Climate change escalating so fast it is 'beyond point of no return' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=hovergroovie;51464916]Yeah, we know. I'm goin to Mars with Elon.[/QUOTE] God Emperor Musk. :smug:

[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;51465314]I don't feel like doomsaying and defeatism are going to help here. We need solutions, we need people who're proactive and involved, and we need hope. If you don't want to be anxious and upset about this stuff, pour some of that nervous energy into [I]doing something about it.[/I] Write to a representative, campaign for local environmental causes, but don't lose your shit until it's actually game over.[/QUOTE] Do that. I'm doing that. Will it change anything? Will lowly MP's from Canada have an effect on global climate change? probably not, but sure, I'm for that.

[QUOTE=Reds;51465115]None of the people responsible will suffer a single consequence in their lifetime, they'll just be remembered as monsters afterwards.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised if there is an angry uprising in the future that targets the children/grandchildren of current climate denying Republicans and fossil fuel company execs, since they would be in a better position to survive because of the money they'd have.

The only solution at this point is basically to artificially block sunlight, likely by pumping reflective aerosols into the atmosphere of Earth. Which will fuck so much shit up, but not as bad as climate change eventually will.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465249] I've seen these types of alarmist titles in news articles for the entirety of the time I could read. Its pretty much every year that there is a new article saying if we don't fix it right now then there is going to be no turning back. But then next year happens and it turns out they lied. Because nothing sells (or gets clicks) better than "the world is going to end."[/QUOTE] :glare: Your sources? Fox News, a conservative thinktank, and a climate change denial blog. What you're describing is more like "we said the point of no return was 20 years ago, here's more empirical evidence that we're past it" and your rebuttal is "well those years happened". Are you serious or are you about to troll and leave like King Tiger?

The climate changes naturally. And sometimes its not for the good of humanity. The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl]Dust Bowl[/url] is a good example of this. Unfortunately, I have to discount any climate change scientist as speaking out of his ass. Its really something I see on the same level as social science. They are allowed to get away with a lot of assumptions that the other sciences wouldn't be able to get away with. And again, the media doesn't help at all with this. Also, speaking of pros and cons, what a lot of these people want is for there to be overnight changes in massive industries. Which is just not going to occur. We cannot retrofit the entire coal power plant system with any more pollution control devices means than we could just replace them. These things take decades to change. As we would have to first build new power plants to replace the old ones. [editline]2nd December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51465350]:glare: Your sources? Fox News, a conservative thinktank, and a climate change denial blog. What you're describing is more like "we said the point of no return was 20 years ago, here's more empirical evidence that we're past it" and your rebuttal is "well those years happened". Are you serious or are you about to troll and leave like King Tiger?[/QUOTE] Look to the sources in the articles. Good luck seeing, for example, The Guardian admitting they were wrong about previous climate change articles. There is no unbiased news sources. That is why you have to see if they have sources. And why is the immediate assumption that if I disagree with this I must be a troll? Is that how you treat everyone you disagree with, "they're a troll"?

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465355]The climate changes naturally. And sometimes its not for the good of humanity. The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl]Dust Bowl[/url] is a good example of this. Unfortunately, I have to discount any climate change scientist as speaking out of his ass. Its really something I see on the same level as social science. They are allowed to get away with a lot of assumptions that the other sciences wouldn't be able to get away with. And again, the media doesn't help at all with this. Also, speaking of pros and cons, what a lot of these people want is for there to be overnight changes in massive industries. Which is just not going to occur. We cannot retrofit the entire coal power plant system with any more pollution control devices means than we could just replace them. These things take decades to change. As we would have to first build new power plants to replace the old ones.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] I have to discount any climate change scientist as speaking out of his ass. [/QUOTE] Why are you an expert on who's an expert? Are you a trained climate scientist? Why do you your claims have more weight than theirs? How do you verify theirs? How do you verify other forms of science without personally being an expert as you seem to be implying here

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51465360]Why are you an expert on who's an expert? Are you a trained climate scientist? Why do you your claims have more weight than theirs? How do you verify theirs? How do you verify other forms of science without personally being an expert as you seem to be implying here[/QUOTE] It doesn't take a genius to look at all the failed predictions. How many times do they need to be wrong for us to say, "wait a minute, why are they continuously wrong?" You are trying to discount my argument by saying that I'm not qualified. Well, since they're repeatedly wrong, who is qualified?

