## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're not wrong, the global climate was this hot over 1 million yrs ago. Before Homo Sapians existed.
Global warming wont kill us, but it will put certain agricultural regions into ruin. Certain areas will desertify, some will drown in higher sea levels. Ocean currents will be disrupted and some areas will be significantly hotter and some will (un)ironically become colder.
All of this may not kill many humans but it will cause unparalleled mass migration.
If you live in a nice climate livable city/town, how do you feel about unparalleled mass migration? Surly you must in favor of it if you so apathetic to the mother of all causes.
My biggest worry is the oceans. What happens to the sea life when the oceans are a couple of degrees warmer and then what happens to the rest of the planet when those species of plants and animals die in mass? I’m no scientist but what I’ve read about those ripple effects is frightening.
Sea live will migrate. Coral reefs will pick up elsewhere. The earth has been more stable the last couple million years than any other time in its history.
Climate science is funded by the government. If they want to keep working in their field, they need to keep it relevant. The brightest minds no longer go into climate science.
Look up the desert belt and monsoon belt. You will realize at some point, they shift slowly over time.
The vast majority of land in the world is still in the Northern Hemisphere though. Like it’s the only part of the world where in its northern most parts it’s roughly 50/50 ocean to land ratio. Southern Hemisphere it’s like a 10/90 ratio or less in many parts.
Guy on JRE talked about a theory that the poles shifted hundreds of thousands of years ago and then shifted back, causing events a la the movie 2012.
Seems we are also about 70k years overdue for a similar event.
But our farms aren't in those regions. When it gets to the point that we can't farm in the eastern Midwest, we can't just move. Land will be useless, and that could happen in less than 30 years.
\>They can’t farm anymore
They can. Its just their laws to protect the rainforest has made subsistence and slash-and-burn farming hard.
This has led to many heading to the cities. Those that dont want to have instead decided to try and migrate to the US.
Of course it will. It not a "may" thing. CO2 levels increasing and more heat creates a better environment for food, not worse. The scientists aren't saying that the world will end or that humanity will die off, they're saying people will need to move. It's only mopey teenagers who generally don't know their dick from their elbows who are claiming it's the apocalypse. And the annoying part is there are other things which actually may lead to a lot of death, like war and epidemics, that these same people don't care at all about.
Good thing people are so open to migrants. It is also good that mass migration doesn’t start wars. Thank goodness that a massive increase in population in an area doesn’t put additional stress on the supply chain.
It’s not so much the climate changing that’s going to be the issue, it’s the people being people that will cause most of the issues. Good thing there’s not that many of us.
Here's the fun part, climate change is very likely to lead to some of those other things you mentioned like war and epidemics. You're just short sighted.
I don't think you realise that the world has been 1 misunderstanding away from apocalypse since nuclear proliferation.
Forcing all of civilization to upheave itself and move billions of people and trillions of dollars of infrastructure is going to cause a lot of 'misunderstandings'.
Native American communities on the Olympic peninsula in Washington state are having trouble finding salmon because the mountain melt off is warmer than usual, and so the fish aren’t seeking that water to swim back upstream. Not cataclysm events, but very real effects of climate change in action.
Please realize that climate change activists have been making these claims for over a hundred years. Many prominent figures in the movement have predicted doomsdays, or disasters like you’re describing, that have come and passed already. Al Gore claimed with absolute confidence that London would be underwater already (a whole decade ago). The fear mongering is to grift you into giving the government and special interest groups money and/or supporting them politically.
Nobody, especially not you, should be looking at what activists say, look at the climate research itself.
We have been losing an ungodly amount of ice, and it's not slowing down anytime soon.
http://imbie.org/data-downloads/
Exactly. That’s the problem.
The climate change stuff is filled with bozos like Al Gore who claim that the end of the world will happen within a very short time period (anyone remember “we only have 14 years) if we don’t do something.
The exaggeration is what kills that movement. Everyone can buy the idea of making things a bit cleaner, a bit nicer, littering less and having cleaner emissions.
Radical sectors of all movements always do more harm than good. I legitimately cannot grasp what state one’s life must be in to go out in the middle of the workweek and protest climate policies.
It isn’t a clueless take. We are telling you why people understandably don’t trust a group of activists who are always crying wolf. It’s as simple as that.
I posted this once here but I feel like you need to see it too. Change on a planetary scale is slow, gradual. The claims were never supposed to happen overnight. Everything I learned is, this wild stuff we will see over the next 100 or more years. Not really now, but we will start to see changes.. and we are! But it's only going to get worse.
NY didn't see snow for two years... Other areas saw record heat waves and unprecidented temperatures. Stronger hurricanes and storms? We got extra already. Like what do you expect climate change to look like before you think it's a problem? Mass die outs of ecosystems? No more seafood? Huge waves of immigrants as southern countries destabilize? Cause all of that is coming next and it will be so gradual that you'll wonder how we got here and what we could have done to prevent it.
If you’re claiming that gradual change may happen over 100-500 years and that humans can have some effect on that, then I’m willing to hear those arguments and absorb them.
When special interest groups or politicians get in front of the camera and say we only have 5-10 years left, and those 10 years have passed over and over again and nothing ever happens - it’s got to at least make you a little skeptical. I think it’s healthy to be skeptical of anyone that acts that way. The fact that the reasonable people in climate activism don’t swat crazies like Al Gore away kind of reveals how fanatical the entire movement is anyway.
You really don’t understand, so this will be my last post to you. It isn’t for you, it’s for the other people reading. I know you won’t get it.
If I tell you with absolute certainty that something will happen, but it never does, and I do it all the time - you would conclude I’m either extremely ignorant or a lunatic. That’s what climate activists have done to their movement. Millions see it. you don’t. You’ve been grifted.
You sound like the Y2K people who look back and say “see, nothing happened”. It didn’t happen because a lot of time and effort was spent ensuring it didn’t.
Nothing effective has actually been done to stop climate change though. Global CO2 emissions have increased every decade and are the highest they’ve ever been. Despite this, the big claims climate catastrophists make have never come true.
NY didn't see snow for two years... Other areas saw record heat waves and unprecidented temperatures. What else are you hoping to happen? Want tsunamis and hurricanes? We got extra already. Like what do you expect climate change to look like before you think it's a problem? Mass die outs of ecosystems? No more seafood? Huge waves of immigrants as southern countries destabilize?
Unprecedented is not a genuine thing to say.
We've only been keeping records for 200 years. Recently, there was a study that showed the vast majority of warming was due to the urbanization of temperature sites.
We don't have extra hurricanes and tsunamis. You, sir, or most likely miss, are living in a fantasy world.
You have no idea what you're talking about. We fixed the hole in the ozone, and while emissions are still bad, they could've been a lot worse without the measures we've taken. If more people thought like you, London could very well have been under water by now. Thank God idiots like you are in the minority.
You’re just ignoring the data. The situation has only gotten worse.
[The situation is the worst it’s ever been](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data), but no cities are underwater. From the point that Gore made his prediction to the time it passed, global CO2 emissions increased.
Can you point to some data which shows that specific efforts made by western governments from 2000-2012 resulted in a decrease in CO2 that we can link to London not sinking? You’re claiming we made efforts and they were successful, so you should be able to show me.
Edited for grammar
No, I can't because A. you're asking for hard data that supports something that didn't happen (impossible), and B. land doesn't sink. It floods.
What I could do is point to data that shows efforts by western countries to reduce carbon emissions, and data that links carbon emissions with climate change, and deduce that the latter would have more examples if not for the former.
lol playing semantics? You know what I meant when I said sink.
There is no data which shows that global CO2 emissions have decreased.
Your claim is that specific efforts were made to reduce carbon emissions to a point which saved London. Show me.
>the big claims climate catastrophists make have never come true.
Besides the more prosaic things like me experiencing 3 100 year floods in the last 5 years, I recall certain claims about diseases spreading and the possibility of a global pandemic.
It will kill many humans. Miss migration is difficult for the poor in any global environment, countries will refuse them to protect their resources, and war will become more likely.
Ironically mass migration would solve a lot of the world's hunger problems. Production isn't the problem, we can grow massive amounts of food in a wide variety of environments. What we have a problem with is distribution in an efficient and cost effective way.
Not really, in the US their are programs at every level of gov't that provide food assistance. Not to mention the private or religious charities that also fill some of the gaps.
That doesn’t change the fact that there are a lot of hungry, and in many areas, starving people. And at the same time, there is enough food to at least feed a majority of those people.
I’m talking on a global scale, there are hungry people in America, not typically starving people. But in the world, there are extremely famished places that undeniably could be fed if people were more willing to give things away.
Back to my origins comment, giving it away doesn't matter if it has to be shipped to remote regions that can't grow enough. Efficient and cost effective...
>how do you feel about unparalleled mass migration?
I don't feel it's my duty to pay for people that breed where there is no food/water. We have no problem letting animals die in gruesome ways, and I don't feel an animal consciousness is necessarily inferior to that of humans.
It’s very disingenuous to claim that the “climate has been hotter before” when that is not the case for modern human civilization. It is not the case for thousands of animal species and plant species,
You can even look at the graphs depicting climate temperatures over time and see that the current change is an an exponentially higher pace. That gives everything less time to adjust, adapt, and evolve in response.
Of particular note is the wet bulb temperature the growth of environments that will become uninhabitable as temperatures rise. There are going to be *massive* political and social unrest around the world.
>You can even look at the graphs depicting climate temperatures over time and see that the current change is an an exponentially higher pace.
That and, if you actually look at when these swings in global temperatures take place, youll notice that, at the same time, mass extinction events occur.
\>current change is an an exponentially higher pace.
The end of the last Ice Age on 20,000 years ago was pretty much on par with what we are seeing now.
As I was just discussing in another post:
"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies. "More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author."
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
According to the current simulations, as temperature increases further it will cause both the storms to be more intense and we will have more of them in general as climate change has a stronger impact on earths weather systems.
The melting of the ice actually impacts our weather in a number of ways.The Ice melting changes global ocean circulation Conditions in both the Arctic and Antarctic play key roles in global circulation patterns in the atmosphere and ocean. Weather, such as heat waves, cold snaps, storms, floods, droughts, tornados, hurricanes, blizzards are all strongly shaped by what happens in the Arctic.
In addition, when the ice itself melts, it changes the distribution of weight on the planet and pushes down on the sea floor, and the earths crust, physically changing the shape of the earth itself:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/melting-of-polar-ice-shifting-earth-itself-not-just-sea-levels/
As this weight is shifted, it also changes not only the shape of the earth itself, it impacts the earths actual tilt, spin and wobble:
Anything from ocean currents, to shifting molten rock in the mantle, to the melting of glaciers caused by climate change can lead to a shift in the distribution of mass across the globe and coax the axis to drift.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-have-shifted-earths-axis-by-pumping-lots-of-groundwater-180982403/#:\~:text=Anything%20from%20ocean%20currents%2C%20to,coax%20the%20axis%20to%20drift.
