4
49

[–] 51rH0n3y84d93r 4 points 49 points (+53|-4) ago 

So, can we roll out massive nuclear power? No? OK, OK, how about renewable like hydro-power? No?

Instead you want to remove the hydro-electric dams and invent a convoluted scheme of carbon credits? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning...

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

2
0

[–] Hipophoralcus 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

There is a problem with that.Big areas where the forests were cut down the soil is not capable of supplying nutrients to a new forest.The old forests could live there because the big trees dropped leaves,branches etc.Without that,a desert is in making.

4
6

[–] HAPPYBEN 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago 

There's been few times where government has had reasoning worth following.

2
4

[–] Antipodes 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Dropping a few billion into fusion research? No? Hey, how about adding some SO2 to the atmosphere, simulating a volcanic eruption, which can easily drop the planet's temperature by a good degree or more, since that's what Krakatoa did back in 1883? No? Right then...

1
2

[–] Crashmarik 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Fusion has been a rat hole. I have been hearing how it was right around the corner for the past 50 years by the people making grant proposals, the people doing the work are don't hold your breath.

What you see with the current research is too many people bet on the Tokomak and now they can't admit it isn't a winner.

0
1

[–] tame 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

"Nobody knows who started the war between us and the machines. We do know that it was us who scorched the sky."

1
0

[–] mamwad 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

The fight against nuclear was funded by the petroleum industry. Combine that with the fact that political activists are often scientifically illiterate, environmentalist groups fought nuclear to an irrational extent. It was a huge mistake on the part of the green movement to reject nuclear as a major way to combat rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

But, that is slowly changing. More environmentalists are realizing that wind and solar cannot currently produce enough power to meet demands, and are softening their stance on nuclear. Even first generation nuclear plants are far less harmful to human populations than oil, gas, or coal. And from what I understand "next generation" nuclear plants can actually use old nuclear waste as fuel. At this point, I think that any environmentalist that doesn't suggest nuclear as the major path forward is not intellectually respectable as an environmentalist.

As for hydro, I disagree. While renewable, it reeks havoc with ecosystems. If we transition to modern nuclear technology, we won't need it anyway.

1
0

[–] 51rH0n3y84d93r 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

We have a winner! Hydro would be a preferred option if nuclear was blocked. IE: If anthropogenic climate change will kill off numerous species, cause global droughts, and cause global starvation, hydro is better than nothing. (I'm still a fan of hydro in certain circumstances, but nuclear breeder reactors are the best option.)

3
29

[–] refugee610 3 points 29 points (+32|-3) ago 

Didn't XKCD have something to say about extrapolation in one of their earlier comics?

Oh yeah, they did.

1
3

[–] ChristoDeFetus 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Yeah so wait... I'm gonna get multiple wives, but we're all going to melt?! Just my luck, I knew it was the wrong century to get born. Thanks a lot, science.

3
19

[–] 6304624 3 points 19 points (+22|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Welcome to the comments section of /v/scienceWithAPoliticalSlant

13
6

[–] Pawn 13 points 6 points (+19|-13) ago  (edited ago)

/v/scienceWithARepublicanSlant edit: Looks like the republicants got butthurt. Pile on the downvoats dirtbags.

2
3

[–] the_spectre 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Yeah, them dirty Republicans. Really need a final solution of some sort for the problems they pose.

4
0

[–] FireForEffect 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

Oh my god you're the biggest faggot.

22
18

[–] Misteranthrope 22 points 18 points (+40|-22) ago 

I like how they throw science out the window at the end.

5
11

[–] KinkRaven 5 points 11 points (+16|-5) ago 

The underlying content point, and they have had papers published to correct the Antarctic numbers, is the temps below the current line are manipulated to be higher than they actually are.

The science has gotten better in the sense the peer review isn't a total circle jerk, just a partial one now but the poltical movement has gone full sjw retard and doubled down.

[–] [deleted] 13 points 1 points (+14|-13) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

6
12

[–] xbryn 6 points 12 points (+18|-6) ago 

3
11

[–] Kylan 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago 

... Predicted temperatures? How accurate is this/can it be?

2
18

[–] Kannibal 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago 

You see the wall approaching, and guess how long it takes for you to hit it

5
-2

[–] FeelinFroggy 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago 

Is slamming on the brakes going to even remotely save us? No? We're still plowing into the wall?

