Sure, the earth is very slowly getting warmer. 1C over more than 100 years. There is 0 proof that a warming earth will have any negative effects other than a very very tiny and steady rise in sea level with is easily mitigated against. All models talking about big sea level rises are extrapolated out 600+ years.
All other claimed negative effects of "climate change" are outright lies. More, or worse, natural disasters? False and unsupported by scientific evidence. Disasters aren't getting worse, it's just that massively expanded human population and cities mean we experience them more. However, deaths from natural disasters have massively dropped despite this, thanks to human wealth and innovation improving safety measures.
Desertification? Same. We know for a fact that CO2 is plant food, and plants thrive at higher temperatures than the present global average. Cold kills. Heat is perfectly fine for plant life as a rule. Just look at hot jungles and compare them to the arctic tundra. The rise in temperatures and CO2 is proven to cause a "global greening", where MORE, not less, land is opening up to agriculture and farming thanks to the earth being a more hospitable place in general.
Humans literally boiled alive! All fear the "wet bulb" temperature!!! Propagandists love to claim that we are at the cusp of hitting a mythical "wet bulb" temperature (wet bulb means sweat won't save you, this is important because people do just fine in very hot deserts with dry air because they counteract the heat with sweat) that would kill a helpless human sitting around outdoors.
It's true, that for very short periods of time on the hottest hours of the hottest days in the hottest and most humid places on earth, this might happen in the future. So what? Unprepared humans can be killed by cold for huge swaths of the year, over huge geographic regions RIGHT NOW. People don't really fear this because we are "used to" it. But if you don't have heavy clothing outside at night standing in probably 1/3 of the earth, you'll die from the cold. Cold is super dangerous, and deadly. It kills 20x more than heat.
Heat is just as easy to mitigate against as cold. Step one is simply getting into shelter. Most heat deaths are from people stupidly trying to do heavy labor out in the sun and heat and working themselves into heat stroke. Step two is to drink water. While this won't save you in a "wet bulb" event, the simple fact of the matter is that these events will be rare and only last a few hours at most, so people can just shelter from them like they do now anyway on very hot and humid days. It's really not a big deal, it's just "new" and people fear things they're not used to.
And that's really what global warming propaganda is all about: luddite-like fear of change and fear of the "unknown", which is exploited by "green" propagandists in their campaign to attack human progress and development. They hate humanity and they want to undermine it. And left wing politicians exploit this sentiment for votes, and academics exploit this to line their pockets. It's a whole, self-perpetuating cancer on humanity. People ought to have more sense than to buy into it.
And that's really what global warming propaganda is all about: luddite-like fear of change
So close. It's about money, dude. The elites invest into companies that promise "green energy" and other bullshit, try and get everything else banned, and they make 10 000% return on investments. They basically tried doing this with Solyndra and that company ended up pissing billions into stupid shit.
Disagree somewhat. Producing heat is so easy and efficient that we constantly do it as a side-effect to everything. Mitigating heat is moving heat, which is less generally less efficient and more expensive.
You're talking about extremes. For most poor/hot countries people just use shade + ceiling fans and they're fine.
Obviously dealing with heat is harder if you're on the surface of the Moon getting fried or something.
On earth we are talking about heat being too hot from like noon to 2pm on rare days in a few middle east countries or whatever.
the "hot" equivalent would be 170F.
That's the thing, the earth has never been remotely that hot for billions of years. The hottest it's ever been was like 12C average hotter than now, which is still perfectly livable for humans.
Sure, the earth is very slowly getting warmer. 1C over more than 100 years.
No, 4C in 100 years. And yes, it will have some negative effects, as a change in climate will always cause some negative effects to some animals and plants living in those specific climates that will not support them.
More, or worse, natural disasters?
Fair, this is Watermellon bullshit. Those statistics were always too abstract to mean much beyond a simple energy equation. You're not going to feel a difference between a hurricane, and a hurricane that is "15% stronger".
Desertification? Same.
You're way off on this because you're being way to generalizable on this. It is a fact that the deserts have expanded into some regions to make them more arid. That will likely continue in some areas. IT IS ALSO TRUE, that areas of tundra and permafrost are also becoming more green. No, "hot" is not less dangerous to plants than "cold". That's just stupid and unnuanced. Plants handle hot and cold differently, and will absolutely die off in some areas that get too much heat, too much sun, too little humidity, etc. You can't just say that, it doesn't make sense on a generalizable scale. Also, yes, heatwaves absolutely kill people especially if you damage the electrical grid so that your public housing unit ends up suffocating and dehydrating shitloads of people.
