What do we know about climate change and is it anthropogenic or not?

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

The biggest way humans are changing the world is through pollution, be it light, sound or chemical. These areas a barely touched on besides chemical and even there, it usually a case of one company falling out of favor rather than an attempt at cleaning anything up.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I have come to accept anthropogenic global warming as a real thing, but by what I've read - which is admittedly quite old, but I have no reason to believe it's been disproven in substance - when you run the numbers properly, in all likelihood the best way to deal with it is to just slightly cut back emissions, keep researching green energy (which, y'know, nuclear...) and adjust to it.

There are so many problems with how the media/activists report on global warming and when you dig into it, basically nobody in environmental economics is anywhere close to these nutters. They'll take absolute worst case scenario, you know ,1-in-a-1000 chance nonsese you run as part of a battery of models, and report THAT as the headline resut. They'll make assumptions like that people make absolutely no changes at all (this was a classic Neo-Malthusian trick too, assume people cannot discover new deposits or substitute at all) and that there's no upsides so they can maximize the bill.

It's all bullshit. And this is actually why I gave up not believing in global warming. When I saw that the REAL position of the technocrats that measure this stuff for a living is "yeah, it's not good, but what can you do, we're not gonna die or anything," I realized I have no dog in arguing against it.

Now one way I might be wrong is that I know there's this theory of "turning points," like you can have a runaway ecological collapse that makes it worse, but... we've been hearing this doomsday shit forever.

As for the activists/media, environmentalism functions like a misanthropic religion and a death cult. I wish I had the original source on hand, can never find it, but I remember reading something where it was laid out real nakedly, an activist admitted that you coudl solve things a lot more cheaply and easily than they want but what woudl be the POINT if there's no sacrifice. They WANT it to be a costly sacrifice, and it's always attached to a broader agenda. Not just socialist but anti-commercial, anti-materialist (in the greedy sense), there's a lot of assumptions baked in about what a good life should look like and the global warming is a scare story to push that.

TLDR anthropogenic global warming is real I think but massively, ridiculously overstated in its importance

 

[The Gay Oboma Creature]

I have to figure that global warming isn't real solely on the basis that none of the people claiming it will end the world aren't acting accordingly. Every single one of them is advocating the importation of billions of useless eaters, and openly intends to guarantee them Western living standards. They then use environmentalism as a cudgel to demand that Europeans have fewer children.

An elite that sincerely believed in global warming would institute a moratorium on immigration, fund a nuclear energy transition on the scale of the Apollo program, and institute sanctions on China and India until they stop using coal energy.

 

[Bonesjones]

You can tell climate change isn't real because you can prove it with a very simple study. Fill a container with appropriate atmospheric gasses, measure the results. Add whatever level of climate change you want to the closed system and reevaluate. They don't do this because it disproves everything they push. Adding a microscopic level of C02 isn't changing shit.

 

[singlele]

2.) Why is nuclear is never on the table as a solution?

A lot of environmentalists got psyopped into being anti-nuclear, especially in Germany, who shut down their final nuclear reactor in 2023 and replaced it with... fossil fuels! You know, one of the things environmentalists oppose the most! Also, there's a gender divide on opinions on nuclear energy, where men are far more pro-nuclear than women. I'm genuinely curious as to why that is.