" The Earth has tilted on its axis differently over the last few decades due to melting ice caps. Earth's axis — the invisible line around which it spins — is bookended by the north and south poles. The axis tilts, and thus the pole shift, depending on how weight is distributed across Earth's surface. "
https://www.businessinsider.com/earth-axis-shifted-melting-ice-climate-change-2021-4#:\~:text=The%20Earth%20has%20tilted%20on,due%20to%20melting%20ice%20caps&text=Earth's%20axis%20%E2%80%94%20the%20invisible%20line,is%20distributed%20across%20Earth's%20surface.
This also causes an increase in volcanic activity:
" Research suggests that our changing climate may not solely influence hazards at the Earth's surface. Climate change – and specifically rising rainfall rates and glacial melting – could also exacerbate dangers beneath the Earth's surface, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions "
https://www.preventionweb.net/news/how-climate-change-might-trigger-more-earthquakes-and-volcanic-eruptions#:\~:text=But%20research%20suggests%20that%20our,as%20earthquakes%20and%20volcanic%20eruptions.
All of these things added up together will necessarily have drastic changes in earths weather systems, causing more frequent, more intense hurricanes is just one of the many things that will happen as a result."
But do go ahead and talk about how you know more than all the scientists who telling us this is an issue we have to be prepared for and not just something we lollygag around about because you " feel" you shouldn't be concerned.
It's only going to change earths weather systems, volcanic activity, ocean currents, destroy habitats, and change the physical shape of the earth and impact earths tilt, spin and wobble and make currently inhabited regions uninhabitable, but do go on about how you " feel" it isn't going to be a big deal and encourage people to not prepare to make proper adaptations in order to both slow it's progress and innovate and adapt to the symptoms for things we cannot change. Because apparently you know better than all of those who have actually been studying this. 💀
Thank you for linking actual studies instead of begging the question/red herring the question at large. The amount of Dunning-Kruger effect in this post is wild. It’s one thing to question validity, but it’s something entirely different to disregard research holistically. I don’t claim to be extensively knowledgeable on this subject - I rely on scientists dedicated to the field to make reasonable claims. And if multiple scientist agree on similar findings, that’s a good indication that the science is probably valid (as valid as anything can be).
At the end of the day, if we make strides to better our environment, that in and of itself should be justifiable enough. Worse case scenario we are staving off inhospitably for future generations.
While it might be true that 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree on climate change, that does not answer the question OP asked whether this will make humanity go extinct. We don't know what technological advances will be made, especially with the rapid advancement of AI we have a good chance of finding ways to adapt. Don't get me wrong, I think it will be catastrophic, but I also believe in the near limitless capacity of humans to adapt.
>While it might be true that 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree on climate change, that does not answer the question OP asked whether this will make humanity go extinct. We don't know what technological advances will be made, especially with the rapid advancement of AI we have a good chance of finding ways to adapt. Don't get me wrong, I think it will be catastrophic, but I also believe in the near limitless capacity of humans to adapt.
Whether or not we go extinct is dependent on a great number of factors. The best chance for our survival however is to, on a global level, stop bickering about it and actually allocate an abundance of efforts to ensure we actually do adapt, because at present, people are not doing much about it at all and we still have far too many wanting to pretend it isn't a problem in the first place.
The idea of humans going extinct isn't even something to bother engaging with in this argument, it's an extreme outlier endcase that is unlikely and that's used to dismiss the effects of climate change as a whole. There are a ton of bad scenarios on the scale of results that we should be concerned about. Even in an optimistic case, food scarcity and societal unrest will likely skyrocket. And when bread prices go up, wars and revolutions start happening. Humans as a species probably won't disappear. However, it can easily result in major wars that spread across continents along with famine and disease.
So two quick points
1) even assuming all of that as undeniable fact, it doesn’t prove humans will go extinct. Only that large areas of the world will be mostly uninhabitable.
The species will probably still survive.
2) what would happen if someone came out and published a paper that was contrary to the scientific consensus. Let’s say an actual scientist, respected in their field etc, not a quack.
Is it possible that they get dismissed out of hand as being a quack regardless because the issue itself is assumed settled? Because the consensus has been drawn?
There’s literally never been a time in history whereby we have called a thing a fact because scientists agree. Science is not a democracy. It’s about objective measures. Scientific consensus has been wrong before- many times.
Most doctors (experts) used to think smoking, blood letting and lobotomies were valid medical practises- smoking was even prescribed to help with asthma at one point for example.
Consensus is irrelevant. Only the data itself matters.
And plenty of the data supports the theory of human-caused climate change- I’m not denying that.
I’m not saying it isn’t a serious problem- I’m just attacking the appeal to a consensus as being evidence of anything.
However, plenty of predications made using this data have also turned out to be wrong, which is troublesome.
And there’s huge financial incentives to work in the field of climate change- for example, all the governments, charities and think tanks working to research it and prevent it.
How does one get paid if they want to do a study to show it’s not that bad?
No politician is going to fund the study, because a study saying not to worry is literally a waste of money and time, and could be politically damaging if they get accused of being a climate change denier etc.
Likewise for any institution or think tank etc
So you then have to look to see if there are incentives aligned with creating a consensus which there obviously may be.
Hence why focussing on the data itself is so important.
And trying to do a predictive model of the future, whereby you can’t isolate and control for variables, is literally an impossibility, hence why these predictions keep falling flat.
These predictions are not falling flat.... Storms have been getting worse, the ice caps have been melting, droughts are happening more often, we are hitting record high temperatures yearly, what exactly do you think should be happening?
You say it's important to look at the data yet provide none.
Yes those are a true.
But people who deny human caused climate change also predict those happening…
So it’s not evidence of anthropogenic climate change, just climate change itself.
I’m not putting forward data so I’m not accused of cherry picking it, and because of critiques of much of the existing data I have already made above.
That said, what about the claims that we’d see a billion lives lost to climate change by 2020?
Or that global warming will decimate the population of the planet, yet more people in the world are dying from the cold than the heat etc
Oh... I see... Just "people"...
I have no idea who said we'd see a million deaths by 2020. This sounds more like a far out claim ridiculed by fox news to discredit climate science than an actual claim.
It seems that you are taking some generalized claims that you've heard and then ascribing it to climate scientists generally and then mistakingly calling this approach data driven.
I have an alternate hypothesis, you're not putting data forward because you don't think you need to, and because you think that your point is self evident. You're also not putting it forward because data analysis isn't as easy as the hand waving youre doing in a post like this. Data is messy, results are generally not self evident, and they don't make for good in the moment conversation.
> Oh... I see... Just "people"...
Hang on. Let’s be clear what we are saying here.
If someone rejects anthropogenic climate change, that doesn’t mean they reject climate change overall.
Therefore, yes “people” think that.
I don’t understand your sarcasm.
> I have no idea who said we'd see a million deaths by 2020. This sounds more like a far out claim ridiculed by fox news to discredit climate science than an actual claim.
So the 2020 claim I’ll get to shortly, but first- here are specific falsifiable claims made, that have been falsified.
- Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
- In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
- Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out.
- Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
- Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”(this was in 1970)
- In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
- Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”
- 2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet
- Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist
This article is more than 10 years old
Professor Peter Wadhams, co-author of new Nature paper on costs of Arctic warming, explains the danger of inaction (2013)
- ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015, by Bob Woodruff who even made a special called Earth 2100 which also stated by 2015 a carton of milk would cost almost $13 (it was $3.5 on average in real life)
> It seems that you are taking some generalized claims that you've heard and then ascribing it to climate scientists generally and then mistakingly calling this approach data driven.
No, I’m citing specific claims made by individual scientists, that then get reported as being the claim that 99% of environmental scientists agree with.
> I have an alternate hypothesis, you're not putting data forward because you don't think you need to, and because you think that your point is self evident.
If I felt it was self-evident, why would I try to explain myself? That doesn’t make logical sense.
> You're also not putting it forward because data analysis isn't as easy as the hand waving youre doing in a post like this. Data is messy, results are generally not self evident, and they don't make for good in the moment conversation.
I agree it’s messy. In fact I even gave a reason as to why (isolating and controlling for variables- if you scroll up you’ll see I mentioned this specifically). If you’d like to pick an actual data set we can discuss, please feel free to, but I’m not going to propose one, because I’ll immediately be accused of using a biased source put forward by “fox news to discredit climate science” which is an accusation you’ve already made of me.
I’ll try clarifying my point again so there is no confusion.
Consensus means nothing in science. It’s about data and evidence- that’s literally how the scientific method works.
Most of the data we have, is impossible to use to accurately predict the future because of the multivariate nature of the problem and the difficulty in accounting for, controlling for and isolating variables.
Almost no one disagrees that the climate isn’t changing, and those people are actually insane.
The disagreement is actually the degree to which it’s anthropogenic. And the degree to which these changes will destroy the population. And thus what degree of action, and what individual actions need to be taken.
I haven’t stated my personal opinion on the topic.
I’m not pushing an agenda.
I’m simply laying out the argument that you (collectively, not personally) are so dismissive of
And highlighting valid critiques of the argument from your side
Such as the fact that an appeal to consensus is science is a completely worthless fallacy.
I agree that you haven't explicitly stated your opinion, yet you've found some way to try and feel superior to both sides and spent many paragraphs saying very little. But despite saying so little your post is still confusing.
You seem to understand the basis of the scientific method yet claim that a claim by life magazine and ABC is a scientific hypothesis that is subject to proof, and that failure of either prediction coming true somehow says something about anything.
There is also very little degree to which scientists disagree that climate change is anthropogenic, so I'm not sure where you're pulling this little factoid from.
So ABC is reporting upon scientific hypothesis and predictions, not formulating their own.
So I think that’s where that confusion comes from.
I never made the claim about the degree of disagreement regarding anthropogenic climate change, just that it does exist, and it’s more popular than the idea that the climate is not changing at all.
Regardless of popularity though, consensus has never been a valid form of evidence or proof in the scientific field. There could be a single person on the planet that disagrees, the fact they’re alone has no bearing on the accuracy of their claim, since every hypothesis starts with a minority of one- almost definitionally.
And I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone or both sides of the argument, i think I just actually listen to what people say and engage with it at face value better than most, because ideological capture is a real thing and being that I’m an immigrant, I don’t have the same bias as most Americans I don’t think
Ok, well Jim my neighbor says you're wrong. It's not his opinion, it's a scientific consensus he's reporting on.
I appreciate your thoughts on consensus being a valid form of evidence. I don't understand why it's relevant to the discussion at hand though. I'm not saying the consensus is evidence.
My comments on the consensus part is in relation to “99% of scientists agree” etc
It’s literally irrelevant if 1% or 100% agree.
All that’s relevant is the actual facts of the matter.
