you assume this because this is what the propaganda machine has been spitting out for a long time. Which is absolutely not what science is predicting.

So you have a very similar level of science denial on the extrems. Climate negationists (powerful only in the usa more or less) of course go against all science which says that the world is getting hotter, and that climate is also changing some.

On the other side you have people that take that, and then take only the negatives of the worst model into account, exaggerate them some more, and leave out all the positives.

One example of the possibly biggest positive for Europe? Less heating needed in the winter means less dependance to Russian has. Which is like among the very best things that could happen to Europe. Less imports, and less geopolitical risk with vital imports from an evil country.

Regarding farm land Canada alone could provide millions of acres of more farmland to the world. And remember that land productivity there is insanely higher than in poor countries because of better techniques, more mechanization and so on.

It is actually possible that weighted by productivity climate change will actually increase arable land availability.

Point is that maybe the balance is negative. But no1 is freaking talking about this, while this should be the only conversation going on.

The radical environmental left, thanks to the ******ed position of the alt right, has managed to convince many people that agreeing on the fact that climate change is happening and will happen automatically means agreeing that it will be catastrophic for the world on net and so anything should be on the table to avoid it.

This is actually potentially worse than doing nothing. Because the totalitarian apparatus states have to implement to re-engineer the economy to go fast to 0 emission ('the wet dream scenario of the radical left's) is so disruptive to the economic as to be potentially worse than a 4-5 Celsius increase in temperatures in 1 century

Trade ceteris paribus in a warming world increases a lot in the northern hemisphere. The reason is very simple: the artic is opening up and that reduces the cost of transport in a massive way for that area of the world.

Also northern Europe becomes far better for tourism with a better climate. Image Paris with the weather of like Rome. Btw that would be the "worst case scenario".

Generally speaking in most places in Europe you have cities with an average weather of 3-4-5 more than the city you live in. In most cases that weather is more pleasant. Better for human life.

Yes some parts of Italy and Spain could deteriorate, in the sense of being less optimal for human life. But nothing even close to a catastrophe. And here we are talking the 4+ Celsius heating, which is like a 100y bad scenario already, not the median, and not in an adult person lifetime anyway.

And btw there is a systemic failure (on the pessimist side) to predict how technology can fix problems when needed that has to solved sooner or later. The Netherlands managed to solve a 1-3 meters under sea level problem with 1960s technology.

What will we be able to solve, at a fraction of current costs, with 2060s technology? Why bother now unless it's absolutely clear we are doomed if we don't act?

That's why the left has to lie. Because without massive lies logical, rational people in Europe wouldn't care much about climate change.

lol Luciom, Italy's current migration crisis is going to look like child's play if climate change really gets out of control. Also, have fun when the malaria belt moves up to Italy.

Africans lived a way worse life 40y ago but less of them took the Mediterranean route. That's all you need to know that the crisis is manufactured and solvable, independently from the life conditions in African countries.

Lol what a monster. Happily poison your neighbour's well because then you can sell them your own water for a premium.

Lol is this real life? 40y ago they also didnt know what nice life you can have in western countries. You can even live without having to work in some countries.

Maybe also read here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect...ming_on_oceans
before you make your assumptions how nice the living will be in the future.

We might need less heating in the future but we will need more energy to make it manageable conditions in the summer. If summers like this one become the normal I might need to take a break from work between June and August.

this is true, but you are forgetting a crucial element.

The energy for heating in the winter comes mainly from Russian natural gas. Reducing that need is a strategical gain which has several positive externalities attached to it.

The energy to make life more amenable in the summer can come from solar panels. It already does to the point that some days these lasts summers energy costs went negative in some European countries. (Also in the winter for wind but that's another matter).

Also the number of mild days (18-30 Celsius, low humidity) is expected to INCREASE in Europe.



how often do you see this cited in the climate debate? What would you think of people that denied these results of science?

So it has nothing to do with economic conditions per se, all to do with perception of relative improvement.

Which i agree with.

