Do you think Children are "Freaking Out" to much about Climate Change

[Osmeric]

You realize fossil fuels aren't causing civilization to end? The energy and productivity from it is actually making Earth more hospitable for more people.

Let me explain more, so you can understand just how absurd you are being.

There are many things that would not end civilization, but would still be extremely horrible. For example, snapping my fingers and killing half the people alive would not end civilization. To pretend that use of fossil fuels would have to end civilization before it would be proper to ban them is the height of dishonest idiocy.

Yes, fossil fuels provide benefits. But the cost of replacing them is not THAT large. The price, in fact, is less than the damage that continued use of fossil fuels is likely to cause. Human ingenuity has offered many good ways to substitute low or no CO2 processes for raw fossil fuel consumption.

[PC2]

Let me explain more, so you can understand just how absurd you are being.

There are many things that would not end civilization, but would still be extremely horrible. For example, snapping my fingers and killing half the people alive would not end civilization. To pretend that use of fossil fuels would have to end civilization before it would be proper to ban them is the height of dishonest idiocy.

Yes, fossil fuels provide benefits. But the cost of replacing them is not THAT large. The price, in fact, is less than the damage that continued use of fossil fuels is likely to cause. Human ingenuity has offered many good ways to substitute low or no CO2 processes for raw fossil fuel consumption.

Okay so let Europe get rid of fossil fuel and then we can see how good it works. I don't want to be the guinea pig.

[Endus]

It's obvious to me that as much as you think I'm a conspiracy theorist; you believe everything you hear, and won't question any of it.

I question all of it.

The science holds up to that questioning. Because, y'know, scientific rigor.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but, I don't believe the politicians and their pet scientists that their solutions are going to make a lick of difference.

You just claimed you're not a conspiracy theorist, and then in the same sentence described the conspiracy you're theorizing about.

However, I don't necessarily believe the scientists have a good handle on how much of this is man-made, and how much is natural processes that we humans don't yet understand.

This can only be because you've willfully avoided educating yourself on the subject, and want that willful lack of knowledge to be given equal credence with actual science.

The science is clear on this. It's pretty much entirely man-made, and we know exactly why and how.

If you really believe that the pollution and fossil fuels *will* change it all, why aren't you going to China and lobbying their government, or better, as you believe all of the politicians here, go lobby to the Chinese people? Or India? Or Africa? Making noise here in the West, who are working on the problem isn't going to get it done for you.

I am contributing to international adaptation efforts, thanks. Publishing material, have presented at global conferences, etc.

[Super Kami Dende]

Yes, of course. Look I accept Climate change is a thing, but the absolute amount of hyperbole used when actually discussing it is just over the top and does freak People out far more than it needs to.

People freaking out about shit nearly ALWAYS leads to bad solutions and decisions because the more scared people are the less rationally they think.

Now just look at how many Adults act like absolute fucking lunatics when screeching about Climate Change and project that onto a Child's mind.

[Swnem]

Yes. Westerners love to play god. The black people in Africa are dying! We need to save them! The dolphins are dying! We need to save them! The brown people in Iraq are dying, we need to save them! The rain forest is dying, we need to save it!

Now its the atmosphere.

A few reality checks:

- even if you were able to convince every single politician in the west to simultaneously agree to reducing carbon emissions drastically, they would still be doing shady shit under the table anyway
- even if none of those did shady shit, you still have to content with India, Africa and China, who, combined, put out so much pollutants into the sea and air it would make your head spin. You aren't convincing these people. Many of these people think women are on the same tier as cows. Many of these people think communism is cool. These people are, in large part, deranged. You aren't going to convince someone in China to swap to an electric car, when they're busy worrying about the fact that they're about to be arrested for putting a winnie the pooh meme on the internet.
- the vast majority of people talking about climate change are doing it to virtue signal. Like all forms of social media, people have found out that climate change is the new cool thing. Before that it was veganism, before that it was atheism. Don't change your life to appease people chasing clout.

Jesus... have you studied nothing in your life?

Western people? Has nothing to do with it. People have needs. Have you ever heard of the pyramid of human needs? Well, the top level is self realization. Once you got your more pressing needs fulfilled, you try to achieve self realization. Giving back to the society is one such example. Humanitarian causes are noble.

Who are you, but a bitter person to try and say those aren't good things?

Your argument toward climate change is to give up because theres corrupt politicians, even though that doesn't directly correlate with it. That's it then? Give up and lets just destroy the planet and go extinct in a blaze of glory?

China, India and almost every country in the world signed the reduced emmisions accord. Only the Buffoon Trump took the US out of it cause he prefers contributions from coal companies to there being a planet to live in.
Also, you and other people here stink of Fox news misinformation. Like cow fart stink.