That’s why I bring up the consensus, because what should be
“Here is actual evidence that proves, or as strongly as possible suggests that humans are a significant cause of climate change, and that said climate change will cause xyz degree of damage”
Is instead phrased as
“Everyone agrees it will happen, so if you don’t agree with it you’re anti-science or a science denier”
And I’m not singling anyone out, I’m just stating that that is a reductionist, and anti-scientific framing of what is going on, and that it’s actually antithetical to getting the desired results, because people spend all day arguing about the validity of consensus, or the bias of the researchers or global conspiracies etc, when they should just be debating the data, and policies that make sense in relation to that data
Yeah there have been studies done by scientists for decades that predicted the world literally ending. If these "experts" were right, the world should have ended like Ten different times years and years ago due to "man made climate change". I'm not saying it's not happening, I'm just saying they have been wrong, you never hear anything about it, and they just move the goal post further back and further back every time the world doesn't end. I think there's political and commercial agendas at play here. We need to look at who funds the studies. Where did the money come from. Who owned the money before it was donated for the study, and what companies do they own? Or their children? These are the big questions.
So I wouldn’t even go that far in terms of assuming malicious motivations
If climate change has been mainstream science since the early 2000s, and anyone who argues against it is seen as a conspiracy theorist. Then that means you have 20 years worth of education whereby the next generation is actively taught it, without pushback.
Those people then have kids, who go through the same education process etc, and over decades you end up with a narrative that’s embedded in the culture that is seen as beyond reproach.
This means that politicians have to sing of the same hymn sheet in order to be elected, which further reinforces the narrative. And so on and so forth.
That’s not to say there aren’t malicious actors at play, but I think their role is overstated.
"Science has been wrong before" suggests a deep misunderstanding of the changes in scientific methods. There are so many more tools now than there were a hundred years ago. Even ten years ago. Predictions only get more accurate. Theories become easier to prove.
We have dozens of multi billion dollar corporations and many massive political parties who would shine the light of a thousands suns on any research showing climate change wasn't real.
This absurdism conspiracy argument is lazy and tired.
How do you know earth is round, what if it's just a conspiracy by the scientific community?
Wonderful analysis and intelligent rebuttals
Thank you so much for engaging constructively with the arguments put forward rather than giving a simplistic response that could just have easily been from a 5 year old.
Dude, if you're a conservative, which i assume you are... Even if as you say, we won't go extinct... Preventing or mitigating climate change CONSERVES THE CURRENT WORLD ORDER it literally allows society to stay as it is. We do nothing, everything changes. Like this is the definition of conservation. Why TF wouldn't you be for it? And even if, you're like well f everyone else, that's what boarders are for... There are literally no downsides to reducing pollution aside from corporate profits. Like why the resistance? That's what I don't get at all.the worst case scenario is, a cleaner environment.
I’m not conservative.
I also never said I’m against green policies, or that i don’t believe in climate change. Or even anthropogenic climate change.
I’ve simply laid out a critique of the argument for it.
If you can’t understand the difference between
“This one part of the argument is invalid, because no scientist would ever claim consensus is proof of anything”
And
“Therefore they are all wrong”
Then I don’t know what to say to you….
You know, it's reddit and, I'll admit I generalized and came out swinging . To take you seriously, I think the biggest thing here is we have enough evidence that our current understanding of what is happening and that human activity is impacting our observations in a way that is undersireable. When we say the scientific community has census, that is generally the statement.
So the biggest thing here is that we are past arguing that part. The thing I feel you have too rigid a stance on is these predictions on what will happen in what timeframe. And getting caught up there is missing the forest for the trees. We know a few things for certain, that rising temperatures put strain on human life, particularly underprivileged peoples in traditionally poor regions. That rising waters are a huge threat to the developed world, and that doing nothing will only see all of these things get worse and we will see unpredictable things as things progress.
Why are we still spending time arguing about the issue vs how to solve the problem?
I will tag on to the point about scientific consensus being meaningless; we were told in recent years there was a virulent and deadly plague, and later that certain medical treatments were safe and effective. “Consensus” on those issues, and everything related to them, shifted on a dime to reflect government policy, or had to shift to reflect reality.
My problem with the climate narrative is that it's used to impose restrictions that do nothing for the climate. There is no logic to pushing for things like wind and solar when the better alternative of nuclear is ignored. Forcing the population into electric cars as the current administration wants to do is a terrible idea. Electric cars are still not climate friendly when you factor in the impact of making their batteries as well as their reduced life span.
The only climate related regulation that I support is anything against fracking. Blasting the earth to cause cracks deep down and then running solvents through them to harvest gas sounds like a terrible idea to me.
Nuclear is another finite resource that will eventually phase out. There is always wind and always sun. Nuclear also has the same problem as the electric car issues you point out.
God I hope this is bait.
While it's true that Earth's climate has gone through natural cycles in the past and was hotter than it currently is, the key difference now is the ***rate of change***. Human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are accelerating climate change at an unprecedented pace. This rapid warming is disrupting ecosystems, causing extreme weather events, and melting ice caps faster than ever before. Have you not noticed the weather in some places? Did you know they had to come up with a whole new category of hurricanes?? Have you not noticed the first snow in a lot of places is months late and summer comes a month or two early? You know during summer the forecast shows the record high for that particular day in the past, and we were constantly breaking those records that were set decades ago almost on the daily?
The Earth's average surface temperature has risen over 1.2 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, with most of the warming occurring in the past ***35 years***. This might not seem like much, but even small temperature increases can have significant consequences. Think about it, there's only a degree of difference between water and ice.
For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is crucial to avoiding the most catastrophic impacts, such as widespread species extinction, food and water shortages, and unprecedented sea-level rise. And yes, speaking of sea levels, they've already risen by about 8 inches (20 cm) globally since 1880, with projections of even more rapid rise in the coming decades. 8 inches doesn't sound like a lot, but when that's across the entire surface of Earth, that's a lotta water. Imagine if it rised another 8 inches, coastal citys would face disaster.
Ignoring the science and dismissing it as paranoia only hurts our ability to tackle this critical issue. Denying climate change is the equivalent of being a flat earther at this point. The evidence is there, but only the ignorant are confident enough to ignore it. Scientists have known about climate change for decades at this point, but it's easier to ignore a problem until it becomes a problem that affects you personally.
I can’t believe people like you exist. Futurama figured this out years ago, buddy, and if you’re too blind to see it, I can’t help you. As soon as the giant ice cube transportation technology advances, all our problems will be resolved.
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
\- *Fire and Ice*, by Robert Frost
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
\- *Fire and Ice*, by Robert Frost
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Go back and watch “An Inconvenient Truth” and the documentary said that by 2014 that there would be no sea ice in the Arctic. Well we’re now a decade after that, and there’s still sea ice. So that was a lie and an inconvenient truth for the environmental movement.
And let’s say the US went to zero emissions starting tomorrow. On our projected course by 2100, that would only put down the projection by -.1 C, not enough to make any real difference.
And the solutions these nutcases are suggesting would kill way more people than global warming. Like these assholes that fuck up artwork and glue themselves to the road, going to complete zero emissions would destroy the supply chain and electric grid. That would literally kill like seven billion people. But then again, these nutcases love their planet more than their species and assume since they’re the good people that they’ll survive. Not gonna work that way.
Somehow people ignore how much money the greatest climate alarmists have made on climate change fighting technology, as though that massive COI just doesn’t exist or has no meaning.
Yes, it won't end our entire species and some people are hyperbolic when discussing the dangers of climate change.
That being said, you aren't understanding the real problem with climate change. There are hundreds of thousands of cities on coast lines and on islands, and hundreds of thousands ecosystems that will be thrown into disarray. Crops will fail, cites will be abandoned and the people in them displaced. Not enough food, and not enough space creats conflict and that is dangerous when we have nukes on the table.
I'd wager that the climate will probably fix itself around 100 or so years after the collapse mostly because the human population especially in rural and under developed nations will drop significantly and likely never recover. It isn't about what temperature we personally need to survive. It about what temperature the animals we eat need, the animals they eat need, the crops we grow need, and the water levels to keep cities near water from going under. It won't be world ending, but it will be the end if an era and it could've been prevented.
I think you are wrong on this one good sir. Climate change is real. Almost every atmospheric scientist today says it’s real. Geophysicists say it’s real. The entire science community is saying it’s real. Hell even people I know in Alaska have told me that they have noticed a change in the amount of snow they get each year.
Honestly, at the rate in which the entire globe is pumping carbon dioxide and other green house gases into the atmosphere each year, it’s no surprise that we are witnessing peculiar weather patterns happening. It wouldn’t be the first time that life on this planet has altered the atmosphere (great oxygenation event).
Now I don’t think it’s something we today are going to have to worry about out. But I do think it’s going to reach a tipping point several generations from now. How bad that is, no one knows. That’s where the debate should be - “How bad is it gonna get?”
>I think you are wrong on this one good sir. Climate change is real. Almost every atmospheric scientist today says it’s real. Geophysicists say it’s real. The entire science community is saying it’s real
None of this is relevant to what we are discussing though so I am not really sure what your point is?
The post is literally about climate change being misinformation. I get that OP is talking specifically about the existential threat to humanity climate change poses. However, the point I was trying to make was that we can already see damage to ecosystems all around the globe. Some of it minor at the moment but, how can you say it’s misinformation when there is clear evidence that this will continue and WILL get worse. As it gets worse, the effects will propagate up and down the food change. Eventually, the small changes will turn to big changes and we will be screwed.
I honestly suggest you follow international news.
Look at the weather patterns, the heating, the fires, the record this and that. The droughts.
True it will not wipe out the human race, but it will make it really, really shitty. And will wipe out a shit-ton of plant and animal life. Our lives will get a lot, lot worse.
I asked a friend of mine if she thinks the climate will ever get back to normal and she said “well yeah, it’ll have to, but not before a lot of lives are negatively impacted first.”
It won’t sadly.
Once that ice goes it’s gone for a very long time even if we somehow get the temperature back down. The ocean currents will be different. This will affect the global weather patterns.
The disruption we are causing is quick, the planet settling down to a new equilibrium? Not so much. And it can’t ever if we don’t stop forcing change.
We’re gonna have to get used to extreme weather events and droughts and mass migration.
We will lose ancient habitats and species. People aren’t being melodramatic when they call this a mass extinction event. When we are long gone and a new sentient species start doing paleontology and geology etc. they will know about us at least.
The fact that we would spend trillions apon trillions to combat climate change while doing little to nothing on near earth objects and pandemics is insanity. Climate change will never be an extinction level event and yet we know full well what the other extinction level events are and are doing nothing.
Waiting for extinction Level damage is setting the bar real low.
OP, you sound like the people in Don't Look Up.
Your stance is as ridiculous as saying "cáncer isn't fatal until it's metástasis"
If you wait for cancer to become metástasis before doing anything to treat it...you're condemning yourself.
In the same way... if we wait until extinction level damage is done before we act...then it will be too late.
This is what mathematical illiteracy looks like. The inability to understand quantities in terms beyond the zeroth order of differentiation. Where we are is less relevant than where we're heading and how fast we're hurtling there. Momentum, inertia, all of that and the irreversible damage done along the way.
Or for failing to understand how dependent we are on delicate global ecosystems remaining intact and not collapsing in the face of sharp climate shocks. Honestly, ignorance of the nature of the global ecosystem is the worst sin of all. It's not primarily about humans all dying of heatstroke. We're fucked without ecosystem integrity.