[QUOTE=1239the;51465338]The only solution at this point is basically to artificially block sunlight, likely by pumping reflective aerosols into the atmosphere of Earth. Which will fuck so much shit up, but not as bad as climate change eventually will.[/QUOTE] That kind of sounds like a terrible idea. If you're going to resort to drastic geoengineering, you might as well do it in a manner that makes the ocean absorb more CO2. This isn't the Animatrix.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465374]It doesn't take a genius to look at all the failed predictions. How many times do they need to be wrong for us to say, "wait a minute, why are they continuously wrong?" You are trying to discount my argument by saying that I'm not qualified. Well, since they're repeatedly wrong, who is qualified?[/QUOTE] So, you[QUOTE] have to discount [B]any[/B] climate change scientist as speaking out of his ass.[/QUOTE] because [B]SOME[/B] made bad predictions? Do you know how ignorant that is

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465355]The climate changes naturally. And sometimes its not for the good of humanity. The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl]Dust Bowl[/url] is a good example of this. Unfortunately, I have to discount any climate change scientist as speaking out of his ass. Its really something I see on the same level as social science. They are allowed to get away with a lot of assumptions that the other sciences wouldn't be able to get away with. And again, the media doesn't help at all with this. Also, speaking of pros and cons, what a lot of these people want is for there to be overnight changes in massive industries. Which is just not going to occur. We cannot retrofit the entire coal power plant system with any more pollution control devices means than we could just replace them. These things take decades to change. As we would have to first build new power plants to replace the old ones. [editline]2nd December 2016[/editline] Look to the sources in the articles. Good luck seeing, for example, The Guardian admitting they were wrong about previous climate change articles. There is no unbiased news sources. That is why you have to see if they have sources. And why is the immediate assumption that if I disagree with this I must be a troll? Is that how you treat everyone you disagree with, "they're a troll"?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://xkcd.com/1732/"]https://xkcd.com/1732/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465374]It doesn't take a genius to look at all the failed predictions. How many times do they need to be wrong for us to say, "wait a minute, why are they continuously wrong?" You are trying to discount my argument by saying that I'm not qualified. Well, since they're repeatedly wrong, who is qualified?[/QUOTE] I personally don't give a fuck about the predicitons. I give a fuck about the fact that it's visible now. We can see the melting ice sheets. We can see the Sea ice extent getting smaller and smaller. We can see the coral bleaching getting more intense, the oceans warming more and more... [U]Anthropogenic[/U] climate change is a god damn, [B][U][I]motherfucking[/I][/U][/B] fact.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465355]The climate changes naturally. And sometimes its not for the good of humanity. The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl"]Dust Bowl[/URL] is a good example of this. Unfortunately, I have to discount any climate change scientist as speaking out of his ass. Its really something I see on the same level as social science. They are allowed to get away with a lot of assumptions that the other sciences wouldn't be able to get away with. And again, the media doesn't help at all with this. Also, speaking of pros and cons, what a lot of these people want is for there to be overnight changes in massive industries. Which is just not going to occur. We cannot retrofit the entire coal power plant system with any more pollution control devices means than we could just replace them. These things take decades to change. As we would have to first build new power plants to replace the old ones. [editline]2nd December 2016[/editline] Look to the sources in the articles. Good luck seeing, for example, The Guardian admitting they were wrong about previous climate change articles. There is no unbiased news sources. That is why you have to see if they have sources.[/QUOTE] Apart from both Climate and Social Sciences are [I]sciences[/I]. If you see one person blabbing on about something, you're fine to pass it off as something to be personally wary of, but to become consensus in these areas, it's already stood up to careful inspection and criticism of the academic body as a whole. If you pass something off that's the scientific consensus - which climate change is these days - as talking out their ass you ignore the entire point of the sciences.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51465378]So, you because [B]SOME[/B] made bad predictions? Do you know how ignorant that is[/QUOTE] Because the overwhelming majority did. Not "some." Anyways, its obvious that once again I'm just going to get flamed for having a differing view on this.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465408]Because the overwhelming majority did. Not "some." Anyways, its obvious that once again I'm just going to get flamed for having a differing view on this.[/QUOTE] You're not getting flamed for christs sakes, I can stand having my opinions criticized, why can't you? The overwhelming majority did not make predictions. They made up a consensus. Predictions by certain scientists were pushed by the media, long before the media understood the science at work. And guess what? We made bad predictions in the past, does that mean all of our future predictions are flat out bullshit? No, it doesn't. It means we have to double check. And we have. We're not predicting [B]ANYTHING[/B] We're witnessing it.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;51464964]You're in Canada, even at the height of the disastrous effects of climate change, you and your family will be fine. It's the people living in undeveloped countries, near the equator, or on the coast that are in danger. God help those that are living under all three conditions.[/QUOTE] dude i live on a fucking island you are putting these words into a very calm as fuck measure

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465408]Because the overwhelming majority did. Not "some." Anyways, its obvious that once again I'm just going to get flamed for having a differing view on this.[/QUOTE] What flaming?

