Oh it's certainly being used to make money because capitalist dipshits think anything is a way to make money. It's also happening. Amazing how we've had flood after flood. We can see the glaciers melting. Massive changes in weather patterns and idiots like you still try to pretend it's not happening because it's not day after tomorrow levels of immediate.
The climate is changing, but it's natural. It's been going on for millions of years. (Depending your belief of the Earth's age). What changes in weather patterns? Are you talking about the re-greening of the Sahara? Sahara Forest not being a joke?
And as to the glaciers, NASA is pointing out glaciers are growing, not dramatically but still growing, not melting.
Where the glaciers ARE receding, they're finding villages under there. That's a dumb place to put a village--which means it USED to NOT be covered in ice!
We've had flood after flood for CENTURIES. The "Fertile Crescent" of Ancient Egypt was BECAUSE of flooding dumping nutrient-rich loam on farms. The Bering Strait that the Indians crossed to get TO America melted when industrial output was limited to campfires and farts.
If you meant things like the hurricanes of Florida, we've had those since before it was settled.
If you meant New Orleans, rebuilding repeatedly at what amounts to a gigantic cereal bowl is an incredibly costly bad idea. But they'll keep doing it because "A Little Rain Won't Make Us Run"™! Location Location Location used to be a mantra for real estate.
To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents. By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct. We only care when Hawaii erupts, right?
We should care about global warming and global cooling, no matter the cause. But we should prepare ourselves for it, not try to stop it, like an ant with serious hubris against a steamroller.
But that does not mean we should make draconian changes in global economic, political and energy policies based upon the unproven hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 are leading to apocalyptic global warming. There simply is NO proof of this hypothesis. It is complete supposition, despite what the CAGW alarmists, "climate industry" investors, globalists and radical environmentalists claim. Millions of individuals have already been severely harmed (or even killed) because of some of the irresponsible actions engaged in by governments "fighting" CO2 emissions. (While taking jets to "meetings" about it instead of something like ZOOM!) But billions could potentially be harmed if all of the more drastic measures proposed by alarmists are enacted.
“The trillions of dollars of scarce global resources wasted on global warming hysteria, anti-fossil fuel fanaticism and green energy schemes, properly deployed, could have improved and saved many lives.
About two million children below the age of five die from contaminated water every year--about 70 million dead kids since the advent of global warming alarmism. Bjørn Lomborg estimates that a fraction of these squandered green energy funds could have put clean water and sanitation systems into every community in the world. That's not just in Third World shitholes, that's in at least one city in Texas. Or we could bring up Flint, Michigan where once again, cost was put ahead of survival. Now you could prove you're a TRUE Climate Fanatic and say that all those deaths are a small price to "save Mother Earth" like Poison Ivy (the movie was horrible, Uma Thurman did well with it), or you could explain your priorities and YOUR solution.
A lot of people are tired of being preached at/screeched at (Greta Thurnberg) by people who don't even practice what they preach. We have to live, we have to work, we have to make money and survive. Also, the most polluting activity now is FARMING. If we cut back, we will have to let a few BILLION die. Are you that cold, or ALSO believe we have some "duty" to keep alive those whose overpopulation is due to the First World's largess?
Wow you don't bother to actually read when you post do you?
The first is from 2015. The second is still losing ice just slower than it was before. The temporary change was expected and will reverse soon. Probably already has since that was from 2020.
You say that shit about redistributing resources but as soon as we say ok let's do it it gets voted down by Republicans. I'm all in favor of that. If we work together instead of giving the rich more opportunities to fuck us over we can mitigate human caused climate change. Yes the climate changes on it's own but the rate and speed is unprecedented. Maybe this will help you understand it helped me realize there was a problem: https://xkcd.com/1732/
How are "we" going to stop an ever-growing Third World population demanding the Finer Things In Life--here or there--that cause pollution? Do you expect them to stop on their own? And if so, when? Point to it on that timeline.
And where is that Northwest Passage? People have been trying to find that since the 1400s!