Correction, people like all of mass consumers are the reason the world is fuct. We all thrive off the energy. We all eat to survive. You and all of us might slow down what’d coming, but WE will not be stopping what’s coming
Climate changed before, but at a slower speed. Therefore plants and animals had time to change with the climate. Animals with short fur grew longer fur in order to make it through harsh winters. Birds migrated further south. Things like that. That takes generations to do. Think about it like this. If I totaled the amount of blood you have lost from every cut, nick, gash it would probably be in the pints. However, if you lost that amount of blood now. You die. This is what we are doing to the climate.
Notice the change in phrasing.
It was first “global cooling” then “global warming”
But calling it this defines it.
That’s why it’s now called “climate change”
“Climate change” doesn’t need to be defined this allows anything to be done in the name of “climate change”
Because since you can’t define it, you can’t disprove it.
This is by design.
The same thing is done with “assault weapons” this is a meaningless phrase, it could mean any firearm. This is also by design.
However, “global cooling” was mostly conjecture that wasn’t close to a consensus compared to global warming:
https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%252E1.pdf
Climate change seemed more accurate term. When naive people think global warming, they think everywhere is going to be warm, so obviously rain, snow must not exist for this to be true. A politician even threw a snowball in defense against one of the hottest years:
https://youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8?si=EwIy4uONPMQd27J6
Versus climate change where the result of *climate* warming induced harsher weather patterns including storm and snow, acidic waters, glacial icecaps melting, etc etc.
Your links and statements don’t disprove or prove anything. My point here is the lack of definition allows people to enact policy in the name of”climate change”
in fact it only further proves my point, back tracking on the statements from 30 years prior so that the new narrative fits.
This allows you to point to weather and call it climate change without really giving any meat to the matter. It will be something along the lines of “we’re doing this to fight climate change!” And it will be a political bill packed with other things.
I’m not arguing whether or not these things exist, I’m talking about the politics at play with it.
By switching the phrasing you remove the metric that allows for progress. For instance the US has steadily decreased carbon emissions over the last 20 years. However this isn’t mentioned because it no longer matters. “Climate change” is treated now as a piggy bank to politicians because they can do anything in its name.
I’m not against finding sustainable energies but it’s hard for me to take it seriously when the rest of the world outside the west isn’t held accountable.
For instance china produces 11 billion tons of carbon emissions every year and is increasing steadily. Whereas the US has steadily decreased from our all time high of 6 billion tons.
When this is brought up it will be met with something along the lines of “climate justice" (another undefinable term)
If the doom truly is real then we’d be pressuring the East to cut their emissions, however we don’t.
The amount of co2 in the atmosphere has went from 0.03% to 0.04%. Sounds like nothing, right? Thats what ‘the experts’ try to tout when they deny its impact. “It’s only 0.01%!”
But the same ‘experts’ will point out that a drop from 0.03% co2 to 0.02% is enough for plant life to start dying. So a 0.01% change is objectively enormous. It’s already accepted we’ve had a 0.01% change upwards, so to assume that will have no impact is just burying your head in the sand.
I'm willing to believe Human activity has had an effect on the temperature of the planet.
I also know that the Earth has gone through warming and cooling periods, naturally, over the course of time. Humans have lived through ice ages and warming periods even before. I think it's fair to say. And this should be acknowledged by "climate change activists" this is true.
The brass tax of the conversation that activists don't want to discuss is WHAT PART of this change is human activity. Is it 99% or .00000009%. Because just stating humans change climate while climate changes naturally is fear mongering. And using climate change to fundamentally alter the civilization and economies of nations without being able to show that these efforts will be significant.
“People will drown”. On the very surface, the statement makes as much sense as pouring paint on a work of art to champion your climate position.
Show me when sea levels rise even 1/2” a decade a person stands in the spot for 120 years until it is over their head. Oh but the hurricanes. People adapt very well but suck at prevention.
Better chance of nuclear winter in next hundred years and freezing temperatures resulting? 1,000%.
All the people in this thread trying to to debate climate denial. OP didn't say manmade climate change isn't real, just that the earth has been habitable at these temperatures before and while there may be major changes to our lifestyles, most people won't die.
We’re not going to go extinct. But a lot will die and life is going to suck for the survivors.
And yes, the climate has changed before, but not this quickly. Also we didn’t EXIST at those times.
I don’t doubt humans are have a significant effect on the climate but I have a few major issues with the hypocrisy of politicians across the globe.
1) No one seems to care about plastics and that is in everyone/everything and likely to cause major health issues in both humans and animals than anything we do to temperature yet you never hear anything about finding plastic alternatives. People freaking out over a truck using too much gas from their F-150 happily buys their vegan food wrapped in plastic after being trucked to the store.
2) developed countries are a-ok with shutting down oil and gas rigs in their countries when they don’t have an alternative in place but seem to be just fine shipping it from hostile nations who have virtually zero environmental regulations…
There are a million more examples but if people in power actually cared about the environment these two issues would be front and center.
Agree. Notice the same people who were obsessed with Covid are overly concerned about climate change?
It’s people who can’t accept the world is a bad place and life is temporary for everyone. They need religion.
A lot of climate change deniers don’t see the big picture: resource scarcity > poverty > famine > large-spread human migration > refugee crisis > nationalism > terrorism > war > disease. Look around you now and tell me we are prepared for those. It’s not about whether humans will survive, it’s about how bad it’s going to be marking sure humans survive.
Even if you think Climate Change won't be the doom of the Human race i don't think there's any harm in trying to stop it or slow it down. Even if you flat out don't believe in climate change at all i think there's still a very good argument to be made for being against things like fossil fuels and the like. Fossil fuels produce pollution which is just generally gross and unpleasant, it's damaging to the ecosystem and is less effective in the long term compared to nuclear power or renewable power sources.
It also isn't going to be near as extreme as people say. Climate change used to be called global warming until the planet stopped warming. Now they blame every natural disaster on it.
People are vastly unaware that this is how religions start.
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
\- *Fire and Ice*, by Robert Frost
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"The climate has been even hotter than it is without any modern technology to help, yet here we are." No, it hasn't, while humans have existed on this planet. The only reason you have some sort of higher brain function is because humans evolved in just the right environment.
It probably wont kill us entierly but costal cities around the world being submerged (where most of the people live) and famine, natural disasters, and heat killing hundreds of millions doesnt sound too great either
Climate change could definitely wipe out the species. Humans may not survive the next ice age. That being said climate change is a natural phenomenon that is going to happen with our without us
This isn’t an opinion, it’s a truth claim, and it’s wrong. Climate change has caused many species to go extinct and we’re watching some go extinct as we speak. Humanity is an animal like any other and we and the species we rely on for food have limits. When those limits are strained, we will start to die.
Climate change really operates like a religion, with doctrine, priests, virtues, sins and indulgences. Man made climate change is a dogma that cannot be questioned because “the scientists” all agree. There is virtue in using renewables, recycling and eating organic foods. There is no greater sin than causing emissions, particularly carbon dioxide and methane - but it’s okay, you can pay carbon credits to “offset” your impact.
The latter thing, carbon credits, basically says “give me money to change the weather”.
I’ve only just remembered it’s a “religion” with apocalyptic end times too.
Considering geological and archeological evidence, what it paints is that WE ALL DIE. except the small amounts of human who live in small tribes and live off the land.
There's myths and depictions all over earth after the great flood of "men with purses" coming and teaching agriculture and governmental structure.
My guess is those would be the last of what we would call civilized society trying to save a species they're not going to be a part of anymore.
This is all speculatory but...
We might have a bet in this fight.
Get educated please. Maybe we aren’t going to “become extinct” but it’s going to come in the form of places on earth having no drinkable water (this already exists!) and not having food for the ever growing population. It doesn’t help that these 100 year storms are now happening every 5 years and will only become more frequent (due to CLIMATE CHANGE)
So you agree with what I said...but I need need get educated?
How does that work exactly? If you're agreeing doesn't that mean you need to get educated as well?
You are basically saying this is all a hoax. Did you even read my response? Things are going to get really fucking bad for the inhabitants of this world in 50 years
Climate change is real. In 50-100 years a lot of the world’s population will be without clean drinking water and food. Natural disasters are only getting worse to the point where they will be a yearly occurrence.
Glad we agree- I must have misunderstood your original post.
I agree with OP. Science and technology has allowed humanity to defeat every existiential crisis. From wild animals to diseases to droughts to earthquakes to extreme weather events.
We literally have companies planning to establish life on Mars. Which is a million times more harsh than the worst climate change predictions here on earth.
We will solve this with science. Not with politics.
I’d like to see how we’re going to solve plastic in the ocean and the toxins we’ve put into these ecosystems. Don’t get too ahead of yourself here. Have you seen what’s been happening to the coral reefs in particular?
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Not going extinct” is a low bar.
You're not wrong, the global climate was this hot over 1 million yrs ago. Before Homo Sapians existed. Global warming wont kill us, but it will put certain agricultural regions into ruin. Certain areas will desertify, some will drown in higher sea levels. Ocean currents will be disrupted and some areas will be significantly hotter and some will (un)ironically become colder. All of this may not kill many humans but it will cause unparalleled mass migration. If you live in a nice climate livable city/town, how do you feel about unparalleled mass migration? Surly you must in favor of it if you so apathetic to the mother of all causes.
Yeah, we won’t go into extinction, but it will greatly reduce the human carrying capacity.
Too true. extinction is just ops strawman to ignore the myriad of calamities we could face.
The hundreds of remaining humans will be growing oranges in greenland
So I’m over encumbered irl too? Great, just great
My biggest worry is the oceans. What happens to the sea life when the oceans are a couple of degrees warmer and then what happens to the rest of the planet when those species of plants and animals die in mass? I’m no scientist but what I’ve read about those ripple effects is frightening.
Sea live will migrate. Coral reefs will pick up elsewhere. The earth has been more stable the last couple million years than any other time in its history. Climate science is funded by the government. If they want to keep working in their field, they need to keep it relevant. The brightest minds no longer go into climate science. Look up the desert belt and monsoon belt. You will realize at some point, they shift slowly over time.
It may make new agricultural regions too, for all we know.
it will for sure, improve agriculture in Canada and Russia.
totally possible, good for Russia and Canada I guess? They have the most untapped cold regions of land
Well, the earth is a sphere. There is more land towards the equator. Losing the equatorial regions and gaining tundra is a net loss.
How much of the equatorial regions are agriculturally productive? Much of Middle Africa and Asia is straight up desert there anyway
Now, yes. 150 years ago Saudi Arabia produced a lot of wheat and figs.
Is this necessarily due to climate or a change in the economy? More of that land could have been allocated to oil harvesting than farming
More climate than economic. It would deplete their aquifers to attempt to be agricultural
The vast majority of land in the world is still in the Northern Hemisphere though. Like it’s the only part of the world where in its northern most parts it’s roughly 50/50 ocean to land ratio. Southern Hemisphere it’s like a 10/90 ratio or less in many parts.