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465408]Because the overwhelming majority did. Not "some."[/QUOTE] I would like to see where you get this.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51465420]What flaming?[/QUOTE] Because I described a point of view as ignorant, he thinks he's been called ignorant. The difference is I haven't actually called him ignorant, I stated a fact that an opinion generated from that criteria would be an ignorant opinion [editline]2nd December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;51465433]I would like to see where you get this.[/QUOTE] Probably from that one cover of Time Magazine "Global Cooling" or whatever Once again, the sensationalist media is to blame

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51465009]Google says if all the ice melts the sea will rise 70 meters. I will have waterfront property at like 15 meters. after that I am fucked.[/QUOTE] I live 5 feet above sea level and half a mile from the beach :ohno:

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51465442]I live 5 feet above sea level and half a mile from the beach :ohno:[/QUOTE] The ocean is a 1 minute walk from my apartment. :yarr:

A bit sad to think that possibly within my lifetime my college I'm attending (which is in a coastal city well below sea level, and in a spot that's very hard to shore up) will be underwater.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465355]The climate changes naturally. And sometimes its not for the good of humanity. The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl]Dust Bowl[/url] is a good example of this. [/QUOTE] This is amusing because your example was actually partly caused by humans. [quote]Farmers were unable to earn back their production costs and expanded their fields in an effort to turn a profit -- they covered the prairie with wheat in place of the natural drought-resistant grasses and left any unused fields bare. But plow-based farming in this re•gion cultivated an unexpected yield: the loss of fertile topsoil that literally blew away in the winds, leaving the land vulnerable to drought and inhospitable for growing crops. In a brutal twist of fate, the rains stopped. By 1932, 14 dust storms, known as black blizzards were reported, and in just one year, the number increased to nearly 40.[/quote] [quote]It took millions of tons of dirt and debris blowing from the Plains all the way into Washington D.C., known as "Black Sunday," to move Congress to pass the Soil Conservation Act and establish the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) under the Department of Agriculture. The SCS (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service) promoted healthy soil management and farming practices, and paid farmers to put such practices to work on their farms. The legacy of the Service's practices such as irrigation, crop diversity and no-till farming continue in the Plains today.[/quote] [url]http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/dust-bowl-cause.htm[/url] So if you want an example of humanity shaping climate on a large scale with tangible effects, your example is a great case study.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51465442]I live 5 feet above sea level and half a mile from the beach :ohno:[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=OvB;51465446]The ocean is a 1 minute walk from my apartment. :yarr:[/QUOTE] I currently live in a flood-prone valley so if precipitation rises, or if mountain snow melts due to increased temperatures, [URL="http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/water_flood_fraser.html"]I will possibly die and lose a lot of money. [/URL] On my level.

-snip-

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51465458]I currently live in a flood-prone valley so if precipitation rises due to increased temperatures I will die. On my level.[/QUOTE] The aforementioned city which needed to be raised 15 feet because it was already wiped out by the sea at least once before 100 years ago. Been on your level. Raised it up 15 feet. Though our 17 foot seawall barely helps against the hurricane storm surge these days. [img]http://i.imgur.com/PxdDIcp.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=OvB;51465466]The aforementioned city which needed to be raised 15 feet because it was already wiped out by the sea at least once before 100 years ago. Been on your level. Raised it up 15 feet.[/QUOTE] Edited my post. The location has been on that level twice.

i fucking hate these motherfucking climate change deniers seriously, within my lifetime, my entire fucking homecountry will likely be underwater because of these fuckers

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465465]Basically, getting too heated. I know I have the unpopular view on the subject. But I am also concerned about being banned as a "gimmick" or for some other reason. Plus it is me verses everyone else here. So I'll leave this topic alone.[/QUOTE] How was my post flaming you in anyway what so ever? Yes, you have an unpopular view. How will you ever change things if you just run from a "heated" discussion? I'm serious, yeah this is the internet and nothing matters but we're all people behind our keyboards who influence the worlds and peoples around us. Do you want your view to be taken seriously? Then take it seriously yourself and learn how to discuss it

[QUOTE=Kigen;51465465]Basically, getting too heated. I know I have the unpopular view on the subject. But I am also concerned about being banned as a "gimmick" or for some other reason. Plus it is me verses everyone else here. So I'll leave this topic alone.[/QUOTE] It's not that you have an "unpopular view" on the subject, it's that you're verifiably, objectively wrong on the subject and we're calling you out on your ignorance. It's not a matter of subjectivity.