Which means that no matter climate change, chad, mali and other countries residents will want to move in mass (or won't). BEcause in no scenario their pro capita gdp will reach europe's, no matter what we do with climate change.

Which means that people coming up with the refugee-scare about climate change are lying to our faces, to fearmonger.

It's very possible that in the future we will have a flood of people coming from africa to europe, but that doesn't depend at all on climate change.

Unless you think that reaching 4300 usd per capita instead of 2700 for chad in a few decades would make a huge difference with regards to moving to europe where gdp per capita will be 50k or higher.

So you agree that climate change is not damaging for europe, and people who say so are lying denying science in the same way climate "skeptics" are lying when they negate climate change?

Indeed. Bottom line for Africa:

But hey, none of us will be alive then, so let's just let those mother****ers deal with it with their super 2060's technology. Roll coal and drill, baby, drill!

It's 20deg C in your house and someone sets fire to it. When it gets to 25degC you just lean back and say "nothing wrong, this is very comfortable."

"Conservatives" is such a misnomer. They don't care at all about rising temps as long as it's not too bad during their lifetime.

But that's not really it. They are so opposed to collective action for the good that they deny it's even theoretically possible and cheer on air pollution, water pollution, wars for fossil fuels, luddite-ish resistance to renewable technology, job killing anti-renewable policies along with the notion that it's fine to do nothing and keep increasing CO2 levels and temperatures forever.

You should cite your sources when you post graphs like that so people can go read the original data and see how you're lying.

https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/c...f-mild-weather

So more warm days in the winter in mountainous areas isn't good for accumulating snowpack which is where lots of communities get their water from.

If your country runs on food, wine, and tourism you definitely shouldn't worry about people dicking with the climate.

No I do not but it is worth noting the abdication of basic morals in your conclusion even if we assume the premise. It speaks to your character, sadly.

Global warming as a catastrophic end of all times scenario is nothing but a myth. While there is a modest connection between increased levels of Co2 and global temperatures, the doomsday scenarios which scientists stated as a matter of certainty have failed to manifest themselves. The best long-term solution to this solution is increased technological development, something which occurs at a maximal rate under laissez-faire. Massively increasing taxes and spending is the exact wrong approach.

the world still exists. chessmate.

Counterpoint: laissez-faire is terrible for externalities that require collective action, especially over things where it's hard to capture value . No one's going to pay you to keep the earth's climate temperature the same. If no one's going to pay you then innovation or whatever magical incantation you want to invoke aren't as likely to work

Abdication of basic morals about what? everything that makes life worth living has been developed by western countries in the last few centuries so all of humanity finds meaning only thanks to us. We owe nothing, zero, nada to human beings. We have been the best thing that ever happened to humanity already.

Life was brutish and short before us. Disgusting, unbearable, full of suffering.

it is a deadly, horrendous myth being propagated by the radical totalitarian left. It's only the last chapter of their book "how to rule humanity". They are looking everywhere to find an excuse to rape freedom and individuality in order to commit society to their cause.

It's a war and i wil not let them win easily.

True but we don't have an orderly world-wide society. So it's immoral and without meaning to ask some societies to commit and sacrifice "for the greater good" until others can do as they please.

Europeans are already being violently savaged in their wallet at the pump (higher gasoline prices in the world) and when they pay for energy.

It's somebody else turn for a long while.

Until everybody in the world pays 6$+ per gallon of gasoline europe shouldn't spend even an eurocent for the climate.

And of course it's a map type that makes the rich northern countries look bigger and the poor southern countries look smaller. That area in southern Africa is probably bigger than Europe, and it's entirely red.

From another page talking about this map:

I posted real data from science. Science is clear: climate change overall, worldwide , is a net negative.

But it is not so for europe.

Actually, I think it comes down to simple economic incentives. The government wants more taxes and regulations, so if a scientist comes to the conclusion that in order to solve a problem you need more taxes and regulations, then they get funding. If a scientist comes to a different conclusion they are not a scientist and get no funding.

Bring it.



lol @ radical totalitarian left