Climate Change Claims

What's up with credible bodies and officials claiming that climate change is going cause major trouble and yet they have repeatedly been demonstrated to have been putting out falsehoods? Is there any evidence that climate change will cause trouble in 2030/2050/whatever and that this time it will be different?

Attached: AP-story-1989-doom_n.jpg (960x514, 36.9K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Climate change is already causing major trouble, or have you missed the record number and strength of hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, and heatwaves?

I'm not saying climate change isn't happening, but rather asking what's going on with all these false predictions. If 2000 was a flop, why not 2030/2050/2100? How credible are these estimates?

Do the details matter? We’re already seeing catastrophic biodiversity loss, to the point where we’re essentially in the middle of a mass extinction. Regardless of the specifics of the timeframe, climate change WILL fuck out shit up if we don’t act now. Even if scientists are wrong again and we have another 200 years, that doesn’t change the need to get off of carbon. Frankly I don’t see the point in taking that chance, especially when the only thing our current energy system is doing is making oil porkies rich.

Capitalism as per usual.

If your a scientist that comes up with evidence that contradicts the mainstream theories on global warming, you will find your funding diminished and your career stagnant.
Where as if you are able to somehow shoehorn in the mainstream climate theory to your research you will recieve extra funds and attention.

As soon as capitalism is involved, the usual healthy skepticism that goes along with science has been eliminated.

So capitalism is making scientists give out more pressing outlooks for climate change, which will cause limitations on capitalism? It would make more sense if capitalists were instead denying climate change or downplaying it – not saying there is an imminent threat.

Its not limiting capitalism. Quite the opposite. Businesses can just produce goods in other countries where they dont have extra climate charges. Yet consumers still have to pay extra climate for all their products and services.
In that sense climate theory is kinda like religion. Mix it with capitalism and you're able to guilt people in to paying more for the same thing. Which is the holy grail for any capitalist.

Climate change will be a problem, however people act like it will be Armageddon, which it won’t.

The people pushing environmentalism don't actually care about the environment, which is falling apart in a major way. To the people who write these articles and fearmonger, the environmental problem to them is that large numbers of poor people exist and take up their oxygen, or something.

What limits? Capitalism doesn't care is large numbers of people die, beyond the need to reproduce itself. If those people are excess and not exploitable for profit, or those people refuse to work at the immiserated conditions and would rather die than enter neo-serfdom, programs of austerity for the poor are exactly what a capitalist would want. The super rich can live with "sustainability" and regulations that they themselves get to write, which also serve as a way to secure their monopolies.

Our world goes through cycles of climate change regardless of human actions. It's been talked about for close to one hundred years. It didn't become a thing until governments and businesses learned to use climate change along with scare tactics to monetize it.

Why are people still posting that garbage image with that garbage take.
Science is not a shitty AP news article and idiotic quotation by some retarded bourgeois politician.
The things that matter are the 2000+ scientific articles, climate models based upon empirical observation, direct data and measurements (even though we're getting less and less of those because of neoliberal budget cuts on research that prevent scientific expedition of being made in the poles for example). Scientists are actually being suppressed and even shunned when they bring data that is too pessimistic, see Natalia Shakhova's latest paper for example on methane release in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.
We have known the Greenhouse effect since the fucking 1824 thanks to Joseph Fourier and the advent of thermodynamics which is one of the cornerstone of modern physics..

Attached: HALP.png (88x107, 7.64K)

Yeah it's those greedy scientists that are the problem, and not the fucking oil companies funding the propaganda you've bought into.

Attached: 22ca93aa6af3c9ffc4bbf4de87bd99314ef342cf9f6131fd529072cace1fb1e0.png (354x375, 141.97K)

It's already causing a mass extinction event. What has to happen before you are convinced that it poses an existential threat to human civilization?

Scientists aren't greedy, just powerless. They can be easily bullied into using their research to promote whatever agenda the powers that be want them to.
Example: circumcision research being suppressed because jews.

I think you misunderstood me. Im not saying its greedy to want increased funding for the reasearch you have dedicated your life to. Im blaming the modern system of capitalist science that rewards people financially when they arrive at predetermined conclusions. Which to me is totally unscientific.

I dont blame the scientists themselves.
Like how with mass migration you dont blame the migrants themselves for coming here and undercutting the indigenous proletariat. Its the system that facilitates it which is wrong.

Attached: anigif_enhanced-6963-1414163540-8.gif (625x350, 1.24M)

Your concern is noted.
>>>Zig Forums

it's possible to have both news media sensationalism (the world is not going to end in 12 years) and climate change (the world is going to get worse over the next 12 years)

Earth being uninhabitable, anything less then tat allows for technological civilization.

Humanity will not go extinct unfortunately, but resources will become more scarce so that the poorest will be cut off.

Are you retarted

Attached: Brainlit2.jpg (645x729, 39.97K)

1. They're not credible sources of science, as in your AP pic. Papers will give best/worst case scenarios and news orgs always go with the juiciest, most apocalyptic scenario every time. if you want to learn about climate change do it from actual scientists and not journalists.
2. There have been plenty of affects of climate change, it's just a lot of people don't give a shit. Insect and bird numbers have fucking plummeted in the past few decades, but it's so slow that people don't even notice. We're experiencing hotter years every year which is leading to more wild fires and crop failures, and the Bourgs are doing everything to cover it up. Ever notice how in the past few years chocolate companies are pushing candy that doesn't have chocolate in it (Hershey's Gold bar, M&M caramels, etc.)? That's because there's a huge cocoa shortage that they're trying to slowly adjust consumers to accept. It seems like the skeptics and the general population won't accept that climate change has caused any disasters unless it's a volcano-in-my-backyard-tier disaster.