But if you don't have heavy clothing outside at night standing in probably 1/3 of the earth, you'll die from the cold. Cold is super dangerous, and deadly. It kills 20x more than heat.
You'll also drown if you stand on 7/10ths of the Earth. Again, this is a conversation of "cold more bad than hot!" is so stupid and irrelevant it's not worth having. Which is why you can say: "Heat is just as easy to mitigate against as cold." There's no point in this entire swathe of an argument.
luddite-like fear of change and fear of the "unknown", which is exploited by "green" propagandists in their campaign to attack human progress and development.
No, it's that the modern Environmentalist movement is emergent from National Socialist ideology. They are inherently anti-human because they believe that civilization can be protected by purifying both the blood and the soil. Turns out purifying the blood is unpopular, so they are taking a Fabain Socialist approach to purify the blood by purifying the soil.
This is a worst-case predicted amount if we continue to increase CO2 at the same rate as recently for 100 years and their models are correct.
But that won't happen. They're projecting from a rapid rise in China's scorched-earth industrial policies and not factoring in that China will clean up it's act eventually just like every other industrialized country or considering advances in technology (USA for example). And their models are biased because of funding and groupthink.
But even a China successor won't become as huge a CO2 source because of solar/wind or even fusion. In some cases solar and wind are cheaper now, and they'll only get better whereas coal hasn't really gotten any better than 35% efficiency for the past 50 years.
You simply can't make any long-term prediction predicated on technology being the same the whole time.
No, that's the expected outcome, not the worst case. The worst case is like up to 6C.
But that won't happen. They're projecting from a rapid rise in China's scorched-earth industrial policies and not factoring in that China will clean up it's act eventually just like every other industrialized country or considering advances in technology (USA for example).
The idea that Communist states are prepared to manage their environments appropriately is laughably absurd. They've never cleaned up their act until after the fall of Communism.
You simply can't make any long-term prediction predicated on technology being the same the whole time.
The technological change just isn't going to be all that relevant in the first place. Forget that China subsidization of pollutive extraction industries is exactly how you're hoping China will "clean up it's act", we don't even need to really consider how technology can hopefully mitigate carbon emissions when carbon is only going to be the primary source of energy from humans this century and if you want nuclear or fusion power you're going to have to wait for it's mass planetary adoption well over 80 years from now.
Instead, what we know is that not only are human populations going to rapidly rise to 10-14 billion and then plateau, not only will those extra billions of humans need energy, but they will need and want more energy than any of their predecessors. The vast and exponential demand for energy means you are going to use vast and exponential supplies of carbon based energy sources, and everything else you can get your hands on. As a result of that increased demand, requiring more carbon based supply, requiring more consumption of those supplies, requiring more carbon emissions, you are only going to get increasing carbon emissions across the planet, basically for the next 100 years until the population finally stabalizes. Alternatively, the only way of reducing carbon emissions is to reduce the demand for energy... by reducing the people. Which they are already doing.
The idea that Communist states are prepared to manage their environments appropriately is laughably absurd. They've never cleaned up their act until after the fall of Communism.
Yeah, but why did they burn so much coal and oil? Because it was cheaper and they didn't care about the environment.
When solar and wind are cheaper they'll use that -- and still not care about the environment. They'll be polluting their land with heavy metals, sure, but not the air with CO2.
You see the change already with islands changing to solar and wind. Hawaii for instance is increasing solar because even with batteries it's cheaper than coal/oil - way higher at 18% electricity from solar than other states (CA is higher only because they're horribly mismanaged). That will propagate to logistically cheaper places as the cost of solar/wind continues to decrease.
carbon is only going to be the primary source of energy from humans this century and if you want nuclear or fusion power you're going to have to wait for it's mass planetary adoption well over 80 years from now.
Energy is not immune to disruptive technology, in fact it's prime for it because electricity is totally fungible. It doesn't matter the source and the speed of change is determined by the price difference.
It's not a case of oil having too much inertia behind it. Once the price of other energy is cheaper than extraction oil use will crater in the span of a decade or less, and when that starts could be 80 years or it could be next year. And this is the point, that you can't predict when it will happen but we know it will.
extra billions of humans need energy, but they will need and want more energy than any of their predecessors.