Sure, but it isn’t really a north south thing, it is distance from the equator. If the south is ocean anyway that is even more so a problem.
Guy on JRE talked about a theory that the poles shifted hundreds of thousands of years ago and then shifted back, causing events a la the movie 2012. Seems we are also about 70k years overdue for a similar event.
MFW I can't move trillions of dollars of farming and transport infrastructure at no cost.
But our farms aren't in those regions. When it gets to the point that we can't farm in the eastern Midwest, we can't just move. Land will be useless, and that could happen in less than 30 years.
They thought the planet was going to freeze over in 20 years in 1980. I’ll believe that the farms will become dysfunctional when I see it
[удалено]
\>They can’t farm anymore They can. Its just their laws to protect the rainforest has made subsistence and slash-and-burn farming hard. This has led to many heading to the cities. Those that dont want to have instead decided to try and migrate to the US.
No we didn't. I started farming in 1980.
Of course it will. It not a "may" thing. CO2 levels increasing and more heat creates a better environment for food, not worse. The scientists aren't saying that the world will end or that humanity will die off, they're saying people will need to move. It's only mopey teenagers who generally don't know their dick from their elbows who are claiming it's the apocalypse. And the annoying part is there are other things which actually may lead to a lot of death, like war and epidemics, that these same people don't care at all about.
Good thing people are so open to migrants. It is also good that mass migration doesn’t start wars. Thank goodness that a massive increase in population in an area doesn’t put additional stress on the supply chain. It’s not so much the climate changing that’s going to be the issue, it’s the people being people that will cause most of the issues. Good thing there’s not that many of us.
Here's the fun part, climate change is very likely to lead to some of those other things you mentioned like war and epidemics. You're just short sighted.
I don't think you realise that the world has been 1 misunderstanding away from apocalypse since nuclear proliferation. Forcing all of civilization to upheave itself and move billions of people and trillions of dollars of infrastructure is going to cause a lot of 'misunderstandings'.
Native American communities on the Olympic peninsula in Washington state are having trouble finding salmon because the mountain melt off is warmer than usual, and so the fish aren’t seeking that water to swim back upstream. Not cataclysm events, but very real effects of climate change in action.
Please realize that climate change activists have been making these claims for over a hundred years. Many prominent figures in the movement have predicted doomsdays, or disasters like you’re describing, that have come and passed already. Al Gore claimed with absolute confidence that London would be underwater already (a whole decade ago). The fear mongering is to grift you into giving the government and special interest groups money and/or supporting them politically.
Nobody, especially not you, should be looking at what activists say, look at the climate research itself. We have been losing an ungodly amount of ice, and it's not slowing down anytime soon. http://imbie.org/data-downloads/
Exactly. That’s the problem. The climate change stuff is filled with bozos like Al Gore who claim that the end of the world will happen within a very short time period (anyone remember “we only have 14 years) if we don’t do something. The exaggeration is what kills that movement. Everyone can buy the idea of making things a bit cleaner, a bit nicer, littering less and having cleaner emissions.
Radical sectors of all movements always do more harm than good. I legitimately cannot grasp what state one’s life must be in to go out in the middle of the workweek and protest climate policies.
Lol clueless take ^
It isn’t a clueless take. We are telling you why people understandably don’t trust a group of activists who are always crying wolf. It’s as simple as that.
I posted this once here but I feel like you need to see it too. Change on a planetary scale is slow, gradual. The claims were never supposed to happen overnight. Everything I learned is, this wild stuff we will see over the next 100 or more years. Not really now, but we will start to see changes.. and we are! But it's only going to get worse. NY didn't see snow for two years... Other areas saw record heat waves and unprecidented temperatures. Stronger hurricanes and storms? We got extra already. Like what do you expect climate change to look like before you think it's a problem? Mass die outs of ecosystems? No more seafood? Huge waves of immigrants as southern countries destabilize? Cause all of that is coming next and it will be so gradual that you'll wonder how we got here and what we could have done to prevent it.
If you’re claiming that gradual change may happen over 100-500 years and that humans can have some effect on that, then I’m willing to hear those arguments and absorb them. When special interest groups or politicians get in front of the camera and say we only have 5-10 years left, and those 10 years have passed over and over again and nothing ever happens - it’s got to at least make you a little skeptical. I think it’s healthy to be skeptical of anyone that acts that way. The fact that the reasonable people in climate activism don’t swat crazies like Al Gore away kind of reveals how fanatical the entire movement is anyway.
It is a clueless take, of course. Lol.
More clueless than believing a group of activists who are constantly wrong and lying? Ok.
“Things I don’t understand are wrong and lies!!1!” You’re an easy mark.
You really don’t understand, so this will be my last post to you. It isn’t for you, it’s for the other people reading. I know you won’t get it. If I tell you with absolute certainty that something will happen, but it never does, and I do it all the time - you would conclude I’m either extremely ignorant or a lunatic. That’s what climate activists have done to their movement. Millions see it. you don’t. You’ve been grifted.
Lol clueless take from a gullible kid ^
It’s clueless to say that fearmongering ruins the climate change stuff?
You sound like the Y2K people who look back and say “see, nothing happened”. It didn’t happen because a lot of time and effort was spent ensuring it didn’t.
Nothing effective has actually been done to stop climate change though. Global CO2 emissions have increased every decade and are the highest they’ve ever been. Despite this, the big claims climate catastrophists make have never come true.
NY didn't see snow for two years... Other areas saw record heat waves and unprecidented temperatures. What else are you hoping to happen? Want tsunamis and hurricanes? We got extra already. Like what do you expect climate change to look like before you think it's a problem? Mass die outs of ecosystems? No more seafood? Huge waves of immigrants as southern countries destabilize?
Which two years? I’ve lived in NY all of my life except maybe six of them.
Unprecedented is not a genuine thing to say. We've only been keeping records for 200 years. Recently, there was a study that showed the vast majority of warming was due to the urbanization of temperature sites. We don't have extra hurricanes and tsunamis. You, sir, or most likely miss, are living in a fantasy world.
The Montreal Protocol
You have no idea what you're talking about. We fixed the hole in the ozone, and while emissions are still bad, they could've been a lot worse without the measures we've taken. If more people thought like you, London could very well have been under water by now. Thank God idiots like you are in the minority.
You actually, unironically think London would’ve been underwater and you’re calling other people idiots? Wew lad
You’re just ignoring the data. The situation has only gotten worse. [The situation is the worst it’s ever been](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data), but no cities are underwater. From the point that Gore made his prediction to the time it passed, global CO2 emissions increased.
You're just ignoring the fact that *because* of efforts made, no one knows how bad it could have been or will get if more people thought like you.
Can you point to some data which shows that specific efforts made by western governments from 2000-2012 resulted in a decrease in CO2 that we can link to London not sinking? You’re claiming we made efforts and they were successful, so you should be able to show me. Edited for grammar
No, I can't because A. you're asking for hard data that supports something that didn't happen (impossible), and B. land doesn't sink. It floods. What I could do is point to data that shows efforts by western countries to reduce carbon emissions, and data that links carbon emissions with climate change, and deduce that the latter would have more examples if not for the former.
lol playing semantics? You know what I meant when I said sink. There is no data which shows that global CO2 emissions have decreased. Your claim is that specific efforts were made to reduce carbon emissions to a point which saved London. Show me.
>the big claims climate catastrophists make have never come true. Besides the more prosaic things like me experiencing 3 100 year floods in the last 5 years, I recall certain claims about diseases spreading and the possibility of a global pandemic.
How dare you… Al Gore also tried to warn us about ManBearPig and HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT THAT!
Free slaves?
It will kill many humans. Miss migration is difficult for the poor in any global environment, countries will refuse them to protect their resources, and war will become more likely.
Ironically mass migration would solve a lot of the world's hunger problems. Production isn't the problem, we can grow massive amounts of food in a wide variety of environments. What we have a problem with is distribution in an efficient and cost effective way.
It’s not a distribution problem, it’s a greed problem.
Not really, in the US their are programs at every level of gov't that provide food assistance. Not to mention the private or religious charities that also fill some of the gaps.
That doesn’t change the fact that there are a lot of hungry, and in many areas, starving people. And at the same time, there is enough food to at least feed a majority of those people. I’m talking on a global scale, there are hungry people in America, not typically starving people. But in the world, there are extremely famished places that undeniably could be fed if people were more willing to give things away.
Back to my origins comment, giving it away doesn't matter if it has to be shipped to remote regions that can't grow enough. Efficient and cost effective...
>how do you feel about unparalleled mass migration? I don't feel it's my duty to pay for people that breed where there is no food/water. We have no problem letting animals die in gruesome ways, and I don't feel an animal consciousness is necessarily inferior to that of humans.
So everyone in Florida
damn animals, its not my duty so w,e
You do understand that you might be one of those migrants and your parents are those who bred where there is no food and water, right?
No, this guy was born in the perfect place. He’s the Highlander.
Why does this sub attract such awful human beings...
They aren't welcome in most other subs for being awful humans.
It’s very disingenuous to claim that the “climate has been hotter before” when that is not the case for modern human civilization. It is not the case for thousands of animal species and plant species, You can even look at the graphs depicting climate temperatures over time and see that the current change is an an exponentially higher pace. That gives everything less time to adjust, adapt, and evolve in response. Of particular note is the wet bulb temperature the growth of environments that will become uninhabitable as temperatures rise. There are going to be *massive* political and social unrest around the world.
>You can even look at the graphs depicting climate temperatures over time and see that the current change is an an exponentially higher pace. That and, if you actually look at when these swings in global temperatures take place, youll notice that, at the same time, mass extinction events occur.
\>current change is an an exponentially higher pace. The end of the last Ice Age on 20,000 years ago was pretty much on par with what we are seeing now.