Attached: banana.png (500x500, 250.43K)

Shut up fascist. Exctincction would eliminate all suffering and if you are a pro-natalist you just won the lottery of birth and thus became a reactionary.

But the journalists reported straight from the United Nations… are you saying they are sensationalists?

Climate cucks are cultists and doomsday preppers. Its the same mindset the world will end therefore my butthurt and lack of doing anything of value is justified. Its unfulsifiable because it might happen at some unspecified date in the future if it doesnt happen or if evidence of it happening recede then the happening has simply been postponed for a later date and is definitely still gonna happen.

If it happens as climate cucks say then it's a good thing humanity and the system will collapse and get cut down to size and the survivors will be able to build a more sustainable civilization combining easy renewable technology like steam with more advanced stuff like solar and nuclear and live more modestly

Not him bigbrain, but maybe, just maybe, a report from 1989 isn't the most up to date conclusion on climate change? It's not like science is something which is completely understood. If that would be the case there wouldn't be no new reports on climate change. The recent reports show a very grim picture that shouldn't be proved incorrect by neglect. There is something that needs to be done and very soon.


mods don't you ban reactionaries I mean wtf

I think we're supposed to be more liberal now because of perestroika.

Agreed, 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸comrade🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸!

Attached: spook.jpg (192x192, 6.48K)

It should be: saged reported called the cops.
I see you complaining here but what I didn't get is a report.

We're gonna tear this board down and build a Pizza Hut from the rubble.

Act how? All the solutions we are being sold involve carbon quotas for the elite to buy and sell and taxing regular working people into starvation.

Buy and sell what, quotas? Just slap a VAT on businessmen for those products and that'll be good on it's own.

Fuck journalists and fuck the UN. If you believe climate change isn't real you're a fucking idiot. That's it.

No one in power has suggested that. It is always carbon quotas for the rich and starvation inducing carbon tax for the plebs.

If you hate living so much why don’t you kill yourself.

must have struck a nerve

Attached: f7835ff6d943bf09250adb9c75d53c33933a2fb3dbc379d340ad1f6831c5f6dd.jpg (454x574, 206.21K)

It’s a simple question, people should put their ideas into action.

Killing natalists is what would help.

But if you kill them, you will increase the net suffering of a portion of humans currently living in the universe! Do you only care about hypothetical beings who haven't been forced into existence yet or what?

How? They were going to die anyways. It will also have an exponential benefit as their nonexistant children won't be able to procreate themselves etc.

didn't know the specific rule it broke, if any. i've seen people from Zig Forums of all places post on here so i didn't know if the op would even be ban-worthy, though imo it should be.

denying climate change is one of the most reactionary, capitalist positions there is.

If you kill all the natalists, none of the anti-natalists will have anything to complain about, so they'll be inflicted with severe depression and prolong their suffering as much as possible until their cells give out from the pain. Perhaps if this suffering were quantifiable it would be much greater than the pain of normie children?
If any killings are a net positive because 'they were going to die anyways', despite any emotional or structural damage that may result from them, then why is having children so bad? They're going to die anyways, too, you know. Might be able to have fun once or twice along the way. Unless you're just a covert Malthusian.


But unlike you, I don’t want to die. I enjoy life.

It's true tho. What is left for anti-natalists to do after fulfilling their duty but blowing their brains out? Fastest and cleanest way to deal with the surplus of suffering that comes from having a consciousness or whatever.
If you don't have children they'll have to die anyway. What do you think having a period means? The primary biological difference between sperm thrown away in a tissue and a hanging man is that the former occurs in an earlier stage of development. There is no 'forcing people into existence' in the process of birth. And i realize this doesn't need clarifying, but technically speaking we don't know of anything that would qualify as nonexistent in our reality, it's a purely linguistic category. You can't not-exist, you can only have existed. Maybe this wouldn't matter with complete extinction of humanity, but still
You don't know that. Or have you come up with an appropiate measure of suffering yet? Would dying be A-OK if we genetically enhance everyone to feel inmense amounts of pleasure once it inevitably happens? A mass suicide cult wouldn't occur since the dead can't speak.
Regardless, this doesn't matter much because trying to get people (even if only failed chads and stacies or whatever) to stop fucking is completely futile. If sperm counts drop to 0 women will start getting impregnated by robococks instead.

Sure, but most of the damage has already been done so it's not like there is a rush.
An eggcell does not have consciuosness and as a cosciuosness can not turn time back and reverse it's inception it is forced upon it by other humans to exist and suffer. 'forcing people into existence' is a more gradual thing and not strictly delineated by birth but this is just nitpicking.
We do thopugh, negative experiences are far more impactful than negative ones are, being tortured is a lot worse than having an orgasm is good. Algorhitms for facebook etc. also optimized for maximium engagementby focusing on negative content.
I don't believe in educating people to act against their selfish drives, I know that they must be all exterminated at once to prevent them growing back like a cancer.

okay mr übermensch, never expected you to be able to see beyond the circle with radius zero that is your horizon



Attached: good life.jpeg (225x225, 4.8K)

t. (future) labour aristocrat

Actually just a regular one 😁

Attached: Screenshot_2019-07-30 GM - $40 43 Robinhood.png (694x669, 34.72K)

Climate change might be a problem for future generations, but that's a good thing. If current trends continue white people have no future, so fuck the planet. I hope the black world we are heading towards is forced to live in an unlivable hellscape.

They look more like cultists to me. They have their original sin and path to redemption, their Armageddon and their tales of eternal stability, but more importantly, they are dismiss all discussion about their thing as heresy. They even have their own inquisition looking for heretics.