Hit the gas, baby, Ima roll the window down and stick my head out.

5
3

[–] 6304637 5 points 3 points (+8|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Not just predicted temperatures. Proxy data is replaced with real data and real data is adjusted. In other words, temperature extrapolations from ice cores, turd fungus and whatever else they use to guess the temperature is replaced with thermometers and satellites plus some number a bald guy pulled out of his ass.

1
3

[–] KinkRaven 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

That sums up the core issue in a very to the point matter.

I like it.

0
2

[–] InfidelAl 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You doubt their predictions? What about the 50 million climate refugees they like, totes predicted? Do you even science bro? http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-757713.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=

0
0

[–] 0x5f3759df 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Not very (source: I have done climatological simulations).

21
10

[–] klobos 21 points 10 points (+31|-21) ago 

Wow, so many climate change deniers on voat. Is it the same people that think the earth is only 6000 years old and flat?

5
5

[–] pm-me-your-pm 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago 

Sadly there are a great many people who don't have basic critical thinking skills here on Voat. The reactionary approach to being an anti-reddit have caused a lot of people to just hate things for no reason.

1
5

[–] canbot 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Schepticism is good. All doubts should be evaluated so that we can get to the truth. Even if it goes against what you know to be 100% correct.

2
7

[–] Grospoliner 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

Yes, but the caveat to skepticism is being knowledgeable enough to be able to form a rebuttal. Not just making smarmy empty comments.

5
4

[–] FeelinFroggy 5 points 4 points (+9|-5) ago 

I don't deny that it's changing, I just don't think we - not just Americans, but we as in people - are making quite the impact that we think we are. It's not the problem a lot of people are making it out to be. You asked, I answered.

5
2

[–] cointelpro_shill 5 points 2 points (+7|-5) ago 

Denial is easy, science is hard

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] klobos 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

What are they going to spray in the atmosphere?

2
-1

[–] Lobotomy 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Got any references for that statement?

Like, I getcha, I don't think I should be paying the government to make itself more energy efficient. That is everyone's personal responsibility, and a moral imperative if you ever decide to procreate, but I'm not buying the chemtrails thing, dude. It makes sense, but it's improbable to me. There are far easier ways to poison people over the long term.

3
8

[–] Friendly_Troll 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

We're fucked.

5
5

[–] Ina_Pickle 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Probably. But not for the reason you are insinuating. When I was a kid, the alarmist theory was that the Ozone layer had a giant hole in it and was going to be completely destroyed. That ended up not happening. Now it's the planet is heating up... completely ignoring the fact that the ice sheets at the south pole are increasing rather than melting.

Oh well, guess my great great great great great grandchildren will be able to say for certain. Worse case scenario, everyone goes naked.

3
19

[–] DrHugsyMcFur 3 points 19 points (+22|-3) ago  (edited ago)

The hole in the Ozone layer was completely destroyed because of intervention from the government and later business groups. It's not like the hole just stopped being an issue. Scientist and engineers just found a solution and politicians enforced it.

The same thing could happen with climate change, but there's a collection of people who like to disregard evidence so that some coal billionare can earn an extra couple hundred thousand.

2
6

[–] ThirteenthZodiac 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Oh well, guess my great great great great great grandchildren will be able to say for certain. Worse case scenario, everyone goes naked.

If we are actually causing climate change - or if some other shit is - it's going to be really bad for us.

The problem is that since this shit got super politicized and people just basically starting making up shit up and the scientific community started ostracizing anyone who didn't buy into the narrative, nobody can take any of this shit seriously. Being able to say whether or not the climate is changing rapidly - in either direction - would be incredibly helpful knowledge to have, but because of all this political bullshit around it at the moment, we basically won't be able to get a solid read on it for probably at least a few decades.

2
-1

[–] 0x5f3759df 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

You're assuming that a warmer climate is a bad thing.

0
3

[–] BulgingVassal 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

A little bit? probably not.

A lot? maybe not

a lot really quickly? we have a problem.

Really fast change = animal and plant life do not have time to change and adapt, and a lot of shit goes extinct. Resources crash, etc.

sort of sucks when some of the animals are human.

load more comments ▼ (15 remaining)