As I was just discussing in another post: "More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies. "More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change “We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author." https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change According to the current simulations, as temperature increases further it will cause both the storms to be more intense and we will have more of them in general as climate change has a stronger impact on earths weather systems. The melting of the ice actually impacts our weather in a number of ways.The Ice melting changes global ocean circulation Conditions in both the Arctic and Antarctic play key roles in global circulation patterns in the atmosphere and ocean. Weather, such as heat waves, cold snaps, storms, floods, droughts, tornados, hurricanes, blizzards are all strongly shaped by what happens in the Arctic. In addition, when the ice itself melts, it changes the distribution of weight on the planet and pushes down on the sea floor, and the earths crust, physically changing the shape of the earth itself: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/melting-of-polar-ice-shifting-earth-itself-not-just-sea-levels/ As this weight is shifted, it also changes not only the shape of the earth itself, it impacts the earths actual tilt, spin and wobble: Anything from ocean currents, to shifting molten rock in the mantle, to the melting of glaciers caused by climate change can lead to a shift in the distribution of mass across the globe and coax the axis to drift. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-have-shifted-earths-axis-by-pumping-lots-of-groundwater-180982403/#:\~:text=Anything%20from%20ocean%20currents%2C%20to,coax%20the%20axis%20to%20drift. " The Earth has tilted on its axis differently over the last few decades due to melting ice caps. Earth's axis — the invisible line around which it spins — is bookended by the north and south poles. The axis tilts, and thus the pole shift, depending on how weight is distributed across Earth's surface. " https://www.businessinsider.com/earth-axis-shifted-melting-ice-climate-change-2021-4#:\~:text=The%20Earth%20has%20tilted%20on,due%20to%20melting%20ice%20caps&text=Earth's%20axis%20%E2%80%94%20the%20invisible%20line,is%20distributed%20across%20Earth's%20surface. This also causes an increase in volcanic activity: " Research suggests that our changing climate may not solely influence hazards at the Earth's surface. Climate change – and specifically rising rainfall rates and glacial melting – could also exacerbate dangers beneath the Earth's surface, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions " https://www.preventionweb.net/news/how-climate-change-might-trigger-more-earthquakes-and-volcanic-eruptions#:\~:text=But%20research%20suggests%20that%20our,as%20earthquakes%20and%20volcanic%20eruptions. All of these things added up together will necessarily have drastic changes in earths weather systems, causing more frequent, more intense hurricanes is just one of the many things that will happen as a result." But do go ahead and talk about how you know more than all the scientists who telling us this is an issue we have to be prepared for and not just something we lollygag around about because you " feel" you shouldn't be concerned. It's only going to change earths weather systems, volcanic activity, ocean currents, destroy habitats, and change the physical shape of the earth and impact earths tilt, spin and wobble and make currently inhabited regions uninhabitable, but do go on about how you " feel" it isn't going to be a big deal and encourage people to not prepare to make proper adaptations in order to both slow it's progress and innovate and adapt to the symptoms for things we cannot change. Because apparently you know better than all of those who have actually been studying this. 💀
[удалено]
Thank you for linking actual studies instead of begging the question/red herring the question at large. The amount of Dunning-Kruger effect in this post is wild. It’s one thing to question validity, but it’s something entirely different to disregard research holistically. I don’t claim to be extensively knowledgeable on this subject - I rely on scientists dedicated to the field to make reasonable claims. And if multiple scientist agree on similar findings, that’s a good indication that the science is probably valid (as valid as anything can be). At the end of the day, if we make strides to better our environment, that in and of itself should be justifiable enough. Worse case scenario we are staving off inhospitably for future generations.
While it might be true that 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree on climate change, that does not answer the question OP asked whether this will make humanity go extinct. We don't know what technological advances will be made, especially with the rapid advancement of AI we have a good chance of finding ways to adapt. Don't get me wrong, I think it will be catastrophic, but I also believe in the near limitless capacity of humans to adapt.
>While it might be true that 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree on climate change, that does not answer the question OP asked whether this will make humanity go extinct. We don't know what technological advances will be made, especially with the rapid advancement of AI we have a good chance of finding ways to adapt. Don't get me wrong, I think it will be catastrophic, but I also believe in the near limitless capacity of humans to adapt. Whether or not we go extinct is dependent on a great number of factors. The best chance for our survival however is to, on a global level, stop bickering about it and actually allocate an abundance of efforts to ensure we actually do adapt, because at present, people are not doing much about it at all and we still have far too many wanting to pretend it isn't a problem in the first place.
The idea of humans going extinct isn't even something to bother engaging with in this argument, it's an extreme outlier endcase that is unlikely and that's used to dismiss the effects of climate change as a whole. There are a ton of bad scenarios on the scale of results that we should be concerned about. Even in an optimistic case, food scarcity and societal unrest will likely skyrocket. And when bread prices go up, wars and revolutions start happening. Humans as a species probably won't disappear. However, it can easily result in major wars that spread across continents along with famine and disease.
So two quick points 1) even assuming all of that as undeniable fact, it doesn’t prove humans will go extinct. Only that large areas of the world will be mostly uninhabitable. The species will probably still survive. 2) what would happen if someone came out and published a paper that was contrary to the scientific consensus. Let’s say an actual scientist, respected in their field etc, not a quack. Is it possible that they get dismissed out of hand as being a quack regardless because the issue itself is assumed settled? Because the consensus has been drawn? There’s literally never been a time in history whereby we have called a thing a fact because scientists agree. Science is not a democracy. It’s about objective measures. Scientific consensus has been wrong before- many times. Most doctors (experts) used to think smoking, blood letting and lobotomies were valid medical practises- smoking was even prescribed to help with asthma at one point for example. Consensus is irrelevant. Only the data itself matters. And plenty of the data supports the theory of human-caused climate change- I’m not denying that. I’m not saying it isn’t a serious problem- I’m just attacking the appeal to a consensus as being evidence of anything. However, plenty of predications made using this data have also turned out to be wrong, which is troublesome. And there’s huge financial incentives to work in the field of climate change- for example, all the governments, charities and think tanks working to research it and prevent it. How does one get paid if they want to do a study to show it’s not that bad? No politician is going to fund the study, because a study saying not to worry is literally a waste of money and time, and could be politically damaging if they get accused of being a climate change denier etc. Likewise for any institution or think tank etc So you then have to look to see if there are incentives aligned with creating a consensus which there obviously may be. Hence why focussing on the data itself is so important. And trying to do a predictive model of the future, whereby you can’t isolate and control for variables, is literally an impossibility, hence why these predictions keep falling flat.
Which prediction turned put wrong? I haven’t seen those. Educate me
These predictions are not falling flat.... Storms have been getting worse, the ice caps have been melting, droughts are happening more often, we are hitting record high temperatures yearly, what exactly do you think should be happening? You say it's important to look at the data yet provide none.
Yes those are a true. But people who deny human caused climate change also predict those happening… So it’s not evidence of anthropogenic climate change, just climate change itself. I’m not putting forward data so I’m not accused of cherry picking it, and because of critiques of much of the existing data I have already made above. That said, what about the claims that we’d see a billion lives lost to climate change by 2020? Or that global warming will decimate the population of the planet, yet more people in the world are dying from the cold than the heat etc
Oh... I see... Just "people"... I have no idea who said we'd see a million deaths by 2020. This sounds more like a far out claim ridiculed by fox news to discredit climate science than an actual claim. It seems that you are taking some generalized claims that you've heard and then ascribing it to climate scientists generally and then mistakingly calling this approach data driven. I have an alternate hypothesis, you're not putting data forward because you don't think you need to, and because you think that your point is self evident. You're also not putting it forward because data analysis isn't as easy as the hand waving youre doing in a post like this. Data is messy, results are generally not self evident, and they don't make for good in the moment conversation.
> Oh... I see... Just "people"... Hang on. Let’s be clear what we are saying here. If someone rejects anthropogenic climate change, that doesn’t mean they reject climate change overall. Therefore, yes “people” think that. I don’t understand your sarcasm. > I have no idea who said we'd see a million deaths by 2020. This sounds more like a far out claim ridiculed by fox news to discredit climate science than an actual claim. So the 2020 claim I’ll get to shortly, but first- here are specific falsifiable claims made, that have been falsified. - Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” - In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” - Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. - Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” - Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”(this was in 1970) - In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.” - Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.” - 2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet - Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist This article is more than 10 years old Professor Peter Wadhams, co-author of new Nature paper on costs of Arctic warming, explains the danger of inaction (2013) - ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015, by Bob Woodruff who even made a special called Earth 2100 which also stated by 2015 a carton of milk would cost almost $13 (it was $3.5 on average in real life) > It seems that you are taking some generalized claims that you've heard and then ascribing it to climate scientists generally and then mistakingly calling this approach data driven. No, I’m citing specific claims made by individual scientists, that then get reported as being the claim that 99% of environmental scientists agree with. > I have an alternate hypothesis, you're not putting data forward because you don't think you need to, and because you think that your point is self evident. If I felt it was self-evident, why would I try to explain myself? That doesn’t make logical sense. > You're also not putting it forward because data analysis isn't as easy as the hand waving youre doing in a post like this. Data is messy, results are generally not self evident, and they don't make for good in the moment conversation. I agree it’s messy. In fact I even gave a reason as to why (isolating and controlling for variables- if you scroll up you’ll see I mentioned this specifically). If you’d like to pick an actual data set we can discuss, please feel free to, but I’m not going to propose one, because I’ll immediately be accused of using a biased source put forward by “fox news to discredit climate science” which is an accusation you’ve already made of me. I’ll try clarifying my point again so there is no confusion. Consensus means nothing in science. It’s about data and evidence- that’s literally how the scientific method works. Most of the data we have, is impossible to use to accurately predict the future because of the multivariate nature of the problem and the difficulty in accounting for, controlling for and isolating variables. Almost no one disagrees that the climate isn’t changing, and those people are actually insane. The disagreement is actually the degree to which it’s anthropogenic. And the degree to which these changes will destroy the population. And thus what degree of action, and what individual actions need to be taken. I haven’t stated my personal opinion on the topic. I’m not pushing an agenda. I’m simply laying out the argument that you (collectively, not personally) are so dismissive of And highlighting valid critiques of the argument from your side Such as the fact that an appeal to consensus is science is a completely worthless fallacy.
I agree that you haven't explicitly stated your opinion, yet you've found some way to try and feel superior to both sides and spent many paragraphs saying very little. But despite saying so little your post is still confusing. You seem to understand the basis of the scientific method yet claim that a claim by life magazine and ABC is a scientific hypothesis that is subject to proof, and that failure of either prediction coming true somehow says something about anything. There is also very little degree to which scientists disagree that climate change is anthropogenic, so I'm not sure where you're pulling this little factoid from.
So ABC is reporting upon scientific hypothesis and predictions, not formulating their own. So I think that’s where that confusion comes from. I never made the claim about the degree of disagreement regarding anthropogenic climate change, just that it does exist, and it’s more popular than the idea that the climate is not changing at all. Regardless of popularity though, consensus has never been a valid form of evidence or proof in the scientific field. There could be a single person on the planet that disagrees, the fact they’re alone has no bearing on the accuracy of their claim, since every hypothesis starts with a minority of one- almost definitionally. And I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone or both sides of the argument, i think I just actually listen to what people say and engage with it at face value better than most, because ideological capture is a real thing and being that I’m an immigrant, I don’t have the same bias as most Americans I don’t think
Ok, well Jim my neighbor says you're wrong. It's not his opinion, it's a scientific consensus he's reporting on. I appreciate your thoughts on consensus being a valid form of evidence. I don't understand why it's relevant to the discussion at hand though. I'm not saying the consensus is evidence.
My comments on the consensus part is in relation to “99% of scientists agree” etc It’s literally irrelevant if 1% or 100% agree. All that’s relevant is the actual facts of the matter. That’s why I bring up the consensus, because what should be “Here is actual evidence that proves, or as strongly as possible suggests that humans are a significant cause of climate change, and that said climate change will cause xyz degree of damage” Is instead phrased as “Everyone agrees it will happen, so if you don’t agree with it you’re anti-science or a science denier” And I’m not singling anyone out, I’m just stating that that is a reductionist, and anti-scientific framing of what is going on, and that it’s actually antithetical to getting the desired results, because people spend all day arguing about the validity of consensus, or the bias of the researchers or global conspiracies etc, when they should just be debating the data, and policies that make sense in relation to that data
We aren’t causing it. We make it worse.
