16000 Scientists from 184 Countries Publish Dire Warning to Humanity

We need to accept that:

1.) It's pretty much irreversible or close to it. Do all the renewable energy you want but you're only buying some time. Titanic was going to sink even if they tried to pump out the water to buy minutes.

2.) You cannot force developing countries to embrace renewable energy. Many don't have the infrastructure, the money, the compatibility in general. It would hurt their economies and no government will accept that.

Cept Kurk, your little story would have been more accurate if some sciencer on board kept telling Captain Smith that the Titanic was on a disastrous course and needed correction and the Capt'n kept saying "nope, that's a Chinese hoax, we're fine, we're in god's hands!"

Deniers turned "oh well, too late now" are the worst.

Originally posted by Robtard
Cept Kurk, your little story would have been more accurate if some sciencer on board kept telling Captain Smith that the Titanic was on a disastrous course and needed correction and the Capt'n kept saying "nope, that's a Chinese hoax, we're fine, we're in god's hands!"

Deniers turned "oh well, too late now" are the worst.

Nah, that's not happening. I think you and others are confusing deniers with people that are on an even further path.

So I would organize it like this:

1. Climate Change Deniers:
Climate change is not humanity's fault or it is not happening.

2. The Apathetics:
Climate Change doesn't affect us in a meaningful way, it doesn't matter, or there's nothing we can do about it.

3. Climate Change Supporters:
We need to do things before it becomes a disaster to prevent huge problems in the future.

4. Disaster Recovery:
We've already passed the point of no return and we need to deal with this fact and figure out what we can do to mitigate the damage/loss of life.

The deniers didn't jump from slot 1 all the way to slot 4. It's people in slot 3 realizing (scientists and some progressive pundits) we f***ed up for far too long.

The mistake you're making is similar to the mistake deniers have been making: insulting and throwing on ad hominems to ignore group 4. You're trying to dilute or even discard their message because it's an uncomfortable thought that it's too late. This is exactly what the deniers did to group 3 for years.

Also, the Titanic example:

This is how it really would be by the 4 groups I made, above:

Scenario:
The Titanic has already hit the iceberg, is sinking, has already broken in half, and the last half is 90% sunk.

1. Climate Change Deniers: There is no iceberg. The ship is fine. You're just trying to scare the rest of us.
2. The Apathetics: I don't care if we hit an iceberg. It doesn't affect me.
3. Climate Change Supporters: We are about to hit an iceberg and if we don't turn this ship around, we will have a catastrophy.
4. Disaster Recovery: WTF is wrong with all of you! This f***ing boat is sinking! We need to figure out how to save the most lives before all of us die!

In general, people only move from one strata to another: rarely jumping a strata. Meaning, someone in 1 will move to 2 or someone from 3 may be convinced to move to 2. What you suggest, that people are jumping from 1 all the way to 4, is completely absurd. There's probably at least 1 person who has done that, sure. But the amount of whiplash a person who have to undergo is absurd. I've seen no one like that, anywhere.

BTW how can one even deny the climate is changing, given that it is observable? I mean, it is always changing.

The questions that should be asked, however, are as follows: In what ways it is changing? Why? And can we do something about it?

IMHO It's past the point of no return, I say make sure dealing with pollution is number one priority.

There are huge countries like China that already experience devastating results of pollution. Also, **** off from the Amazon.

They're intertwining. The Climate Change that is the issue to humanity is caused due to pollution, so the same people denying Climate Change are in turn denying measure that would reduce pollution.

edit: There's at least one Climate Change thread in here and we had outright deniers, in regards to man causing it/pollution and negative impacts

Right.

What I meant is this, if we are past the point of no return (as DDM pointed out ealier), then we should focus on (for the lack of the better term) damage control.

Well yes, but damage control is what the "we need to act now" people have been saying all along...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, really? Have you been paying attention at all in this thread or are you just trolling? Or perhaps you're an idiot? Maybe a bit of it all?

You do know it's TOO LATE, right? If we wanted to do something about this, we needed to do it 20 years ago.

This is a very simply thing to understand. 🙁

Oh really? I said that, eh? Quote it. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nothing we can do about that at this point, actually. Not sure why we focus so hard on that.

Okay, Benibuttplug.

You're rather dumb for having 20+ year old arguments and concerns and then trying to shit-shame people who actually care about the environment.

Great, you want to stop our greenhouse gas problems. Wonderful! So where's your global CO2 recapturing machine? Oh, right, technology doesn't exist and we are 20 years too late to stop this shittrain.

Nonetheless, try to understand that an inability to reverse the damage isn't an argument for doing nothing to prevent it getting worse.