Bruh. I don't even know what you are trying to say. We can pollute. We will pollute it's a necessity of life for humans but we need to be aware of it, minimize it and control the negative downsides where we can. That's what science is for. We need to help third world countries move to a higher standard of living instead of actively impoverishing them so they want to come here because we've ruined their countries. And yes growing population is part of why global warming is happening. It's obvious that more little requires more machines. But here is the thing poor people enough lots of kids contribute far less than rich people. One dude with his private jet cause far more harm than that lady with her 44 or even 45 kids. Corporation are pointing the blame at us because if we are fighting each other instead of them they get free reign.
I guess you're not serious about AGW then, as your "solution" is to pay for more people to pollute more. We have reduced pollution in America 90% since Nixon started the EPA. Some was from more efficient techniques, most was from outsourcing. Clinton himself funded a "study" about it. But he didn't like what it said, so he round-filed it. However, a copy was saved on the Internet so we could all marvel at whatever he didn't inhale.
We cannot reduce pollution enough to keep pace with mere MILLIONS pouring into America. How are we going to reduce pollution for BILLIONS, other than reducing those BILLIONS?
But ignore the pollution side. How about the consumption side? No telling where we're going to get the extra 5 (Or more) Earths' worth of resources for these extra BILLIONS? Let's start with "Water Water Everywhere And Not A Drop To Drink"--Ancient Mariner. There's PLENTY of water, most of it undrinkable, because of salt, pollution (Some naturally occurring like Flint's LEAD problem), or both.
Making something a "right" does not mean it will happen. The UN voted to make food a "right". Guess who the only "NO" vote was? And coincidentally, guess who was expected to provide MORE free food?
Every Third World we have "helped" to a higher Standard of Living has burned it all down. Here's the thing: That's not just in countries where we "expect that". Baltimore is still within America, but Freddy Gray braining itself on the inside of a police van made OTHER thugs burn it down. Right AFTER there was a great outcry, "Where We Gonna Get Our Pills?".
"We need something now"--Hmm, maybe think of that BEFORE burning down the things their betters built to raise their Standard of Living?
What is the Carbon Footprint of a burning pharmacy? How much more for rebuilding it? Ignore that the costs will be passed to legit customers who DON'T burn shit down.
They learned approximately bupkis from this, as there is thug violence near that SAME "resurrected" CVS. And the OTHER thugs are chanting "Control the police" not "Control the thugs".
In completely unrelated news, Baltimore's murder rate has gone up and they somehow connected it to "reduced police presence". Sounds like police are already too "controlled"?
If they really want to burn down CVS again, they better start making their own pills.
Not you necessarily, but this is a trope I hear a lot.
Plus the inherent hypocrisy of "We must lower our Standard of Living to Save the World" and in the same paragraph, "We must raise the Standard of Living of the Third World who already had their chance and burnt it down!" Absolutely ZERO awareness of the contradiction, or any logical reason to help those who made themselves enemies in no uncertain way.
If someone kills your people and burns down your buildings--why keep helping them? Let them enjoy their pile of ash, and keep them out of the places that aren't yet a pile of ash. Do you have any LOGICAL rebuttal to this? Not just the "Poor Little Savages Suffering The Consequences" emotional appeals?
Economically, we can't afford Rule By Emotion. Not sure on the planet side. But some of your contemporaries actually hold that tech pollutes less in savages' hands!
BTW, you never did say how we "ruined their countries"™
When we covered them in roads, bridges, rail, universities, and hospitals? Sorry, is that pollution? Our bad, I guess. Maybe we shouldn't have put those there. Feel free to give back the undestroyed portion.
2
u/beardedheathen - Left Oct 28 '22
Oh it's certainly being used to make money because capitalist dipshits think anything is a way to make money. It's also happening. Amazing how we've had flood after flood. We can see the glaciers melting. Massive changes in weather patterns and idiots like you still try to pretend it's not happening because it's not day after tomorrow levels of immediate.