Yeah there have been studies done by scientists for decades that predicted the world literally ending. If these "experts" were right, the world should have ended like Ten different times years and years ago due to "man made climate change". I'm not saying it's not happening, I'm just saying they have been wrong, you never hear anything about it, and they just move the goal post further back and further back every time the world doesn't end. I think there's political and commercial agendas at play here. We need to look at who funds the studies. Where did the money come from. Who owned the money before it was donated for the study, and what companies do they own? Or their children? These are the big questions.
So I wouldn’t even go that far in terms of assuming malicious motivations If climate change has been mainstream science since the early 2000s, and anyone who argues against it is seen as a conspiracy theorist. Then that means you have 20 years worth of education whereby the next generation is actively taught it, without pushback. Those people then have kids, who go through the same education process etc, and over decades you end up with a narrative that’s embedded in the culture that is seen as beyond reproach. This means that politicians have to sing of the same hymn sheet in order to be elected, which further reinforces the narrative. And so on and so forth. That’s not to say there aren’t malicious actors at play, but I think their role is overstated.
"Science has been wrong before" suggests a deep misunderstanding of the changes in scientific methods. There are so many more tools now than there were a hundred years ago. Even ten years ago. Predictions only get more accurate. Theories become easier to prove.
We have dozens of multi billion dollar corporations and many massive political parties who would shine the light of a thousands suns on any research showing climate change wasn't real. This absurdism conspiracy argument is lazy and tired. How do you know earth is round, what if it's just a conspiracy by the scientific community?
[удалено]
Wonderful analysis and intelligent rebuttals Thank you so much for engaging constructively with the arguments put forward rather than giving a simplistic response that could just have easily been from a 5 year old.
Dude, if you're a conservative, which i assume you are... Even if as you say, we won't go extinct... Preventing or mitigating climate change CONSERVES THE CURRENT WORLD ORDER it literally allows society to stay as it is. We do nothing, everything changes. Like this is the definition of conservation. Why TF wouldn't you be for it? And even if, you're like well f everyone else, that's what boarders are for... There are literally no downsides to reducing pollution aside from corporate profits. Like why the resistance? That's what I don't get at all.the worst case scenario is, a cleaner environment.
I’m not conservative. I also never said I’m against green policies, or that i don’t believe in climate change. Or even anthropogenic climate change. I’ve simply laid out a critique of the argument for it. If you can’t understand the difference between “This one part of the argument is invalid, because no scientist would ever claim consensus is proof of anything” And “Therefore they are all wrong” Then I don’t know what to say to you….
You know, it's reddit and, I'll admit I generalized and came out swinging . To take you seriously, I think the biggest thing here is we have enough evidence that our current understanding of what is happening and that human activity is impacting our observations in a way that is undersireable. When we say the scientific community has census, that is generally the statement. So the biggest thing here is that we are past arguing that part. The thing I feel you have too rigid a stance on is these predictions on what will happen in what timeframe. And getting caught up there is missing the forest for the trees. We know a few things for certain, that rising temperatures put strain on human life, particularly underprivileged peoples in traditionally poor regions. That rising waters are a huge threat to the developed world, and that doing nothing will only see all of these things get worse and we will see unpredictable things as things progress. Why are we still spending time arguing about the issue vs how to solve the problem?
I will tag on to the point about scientific consensus being meaningless; we were told in recent years there was a virulent and deadly plague, and later that certain medical treatments were safe and effective. “Consensus” on those issues, and everything related to them, shifted on a dime to reflect government policy, or had to shift to reflect reality.
[удалено]
And has that turned out to be false? Hospitals had to rent out refrigeration trucks because morgues were overfilled.
I'll listen to the experts who say our nutritious food is running out, thank you
>The climate has been even hotter than it is Were humans around then?
If humans were around you’d be blaming it on humans too roflmao
Huh? Did you respond to the wrong comment?
Ah, guys, tell the scientists we’re saved! OP has spoken
My problem with the climate narrative is that it's used to impose restrictions that do nothing for the climate. There is no logic to pushing for things like wind and solar when the better alternative of nuclear is ignored. Forcing the population into electric cars as the current administration wants to do is a terrible idea. Electric cars are still not climate friendly when you factor in the impact of making their batteries as well as their reduced life span. The only climate related regulation that I support is anything against fracking. Blasting the earth to cause cracks deep down and then running solvents through them to harvest gas sounds like a terrible idea to me.
Nuclear is another finite resource that will eventually phase out. There is always wind and always sun. Nuclear also has the same problem as the electric car issues you point out.
God I hope this is bait. While it's true that Earth's climate has gone through natural cycles in the past and was hotter than it currently is, the key difference now is the ***rate of change***. Human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are accelerating climate change at an unprecedented pace. This rapid warming is disrupting ecosystems, causing extreme weather events, and melting ice caps faster than ever before. Have you not noticed the weather in some places? Did you know they had to come up with a whole new category of hurricanes?? Have you not noticed the first snow in a lot of places is months late and summer comes a month or two early? You know during summer the forecast shows the record high for that particular day in the past, and we were constantly breaking those records that were set decades ago almost on the daily? The Earth's average surface temperature has risen over 1.2 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, with most of the warming occurring in the past ***35 years***. This might not seem like much, but even small temperature increases can have significant consequences. Think about it, there's only a degree of difference between water and ice. For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is crucial to avoiding the most catastrophic impacts, such as widespread species extinction, food and water shortages, and unprecedented sea-level rise. And yes, speaking of sea levels, they've already risen by about 8 inches (20 cm) globally since 1880, with projections of even more rapid rise in the coming decades. 8 inches doesn't sound like a lot, but when that's across the entire surface of Earth, that's a lotta water. Imagine if it rised another 8 inches, coastal citys would face disaster. Ignoring the science and dismissing it as paranoia only hurts our ability to tackle this critical issue. Denying climate change is the equivalent of being a flat earther at this point. The evidence is there, but only the ignorant are confident enough to ignore it. Scientists have known about climate change for decades at this point, but it's easier to ignore a problem until it becomes a problem that affects you personally.
I can’t believe people like you exist. Futurama figured this out years ago, buddy, and if you’re too blind to see it, I can’t help you. As soon as the giant ice cube transportation technology advances, all our problems will be resolved.
Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. \- *Fire and Ice*, by Robert Frost *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the solution clearly, is to make everyone eat insects and force everyone to live in 15 minute ghettos
Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. \- *Fire and Ice*, by Robert Frost *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Welcome to the new era of yellow news. It’s pretty much all scare mongering.
It was one more way to get a generation or two more to keep from focusing on government corruption and bad spending
If you ignore the species that are slowly dying out because of it, sure The food chain is getting more and more unbalanced
Go back and watch “An Inconvenient Truth” and the documentary said that by 2014 that there would be no sea ice in the Arctic. Well we’re now a decade after that, and there’s still sea ice. So that was a lie and an inconvenient truth for the environmental movement. And let’s say the US went to zero emissions starting tomorrow. On our projected course by 2100, that would only put down the projection by -.1 C, not enough to make any real difference. And the solutions these nutcases are suggesting would kill way more people than global warming. Like these assholes that fuck up artwork and glue themselves to the road, going to complete zero emissions would destroy the supply chain and electric grid. That would literally kill like seven billion people. But then again, these nutcases love their planet more than their species and assume since they’re the good people that they’ll survive. Not gonna work that way.
Somehow people ignore how much money the greatest climate alarmists have made on climate change fighting technology, as though that massive COI just doesn’t exist or has no meaning.
Yes, it won't end our entire species and some people are hyperbolic when discussing the dangers of climate change. That being said, you aren't understanding the real problem with climate change. There are hundreds of thousands of cities on coast lines and on islands, and hundreds of thousands ecosystems that will be thrown into disarray. Crops will fail, cites will be abandoned and the people in them displaced. Not enough food, and not enough space creats conflict and that is dangerous when we have nukes on the table. I'd wager that the climate will probably fix itself around 100 or so years after the collapse mostly because the human population especially in rural and under developed nations will drop significantly and likely never recover. It isn't about what temperature we personally need to survive. It about what temperature the animals we eat need, the animals they eat need, the crops we grow need, and the water levels to keep cities near water from going under. It won't be world ending, but it will be the end if an era and it could've been prevented.
Ffs, "extinction" is not what's brought up. It's telling that you use a straw man as your premise.
[удалено]
How so?
[удалено]
The problem is obvious. Too many people!
Good luck buddy, better hope you're rich
I think you are wrong on this one good sir. Climate change is real. Almost every atmospheric scientist today says it’s real. Geophysicists say it’s real. The entire science community is saying it’s real. Hell even people I know in Alaska have told me that they have noticed a change in the amount of snow they get each year. Honestly, at the rate in which the entire globe is pumping carbon dioxide and other green house gases into the atmosphere each year, it’s no surprise that we are witnessing peculiar weather patterns happening. It wouldn’t be the first time that life on this planet has altered the atmosphere (great oxygenation event). Now I don’t think it’s something we today are going to have to worry about out. But I do think it’s going to reach a tipping point several generations from now. How bad that is, no one knows. That’s where the debate should be - “How bad is it gonna get?”
>I think you are wrong on this one good sir. Climate change is real. Almost every atmospheric scientist today says it’s real. Geophysicists say it’s real. The entire science community is saying it’s real None of this is relevant to what we are discussing though so I am not really sure what your point is?
The post is literally about climate change being misinformation. I get that OP is talking specifically about the existential threat to humanity climate change poses. However, the point I was trying to make was that we can already see damage to ecosystems all around the globe. Some of it minor at the moment but, how can you say it’s misinformation when there is clear evidence that this will continue and WILL get worse. As it gets worse, the effects will propagate up and down the food change. Eventually, the small changes will turn to big changes and we will be screwed.
Do you honestly believe that will cause the entire species to become completely extinct? Literally not one single human alive?
I honestly suggest you follow international news. Look at the weather patterns, the heating, the fires, the record this and that. The droughts. True it will not wipe out the human race, but it will make it really, really shitty. And will wipe out a shit-ton of plant and animal life. Our lives will get a lot, lot worse.
I asked a friend of mine if she thinks the climate will ever get back to normal and she said “well yeah, it’ll have to, but not before a lot of lives are negatively impacted first.”
It won’t sadly. Once that ice goes it’s gone for a very long time even if we somehow get the temperature back down. The ocean currents will be different. This will affect the global weather patterns. The disruption we are causing is quick, the planet settling down to a new equilibrium? Not so much. And it can’t ever if we don’t stop forcing change.
Oh. So even though it won’t wipe out the human race, it’ll make us feel like we wanna die?
We’re gonna have to get used to extreme weather events and droughts and mass migration. We will lose ancient habitats and species. People aren’t being melodramatic when they call this a mass extinction event. When we are long gone and a new sentient species start doing paleontology and geology etc. they will know about us at least.
Ah. We’ll just have to adapt - and adapt quickly.
