they dont, but they also not always stay hidden.
I would suggest to, first, join your local Eco-social organizations. Normally the “take a gun a shoot a motherfucker” approach, while very satisfying to say, it’s usually way less effective than organize with your community.