This is the correct answer. You have to look at the graph of the derivative to see what is going on.

In geological times the earth has been much warmer, oxygen levels have varied considerably, etc. The worry now is simply that gross changes are ocurring on human time scales, not geological time scales. The values aren't outside geological standards, but the rate of change might be (although we don't have good data local at the 100 year scale from 10 million years ago ...)

He already knows the science. He doesn't care. He said as much in OP.

Right, and life is remarkably adaptable to changes on a geological time scale. Not so much to changes that exponentially faster.

And the extinction rate right now is phenomenal. Losing species at 1000 to 10000 the background rate.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...nction_crisis/

Is grunching allowed under the new rules of conduct?

This is a pointless topic to be discussed on this particular forum. You'll go back and forth endlessly, often arguing completely different points in a single exchange, and there are limitless graphs and charts and citations from both sides that cherrypick details out of a larger argument to debunk.


With few exceptions, this isn't even a disagreement between the traditional sides of the global warming argument. Al Gore may think that there was some perfect temperature at some point, but that point is unsurprisingly when he was in his youth and life hadn't shat all over him yet. He's nostalgic. Ignore his silly arguments.

I went down this rabbit hole once. It ends with people thinking that by you pointing out that at one point our atmosphere was different enough that a 75 ton land animal somehow managed to breathe out of airways the size of a modern horse, that you believe dinosaurs never existed. Learn from the mistakes of others.

At best, you'll get a concession that you're right, but humans are incompatible with whatever new temperature is going to become the norm. Now you have to go down that new rabbit hole of ultimately unprovable arguments.


The red part means anything after that is going to be largely ignored. There are countless men who think they are women. There are posters on this very forum who think you can simply shove the United States in a Sweden-shaped box and suddenly all of our societal problems will be solved. What people think doesn't always mesh with reality. So you can think all day long, but you are framing it as fact which isn't going to fly.

Still, this is one of those points that you're going to have a hard time arguing, because "the models" show otherwise and people will be able to bombard you with endless charts and articles that go against your belief. You don't get to simply say those are all untrue, you have to attack the source, or explain why the methodology is bad. The first is often legit, but lazy, and the second is so far beyond the scope of this forum.

Second, modern technology has a huge impact on how deadly certain weather events can be. You can't really use the past as your metric. Too many other variables have changed.

Though, it's certainly true that we haven't seen all the fire and brimstone we were promised 20 years ago.


Here is where you get into the real argument being made by most anti-alarmists on Global Warming. The costs outweigh the benefits. There's a comic floating around with a list of all the supposed pros to GW "fixes" where the punchline is, "What if we do all of this and make the world better for nothing?" and that's probably what you'll get back on this point.

Those people will ignore the fact that most of those proposals will wreak havoc on the US economy but probably not even make a dent in the overall problem they were designed to solve.

Yes, Al Gore is a massive hypocrite. As are most of the well known GW alarmists. Pointing that out isn't really an argument that will work here because everyone on 2p2 is a model citizen and grows their own food and doesn't own a car.

The goalposts have been moving on this topic for 75 years. You know what changes can be made in your personal life to have an impact. Do whatever you feel is worth the sacrifice. The planet will be fine. There's plenty of room in the Midwest for all those people currently sitting on beachfront property if it comes to that.

Inso, ladies and gentlemen.

Are you ok with this if they come from Bangladesh?

Well, Inso0 has weighed in, lol

I have no interest in changing your mind. If you want remain ignorant, that's your problem, not mine.

How about we just listen to the experts and do what they recommend.

This question may be more pertinent if I lived in China. Are you thinking all of Asia will somehow go under water and move to the US bread basket?

I personally believe that technology will stay well ahead of any actual fear of mass migrations resulting from sea level rises.

What if China doesn't let them in? You think it's ok to have some global warming and sea level rise because there's room in your mid-west for the people who are displaced. Well, the displaced people will largely come from places like Bangladesh, not Huntington Beach. Why the **** would someone from Huntington Beach move to Wisconsin?

China is the primary contributor though, so I don't think it's fair to assume that we'd have to take up their slack during the impending climate refugee crisis. You break it, you buy it.

Sorry to distract you. That comment was tongue-in-cheek to begin with. I think renewables and other tech will outpace whatever damage we're able to do on sea levels.

China's the primary contributor because of how many factories we moved over there in support of our voracious appetite for more stuff.

Agree with Inso, technology has this **** on lockdown. Feels like the climate crisis will most likely be solved by somebody from Shark Tank. What this environment needs is Tidepods for carbon capture.

*utility patent pending fyi

If you read my post up thread I am bullish on renewables, but the ship has sailed on a fair amount of warming, sea-level rise and species extinction.

Americans are huge consumers of energy, much higher than Chinese per capita. You should do your part and host some displaced Bangladeshis or at least not vote for ethno-nationalists just because you see some in your neighborhood.

I'm bullish on humanity as a whole. Thisisfinefiredog.jpg

Our eldest moved out so sign me up for a refugee or two. We have an extra room.

But the market for this is people who haven't been born yet, and for that reason I'm out.

We're a very adaptable species that won't be ****ed over too much from rising temperatures or sea levels but there's a massive insect extinction event currently happening that's going to wreck food chains. There's also the problem of ocean acidification that's harming corals and other aquatic species with shells so it's not just land animals being impacted.

That's comforting. Could you please share what technical or engineering qualifications you hold to make such a "belief" credible?

If the answer is "none", I'm gonna stick with "personally believing" people who have actually studied this stuff.

This is a very good explanation of the problem.

I love how people are like “technology will solve this” but when the STEM bros tell us that we drastically need reduce CO2 emissions they’re like “nah, I don’t trust all that science stuff.”

Kind of related to the thread: Scientists think "Little Ice Age" in 1500s-1600s may have been caused by colonial genocide

Cliffs: tons of natives in the Americas wiped out by disease, nature reclaims 200k square miles they had previously used for farmland, newly grown plants suck a bunch of CO2 out of the atmosphere

"So to save the planet, we need to kill a bunch of brown people?"

- Stephen Miller's response to hearing that story