Irrelevant. What matters is the cost of energy sources. Whatever amount is needed, they won't be getting it from far more expensive oil.
Read the works of Gunter Schwab (interesting last name). Particularly: "Der Tanz mit dem Teufel". Not only was he a member of the NSDAP, but he was a major player in Post-War Socialism efforts, one of the first people to argue about the effects of carbon emissions on the planet, and he and several other NSDAP members founded the german Green Party.
I still think that he's Klaus Schawb's dad.
Also, you might need to read up on the bizzarities of Aryanism to understand the literal magical powers of blood and soil according to NSDAP leaders like Himmler.
Sure, the earth is very slowly getting warmer. 1C over more than 100 years. There is 0 proof that a warming earth will have any negative effects other than a very very tiny and steady rise in sea level with is easily mitigated against. All models talking about big sea level rises are extrapolated out 600+ years.
All other claimed negative effects of "climate change" are outright lies. More, or worse, natural disasters? False and unsupported by scientific evidence. Disasters aren't getting worse, it's just that massively expanded human population and cities mean we experience them more. However, deaths from natural disasters have massively dropped despite this, thanks to human wealth and innovation improving safety measures.
Desertification? Same. We know for a fact that CO2 is plant food, and plants thrive at higher temperatures than the present global average. Cold kills. Heat is perfectly fine for plant life as a rule. Just look at hot jungles and compare them to the arctic tundra. The rise in temperatures and CO2 is proven to cause a "global greening", where MORE, not less, land is opening up to agriculture and farming thanks to the earth being a more hospitable place in general.
Humans literally boiled alive! All fear the "wet bulb" temperature!!! Propagandists love to claim that we are at the cusp of hitting a mythical "wet bulb" temperature (wet bulb means sweat won't save you, this is important because people do just fine in very hot deserts with dry air because they counteract the heat with sweat) that would kill a helpless human sitting around outdoors.
It's true, that for very short periods of time on the hottest hours of the hottest days in the hottest and most humid places on earth, this might happen in the future. So what? Unprepared humans can be killed by cold for huge swaths of the year, over huge geographic regions RIGHT NOW. People don't really fear this because we are "used to" it. But if you don't have heavy clothing outside at night standing in probably 1/3 of the earth, you'll die from the cold. Cold is super dangerous, and deadly. It kills 20x more than heat.
Heat is just as easy to mitigate against as cold. Step one is simply getting into shelter. Most heat deaths are from people stupidly trying to do heavy labor out in the sun and heat and working themselves into heat stroke. Step two is to drink water. While this won't save you in a "wet bulb" event, the simple fact of the matter is that these events will be rare and only last a few hours at most, so people can just shelter from them like they do now anyway on very hot and humid days. It's really not a big deal, it's just "new" and people fear things they're not used to.
And that's really what global warming propaganda is all about: luddite-like fear of change and fear of the "unknown", which is exploited by "green" propagandists in their campaign to attack human progress and development. They hate humanity and they want to undermine it. And left wing politicians exploit this sentiment for votes, and academics exploit this to line their pockets. It's a whole, self-perpetuating cancer on humanity. People ought to have more sense than to buy into it.
So close. It's about money, dude. The elites invest into companies that promise "green energy" and other bullshit, try and get everything else banned, and they make 10 000% return on investments. They basically tried doing this with Solyndra and that company ended up pissing billions into stupid shit.
True, but studies show that we are saving more people from cold deaths than we are killing with heat deaths.
You're talking about extremes. For most poor/hot countries people just use shade + ceiling fans and they're fine.
Obviously dealing with heat is harder if you're on the surface of the Moon getting fried or something.
On earth we are talking about heat being too hot from like noon to 2pm on rare days in a few middle east countries or whatever.
That's the thing, the earth has never been remotely that hot for billions of years. The hottest it's ever been was like 12C average hotter than now, which is still perfectly livable for humans.
No, 4C in 100 years. And yes, it will have some negative effects, as a change in climate will always cause some negative effects to some animals and plants living in those specific climates that will not support them.
Fair, this is Watermellon bullshit. Those statistics were always too abstract to mean much beyond a simple energy equation. You're not going to feel a difference between a hurricane, and a hurricane that is "15% stronger".