[Has lost its way]

Considering that most people don't seem to be aware that most of the pollution causing climate change is biological it is starting to appear more like a religion then a science. Conservation of resources is a good thing but it feels like climate change is just a way to get stupid people to agree to it.

[Stonecloak]

Yea, and I think they will be highly manipulated in the future.

[Osmeric]

Considering that most people don't seem to be aware that most of the pollution causing climate change is biological

They don't know that because it's a lie. Where do you get this BS?

[AlmightyGerkin]

Accelerating climate change for the world so it will have an easier time wiping us off the planet. Pretty sure the world has had enough of our shit and our constant chances to help the world not destroy it and it has given up and just says "f**k you humans* and is taking it's belongings back.

[Has lost its way]

They don't know that because it's a lie. Where do you get this BS?

... From a understanding of what happens as things live,die,and decompose...

[Endus]

... From a understanding of what happens as things live,die,and decompose...

Then your "understanding" is counterfactual nonsense. It is not remotely true.

Yes, methane emissions from livestock are a contributing factor. Their effect is not negligible. It's also not as serious a contributor as CO2 emissions (about 75% of warming is due to CO2, 25% from methane). It's also not even the largest source of methane emissions; that's the oil and gas industry.

https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-...greenhouse-gas

The idea that warming is due to biological processes is just . . . outrageously incorrect and without any basis in reality.

[GrinningMan]

Government Intervention = Rationing electricity/fuel. If you want to help, turn off computer and A/C and open windows, you are not the exception.

Everyone wants it both ways, you aren't going to get it both ways. You will have to sacrifice, and if you aren't excited about doing it right now, then you aren't going to be happy when it is forced upon you.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Government Intervention = Rationing electricity/fuel. If you want to help, turn off computer and A/C and open windows, you are not the exception.

Everyone wants it both ways, you aren't going to get it both ways. You will have to sacrifice, and if you aren't excited about doing it right now, then you aren't going to be happy when it is forced upon you.

What a fallacy. I would be excited about doing it right now, but not in this zero-sum economy. I will jump for joy when it's forced on me, and billions of others. I will refuse to do it myself though.

[Has lost its way]

Then your "understanding" is counterfactual nonsense. It is not remotely true.

Yes, methane emissions from livestock are a contributing factor. Their effect is not negligible. It's also not as serious a contributor as CO2 emissions (about 75% of warming is due to CO2, 25% from methane). It's also not even the largest source of methane emissions; that's the oil and gas industry.

https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-...greenhouse-gas

The idea that warming is due to biological processes is just . . . outrageously incorrect and without any basis in reality.

Why would you limit that to livestock and not every living thing decomposing?

This is kinda highlighting my point.

[GrinningMan]

What a fallacy. I would be excited about doing it right now, but not in this zero-sum economy. I will jump for joy when it's forced on me, and billions of others. I will refuse to do it myself though.

Inductive reasoning is hard.

1. The Majority of the West is addicted to technology and luxury.
2. Removing luxury and technology will reduce emissions.
3. The Majority of the West will be unhappy at lower luxury and technology.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Inductive reasoning is hard.

1. The Majority of the West is addicted to technology and luxury.
2. Removing luxury and technology will reduce emissions.
3. The Majority of the West will be unhappy at lower luxury and technology.

Apparently reasoning in general is hard. I directly countered and disproved your point and you mentioned unrelated concepts in your response.

[GrinningMan]

Apparently reasoning in general is hard. I directly countered and disproved your point and you mentioned unrelated concepts in your response.

But it's not?

[Jonnusthegreat]

But it's not?

Well, you lack it based on your response to me disproving your point. You also posited that it was hard. Interesting that you are back peddling.

[Ragedaug]

Kids will freak out by whatever they are currently told to freak out over. When I was a kid we were told to freak out about inevitable nuclear holocaust. We were also told to freak out about the impending ice age, as well as the imminent bankruptcy of the United States. Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" was a fun read. Gets you thinking about how there is always at least one thing we are told to freak out about that's about to cause our imminent doom. That 'one thing' will periodically change, but there's always something.

[Swnem]

Why would you limit that to livestock and not every living thing decomposing?

This is kinda highlighting my point.

Will you have the grace to stop embarrassing yourself? Do you think creatures didn't die in the past or something?

The huge differentiating factor is the CO2. That's the obvious green house gas that is released by factories and cars in large quantities, that lingers longer and creates the rising of the the global temperature due to the greenhouse effect, not unlike what happen in Venus' atmosphere nowadays. You are trying to point your finger to something that only has 1/4 of the guilt. It has some guilt but it's not the mastermind is it? Open your eyes.