But yes, we have the technology. 👆

You do know that the Earth was going to warm, anyway, right? We've just greatly sped up the timeline a few hundreds to a few thousand years.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The 6th mass extinction is underway, we may as well go hard now and kill as much of the diversity of life as possible. We should also finish off what we started in the rainforests--cut all of them down and replace them with strip mines and farms.

And those polar ice caps aren't going to melt themselves. They need our help so that they can raise sea levels and force hundreds of millions of people to flee diminishing coastlines. Then we can look back on the comparatively insignificant refugee crisis of the early 21st century with whimsical nostalgia.

But don't take our jawbs.

So why you stick to your petty virtue signaling and pretend righteous indignation, the rest of us are going to be in reality, accepting that we've ****ed up and then trying to influence policy that saves the most lives.

"Derpy derpy, you don't care about hoomans! Derpy dooooo!" 😆

Nonetheless it just so happens that policies aimed at global warming happen to fit that life saving formula. So what's your strategy?

Originally posted by Kurk
2.) You cannot force developing countries to embrace renewable energy. Many don't have the infrastructure, the money, the compatibility in general. It would hurt their economies and no government will accept that.

Renewable energy technology has sometimes been seen as a costly luxury item by critics, and affordable only in the affluent developed world. This erroneous view has persisted for many years, but 2015 was the first year when investment in non-hydro renewables, was higher in developing countries, with $156 billion invested, mainly in China, India, and Brazil.[1]

Most developing countries have abundant renewable energy resources, including solar energy, wind power, geothermal energy, and biomass, as well as the ability to manufacture the relatively labor-intensive systems that harness these. By developing such energy sources developing countries can reduce their dependence on oil and natural gas, creating energy portfolios that are less vulnerable to price rises. In many circumstances, these investments can be less expensive than fossil fuel energy systems.[2]

In isolated rural areas, electricity grid extensions are often not economical. Off‐grid renewable technologies provide a sustainable and cost‐effective alternative to the diesel generators that would be otherwise be deployed in such areas. Renewable technologies can also help to displace other unsustainable energy sources such as kerosene lamps and traditional biomass.[3]

Kenya is the world leader in the number of solar power systems installed per capita (but not the number of watts added). More than 30,000 small solar panels, each producing 12 to 30 watts, are sold in Kenya annually. Kenya was the first African country to use geothermal power, and still has the largest installed capacity of geothermal power in Africa at 200 MW, with a potential of up to 10 GW.[4]

And isn't it interesting that besides the country in the middle of a civil war, the only one that failed to sign the Paris Accords (which was supported by developing countries around the world) was the one with the most wealth and infrastructure on the planet. mmm

Originally posted by Robtard
They're intertwining. The Climate Change that is the issue to humanity is caused due to pollution, so the same people denying Climate Change are in turn denying measure that would reduce pollution.

1. The term you're looking for is anthropogenic climate change.
2. Your statement is non sequitur and, in fact, I would posit that not a single climate change denier would, in turn, deny measures to reduce pollution.

Originally posted by Stigma
Right.

What I meant is this, if we are past the point of no return (as DDM pointed out ealier), then we should focus on (for the lack of the better term) damage control.

Right, which is why I've termed it "Disaster Recovery" because the disaster has already started, we cannot turn it back, we need to figure out how to deal with it.

Why doesn't Beni empty his bank account on converting his home's power-grid to solar or whatever? I'm sure he's running his house off of coal-powered energy right now. Or should the government do it for him?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No it's not too late, global warming is an on-going process directly resultant of our own activities, should we fail to act now or in the future, the situation will only get worse, less manageable, and more expensive. It is therefore in our direct interests to "do something about this", in fact it's an imperative.

This is a very simply thing to understand. 🙁

You just don't understand.

It's too late. Reducing or even eliminating every last bit of our green house gas emissions won't prevent the already forward marching progress of anthropogenic climate change. Why don't you understand this? There WAS a threshold. Was. But we passed that a long time ago.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Sorry if I misinterpreted, but this statement seemed to encourage inaction.

You didn't quote it. You took a statement out of context, on purpose. You have an agenda and you're on a troll-tirade.

Read this from the same post:

Originally posted by dadudemon
We need to focus more on making the world cleaner for all life to live in, at this point. As a secondary benefit, green house gas emissions would also be reduced.

Hmm, seems you glossed over this from the same damn post. lol Trolltit

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Sorry for calling a spade a spade dadungdrops, but you are an egit.