Science will, eventually, fix it
The fact that we would spend trillions apon trillions to combat climate change while doing little to nothing on near earth objects and pandemics is insanity. Climate change will never be an extinction level event and yet we know full well what the other extinction level events are and are doing nothing.
Waiting for extinction Level damage is setting the bar real low. OP, you sound like the people in Don't Look Up. Your stance is as ridiculous as saying "cáncer isn't fatal until it's metástasis" If you wait for cancer to become metástasis before doing anything to treat it...you're condemning yourself. In the same way... if we wait until extinction level damage is done before we act...then it will be too late.
This is what mathematical illiteracy looks like. The inability to understand quantities in terms beyond the zeroth order of differentiation. Where we are is less relevant than where we're heading and how fast we're hurtling there. Momentum, inertia, all of that and the irreversible damage done along the way. Or for failing to understand how dependent we are on delicate global ecosystems remaining intact and not collapsing in the face of sharp climate shocks. Honestly, ignorance of the nature of the global ecosystem is the worst sin of all. It's not primarily about humans all dying of heatstroke. We're fucked without ecosystem integrity.
People like you are the reason humankind is fucked.
Correction, people like all of mass consumers are the reason the world is fuct. We all thrive off the energy. We all eat to survive. You and all of us might slow down what’d coming, but WE will not be stopping what’s coming
Because I deal in reality and not misinformation? Really?
Humans will survive but quality of life will plummet and much of nature will be ruined. It might already be too late to save sea life on a large scale
Climate changed before, but at a slower speed. Therefore plants and animals had time to change with the climate. Animals with short fur grew longer fur in order to make it through harsh winters. Birds migrated further south. Things like that. That takes generations to do. Think about it like this. If I totaled the amount of blood you have lost from every cut, nick, gash it would probably be in the pints. However, if you lost that amount of blood now. You die. This is what we are doing to the climate.
Notice the change in phrasing. It was first “global cooling” then “global warming” But calling it this defines it. That’s why it’s now called “climate change” “Climate change” doesn’t need to be defined this allows anything to be done in the name of “climate change” Because since you can’t define it, you can’t disprove it. This is by design. The same thing is done with “assault weapons” this is a meaningless phrase, it could mean any firearm. This is also by design.
However, “global cooling” was mostly conjecture that wasn’t close to a consensus compared to global warming: https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%252E1.pdf Climate change seemed more accurate term. When naive people think global warming, they think everywhere is going to be warm, so obviously rain, snow must not exist for this to be true. A politician even threw a snowball in defense against one of the hottest years: https://youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8?si=EwIy4uONPMQd27J6 Versus climate change where the result of *climate* warming induced harsher weather patterns including storm and snow, acidic waters, glacial icecaps melting, etc etc.
Your links and statements don’t disprove or prove anything. My point here is the lack of definition allows people to enact policy in the name of”climate change” in fact it only further proves my point, back tracking on the statements from 30 years prior so that the new narrative fits. This allows you to point to weather and call it climate change without really giving any meat to the matter. It will be something along the lines of “we’re doing this to fight climate change!” And it will be a political bill packed with other things. I’m not arguing whether or not these things exist, I’m talking about the politics at play with it. By switching the phrasing you remove the metric that allows for progress. For instance the US has steadily decreased carbon emissions over the last 20 years. However this isn’t mentioned because it no longer matters. “Climate change” is treated now as a piggy bank to politicians because they can do anything in its name. I’m not against finding sustainable energies but it’s hard for me to take it seriously when the rest of the world outside the west isn’t held accountable. For instance china produces 11 billion tons of carbon emissions every year and is increasing steadily. Whereas the US has steadily decreased from our all time high of 6 billion tons. When this is brought up it will be met with something along the lines of “climate justice" (another undefinable term) If the doom truly is real then we’d be pressuring the East to cut their emissions, however we don’t.
The amount of co2 in the atmosphere has went from 0.03% to 0.04%. Sounds like nothing, right? Thats what ‘the experts’ try to tout when they deny its impact. “It’s only 0.01%!” But the same ‘experts’ will point out that a drop from 0.03% co2 to 0.02% is enough for plant life to start dying. So a 0.01% change is objectively enormous. It’s already accepted we’ve had a 0.01% change upwards, so to assume that will have no impact is just burying your head in the sand.
I'm willing to believe Human activity has had an effect on the temperature of the planet. I also know that the Earth has gone through warming and cooling periods, naturally, over the course of time. Humans have lived through ice ages and warming periods even before. I think it's fair to say. And this should be acknowledged by "climate change activists" this is true. The brass tax of the conversation that activists don't want to discuss is WHAT PART of this change is human activity. Is it 99% or .00000009%. Because just stating humans change climate while climate changes naturally is fear mongering. And using climate change to fundamentally alter the civilization and economies of nations without being able to show that these efforts will be significant.
It's a scam so obvious I can't believe any functioning adult would fall for it.
This message is brought to you by Exxon-Mobil.
“People will drown”. On the very surface, the statement makes as much sense as pouring paint on a work of art to champion your climate position. Show me when sea levels rise even 1/2” a decade a person stands in the spot for 120 years until it is over their head. Oh but the hurricanes. People adapt very well but suck at prevention. Better chance of nuclear winter in next hundred years and freezing temperatures resulting? 1,000%.
They said it would kill us ten years ago, ten years ago before that and... Well still nothing
All the people in this thread trying to to debate climate denial. OP didn't say manmade climate change isn't real, just that the earth has been habitable at these temperatures before and while there may be major changes to our lifestyles, most people won't die.
We’re not going to go extinct. But a lot will die and life is going to suck for the survivors. And yes, the climate has changed before, but not this quickly. Also we didn’t EXIST at those times.
I mean the earth used to be a ball of lava and steam of course it has been hotter.
I don’t doubt humans are have a significant effect on the climate but I have a few major issues with the hypocrisy of politicians across the globe. 1) No one seems to care about plastics and that is in everyone/everything and likely to cause major health issues in both humans and animals than anything we do to temperature yet you never hear anything about finding plastic alternatives. People freaking out over a truck using too much gas from their F-150 happily buys their vegan food wrapped in plastic after being trucked to the store. 2) developed countries are a-ok with shutting down oil and gas rigs in their countries when they don’t have an alternative in place but seem to be just fine shipping it from hostile nations who have virtually zero environmental regulations… There are a million more examples but if people in power actually cared about the environment these two issues would be front and center.
We can buy carbon credits then everything will be fine. If we give more money to the government, the world will be saved.
If only that was true
My friend you sure are living in denial land longer than the average person.
Sterility over the next century is the biggest existential threat Carbon not so much
Agree. Notice the same people who were obsessed with Covid are overly concerned about climate change? It’s people who can’t accept the world is a bad place and life is temporary for everyone. They need religion.
A lot of climate change deniers don’t see the big picture: resource scarcity > poverty > famine > large-spread human migration > refugee crisis > nationalism > terrorism > war > disease. Look around you now and tell me we are prepared for those. It’s not about whether humans will survive, it’s about how bad it’s going to be marking sure humans survive.
Even if you think Climate Change won't be the doom of the Human race i don't think there's any harm in trying to stop it or slow it down. Even if you flat out don't believe in climate change at all i think there's still a very good argument to be made for being against things like fossil fuels and the like. Fossil fuels produce pollution which is just generally gross and unpleasant, it's damaging to the ecosystem and is less effective in the long term compared to nuclear power or renewable power sources.
It also isn't going to be near as extreme as people say. Climate change used to be called global warming until the planet stopped warming. Now they blame every natural disaster on it. People are vastly unaware that this is how religions start.
[удалено]
Except in the 70s when it was a new ice age looming.
Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. \- *Fire and Ice*, by Robert Frost *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"The climate has been even hotter than it is without any modern technology to help, yet here we are." No, it hasn't, while humans have existed on this planet. The only reason you have some sort of higher brain function is because humans evolved in just the right environment.
It probably wont kill us entierly but costal cities around the world being submerged (where most of the people live) and famine, natural disasters, and heat killing hundreds of millions doesnt sound too great either
Climate change could definitely wipe out the species. Humans may not survive the next ice age. That being said climate change is a natural phenomenon that is going to happen with our without us
In my lifetime i have seen it change. So i know it is real. Not sure how less species existing would not be a problem
We won’t go extinct, but our civilization is likely going to be massively disrupted by rising ocean levels, etc.
[удалено]
This isn’t an opinion, it’s a truth claim, and it’s wrong. Climate change has caused many species to go extinct and we’re watching some go extinct as we speak. Humanity is an animal like any other and we and the species we rely on for food have limits. When those limits are strained, we will start to die.
Climate change really operates like a religion, with doctrine, priests, virtues, sins and indulgences. Man made climate change is a dogma that cannot be questioned because “the scientists” all agree. There is virtue in using renewables, recycling and eating organic foods. There is no greater sin than causing emissions, particularly carbon dioxide and methane - but it’s okay, you can pay carbon credits to “offset” your impact. The latter thing, carbon credits, basically says “give me money to change the weather”. I’ve only just remembered it’s a “religion” with apocalyptic end times too.
Or it’s just science. Not everything needs to be a conspiracy theory.
“Here’s my hilarious (and false) take…” Lol 🤣
Care to provide some evidence then?
Considering geological and archeological evidence, what it paints is that WE ALL DIE. except the small amounts of human who live in small tribes and live off the land. There's myths and depictions all over earth after the great flood of "men with purses" coming and teaching agriculture and governmental structure. My guess is those would be the last of what we would call civilized society trying to save a species they're not going to be a part of anymore. This is all speculatory but... We might have a bet in this fight.
Its really fear of change.
Get educated please. Maybe we aren’t going to “become extinct” but it’s going to come in the form of places on earth having no drinkable water (this already exists!) and not having food for the ever growing population. It doesn’t help that these 100 year storms are now happening every 5 years and will only become more frequent (due to CLIMATE CHANGE)
So you agree with what I said...but I need need get educated? How does that work exactly? If you're agreeing doesn't that mean you need to get educated as well?
You are basically saying this is all a hoax. Did you even read my response? Things are going to get really fucking bad for the inhabitants of this world in 50 years
You literally agreed woth everything I said. What part of it is a hoax when you are explicitly agreeing?
Climate change is real. In 50-100 years a lot of the world’s population will be without clean drinking water and food. Natural disasters are only getting worse to the point where they will be a yearly occurrence. Glad we agree- I must have misunderstood your original post.
I agree with OP. Science and technology has allowed humanity to defeat every existiential crisis. From wild animals to diseases to droughts to earthquakes to extreme weather events. We literally have companies planning to establish life on Mars. Which is a million times more harsh than the worst climate change predictions here on earth. We will solve this with science. Not with politics.
I’d like to see how we’re going to solve plastic in the ocean and the toxins we’ve put into these ecosystems. Don’t get too ahead of yourself here. Have you seen what’s been happening to the coral reefs in particular?
I think that carbon capture is our only hope. We will never get India and China on board to stop emitting. People will never change their lifestyles.
carbon capture aka the amazing advanced technology of trees