You're way off on this because you're being way to generalizable on this. It is a fact that the deserts have expanded into some regions to make them more arid. That will likely continue in some areas. IT IS ALSO TRUE, that areas of tundra and permafrost are also becoming more green. No, "hot" is not less dangerous to plants than "cold". That's just stupid and unnuanced. Plants handle hot and cold differently, and will absolutely die off in some areas that get too much heat, too much sun, too little humidity, etc. You can't just say that, it doesn't make sense on a generalizable scale. Also, yes, heatwaves absolutely kill people especially if you damage the electrical grid so that your public housing unit ends up suffocating and dehydrating shitloads of people.
You'll also drown if you stand on 7/10ths of the Earth. Again, this is a conversation of "cold more bad than hot!" is so stupid and irrelevant it's not worth having. Which is why you can say: "Heat is just as easy to mitigate against as cold." There's no point in this entire swathe of an argument.
No, it's that the modern Environmentalist movement is emergent from National Socialist ideology. They are inherently anti-human because they believe that civilization can be protected by purifying both the blood and the soil. Turns out purifying the blood is unpopular, so they are taking a Fabain Socialist approach to purify the blood by purifying the soil.
This is a worst-case predicted amount if we continue to increase CO2 at the same rate as recently for 100 years and their models are correct.
But that won't happen. They're projecting from a rapid rise in China's scorched-earth industrial policies and not factoring in that China will clean up it's act eventually just like every other industrialized country or considering advances in technology (USA for example). And their models are biased because of funding and groupthink.
But even a China successor won't become as huge a CO2 source because of solar/wind or even fusion. In some cases solar and wind are cheaper now, and they'll only get better whereas coal hasn't really gotten any better than 35% efficiency for the past 50 years.
You simply can't make any long-term prediction predicated on technology being the same the whole time.
No, that's the expected outcome, not the worst case. The worst case is like up to 6C.
The idea that Communist states are prepared to manage their environments appropriately is laughably absurd. They've never cleaned up their act until after the fall of Communism.
The technological change just isn't going to be all that relevant in the first place. Forget that China subsidization of pollutive extraction industries is exactly how you're hoping China will "clean up it's act", we don't even need to really consider how technology can hopefully mitigate carbon emissions when carbon is only going to be the primary source of energy from humans this century and if you want nuclear or fusion power you're going to have to wait for it's mass planetary adoption well over 80 years from now.
Instead, what we know is that not only are human populations going to rapidly rise to 10-14 billion and then plateau, not only will those extra billions of humans need energy, but they will need and want more energy than any of their predecessors. The vast and exponential demand for energy means you are going to use vast and exponential supplies of carbon based energy sources, and everything else you can get your hands on. As a result of that increased demand, requiring more carbon based supply, requiring more consumption of those supplies, requiring more carbon emissions, you are only going to get increasing carbon emissions across the planet, basically for the next 100 years until the population finally stabalizes. Alternatively, the only way of reducing carbon emissions is to reduce the demand for energy... by reducing the people. Which they are already doing.
Yeah, but why did they burn so much coal and oil? Because it was cheaper and they didn't care about the environment.
When solar and wind are cheaper they'll use that -- and still not care about the environment. They'll be polluting their land with heavy metals, sure, but not the air with CO2.
You see the change already with islands changing to solar and wind. Hawaii for instance is increasing solar because even with batteries it's cheaper than coal/oil - way higher at 18% electricity from solar than other states (CA is higher only because they're horribly mismanaged). That will propagate to logistically cheaper places as the cost of solar/wind continues to decrease.
Energy is not immune to disruptive technology, in fact it's prime for it because electricity is totally fungible. It doesn't matter the source and the speed of change is determined by the price difference.
It's not a case of oil having too much inertia behind it. Once the price of other energy is cheaper than extraction oil use will crater in the span of a decade or less, and when that starts could be 80 years or it could be next year. And this is the point, that you can't predict when it will happen but we know it will.
Irrelevant. What matters is the cost of energy sources. Whatever amount is needed, they won't be getting it from far more expensive oil.
The last part of your comment is one of the most insanely retarded things I’ve ever read lol
Read the works of Gunter Schwab (interesting last name). Particularly: "Der Tanz mit dem Teufel". Not only was he a member of the NSDAP, but he was a major player in Post-War Socialism efforts, one of the first people to argue about the effects of carbon emissions on the planet, and he and several other NSDAP members founded the german Green Party.
I still think that he's Klaus Schawb's dad.
Also, you might need to read up on the bizzarities of Aryanism to understand the literal magical powers of blood and soil according to NSDAP leaders like Himmler.