Sorry you mislabel things and are butthurt.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
In development, should it only receive proper funding.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So where's your global CO2 recapturing machine? Oh, right, technology doesn't exist

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Nonetheless, try to understand that an inability to reverse the damage isn't an argument for doing nothing to prevent it getting worse.

It's too late. Reducing or even eliminating every last bit of our green house gas emissions won't prevent the already forward marching progress of anthropogenic climate change. Why don't you understand this? There WAS a threshold. Was. But we passed that a long time ago.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
But yes, we have the technology. 👆

No we don't. 😐

Now you're resorting to lying, eh?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'll let Lord Lucien speak for me on this one, because it's f*cking funny:
Point out to me where I virtue signalled darling, or demonstrated "pretend righteous indignation", I simply called you an idiot, because that is how you are behaving. 🙁

Every last post you've made on this topic. Go back and read your posts.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Nonetheless it just so happens that policies aimed at global warming happen to fit that life saving formula. So what's your strategy?

Oh? Policies targeting green house gas emissions are going to stop and reverse global warming? And you called me an idiot?

Poor troll. 🙁 Your games are so dumb you can't even keep your game straight.

So, I'm strongly considering ignoring your troll posts from now on. You're definitely a troll. I've seen your posts to others. You're worse that PVS.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, which is why I've termed it "Disaster Recovery" because the disaster has already started, we cannot turn it back, we need to figure out how to deal with it.

INB4 "carbon pollution"

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And isn't it interesting that besides the country in the middle of a civil war, the only one that failed to sign the Paris Accords (which was supported by developing countries around the world) was the one with the most wealth and infrastructure on the planet. mmm

Right, indeed.

Everyone aboard the "shame to participate", train.

Will reducing our green house gas emissions stop where we are, right now? We can talk about the Paris Agreement, for sure. Maybe a new thread?

What does it actually DO besides provide feel goods? Does it stop the Disaster of extreme climate change that's currently taking place?

Originally posted by Kurk
Why doesn't Beni empty his bank account on converting his home's power-grid to solar or whatever? I'm sure he's running his house off of coal-powered energy right now. Or should the government do it for him?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You just don't understand.

It's too late.

Reducing or even eliminating every last bit of our green house gas emissions won't prevent the already forward marching progress of anthropogenic climate change. Why don't you understand this? There WAS a threshold. Was. But we passed that a long time ago.

You didn't quote it. You took a statement out of context, on purpose. You have an agenda and you're on a troll-tirade.

Read this from the same post:

Hmm, seems you glossed over this from the same damn post. lol Trolltit

Sorry you mislabel things and are butthurt.

Get madder.

It's too late.

Regardless, any thoughts on that technology, aside from apathetic declarations of do nothingness? Does the real prospect removing all CO2 from the atmosphere really mean nothing to you?

No we don't. 😐

Now you're resorting to lying, eh?

Every last post you've made on this topic. Go back and read your posts.

Oh? Policies targeting green house gas emissions are going to stop and reverse global warming? And you called me an idiot?

Poor troll. 🙁 Your games are so dumb you can't even keep your game straight.

So, I'm strongly considering ignoring your troll posts from now on. You're definitely a troll. I've seen your posts to others. You're worse that PVS.

Get madder.

I remember reading Collapse by Jared Diamond, so much is coming true.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No it won't stop the planet from warming, but yes it would mitigate it, this is fact.

You're using the word "mitigate" incorrectly. It would, as fact, not mitigate it.

You're looking for "slightly reduce the speed at which it occurs."

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm sorry, but what is your point? You still advocated inaction in regards to [b]global warming, did you not?[/B]

Did you read my quote? You did. So why do you continue along this line of trolling?

Directly tackling greenhouse gas emissions is a lost cause. That's not "inaction" as you like to strawman.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Regardless, any thoughts on that technology, aside from apathetic declarations of do nothingness? Does the real prospect removing all CO2 from the atmosphere really mean nothing to you?

More strawman attempts? You sad pathetic person.

You're very upset.

Still waiting on that global green house gas reduction technology.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
A shitty attempt at strawman, I never once claimed we could stop or reverse global warming, but that indeed a "do nothing" approach is stupid and moronic.

So your solution is to slow climate change, eh?

🙂

Perfect. Wonderful.

Tell me how and to what extent. 😉

Will you delay the current climate change forward progress by 1 year? What about 5? 100? And how do you plan to do that?

Now go back to pretending like I'm saying the sky is falling and that the end is nigh. Those petty strawman tactics are entertaining. Hint: it's too late. Sky has already fallen. It's time to pick the pieces up.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
In which the smart baby man resorts to strawman because he knows he's wrong. baby