14
68

[–] SRS-Airbag 14 points 68 points (+82|-14) ago  (edited ago)

Fuck climate change. Plastic polution in the ocean and chemicals in our water and food supply is the number one threat to humanity, not carbon dixoide.

14
28

[–] AnthraxAlex 14 points 28 points (+42|-14) ago  (edited ago)

Your fucking dead on. The EPA and detractors are full of shit. They cant even monitor lead in water supplies accurately and perform the tasks in their original charter yet they are going to somehow claim they can do a fucking thing about global climate change one of the most complicated natural systems humans can even ponder, something thats been occurring since the earth was just an amalgam of rock floating in the void. Leads toxicity was recognized and recorded as early as 2000 BC and we sit here today with an useless fucking organization that cant even act on basic science from 4k years ago. They are more worried about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while the fucking house burns down from shit we can legitimately do something about if they were even remotely competent. "corrected for typos"

10
14

[–] Laurentius_the_pyro 10 points 14 points (+24|-10) ago  (edited ago)

The thing is, we don't need to completely ignore Water/Air pollution via plastics, lead, and other heavy metals to fight editshuman caused climate change.

Even if you don't think climate change is caused (in part) by human industry many of the proposed ways to fight it would also help general water/air pollution, such as continuing to reduce reliance on coal power.

Mining & Burning Coal in addition to CO2 also releases all sorts of heavy metals (Arsenic, lead, Mercury) in addition to radioactive materials that pollute our air and rain down into our groundwater.

Fixing problem A partially fixes problem B.

2
7

[–] 22jam22 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

400k americans die a year from tabbacco. Follow the money and you will figure out why some topics are hot and some are ignored.

0
5

[–] TotallyNotAFed 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well, I can understand why, LEDs are tiny, it'd be really hard to catch and count them all. I mean, it's not like they diffuse or anything, so you couldn't measure them like you do lead, you'd have to physically catch them all and bring them out and count them.

2
-1

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

The EPA doesn't do jack shit because they are bought by the fossil fuel industry. (Btw plastic is still a petroleum product).

2
8

[–] tame 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

Are you seriously trying to say we can only work on one of these things at once?

1
6

[–] PlayByPlayAnnouncer 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

More like, "we're not actually working on the easy and obvious problems, while clamoring to work on the emreally hard, and maybe unsolvable ones".

So, kinda.

3
5

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

This is what enrages me about Climate Change activists - all that energy they are spending in the name of protecting our environment when its the synthetic chemicals and plastics pollution of the oceans which is the greatest threat. I could cry when I went to Montezuma, Costa Rica and these beautiful beaches are all awash with plastics from all over the world dumped in the pacific ocean.

2
3

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

Plastics are ugly, but they don't threaten marine life the way the CO2 buildup does, which may well pull the rug out from beneath all the food chains in the oceans. Worst case scenario, it'll send the oceans back to the pre-cambrium; nothing but jellyfish.

2
0

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

Plastic and carbon dioxide pollution are both caused by overconsumption of fossil fuels.

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

[Deleted]

0
9

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I think you mean Yellowstone.

1
2

[–] Antiracist10 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

God that would be awesome.

4
37

[–] 7128629? 4 points 37 points (+41|-4) ago  (edited ago)

That's a bad analogy. It's more like disputing that we can reduce gravity by raising taxes.

1
8

[–] stradian 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

I only have one upvote to give.

1
3

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

I'll give one.

2
3

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

Interestingly enough, you could. Gravity is proportional to the mass of the objects involved. If we raised taxes to collect money and, for instance, start sending large amounts of mass on escape trajectories away from Earth - you could indeed gradually reduce the gravity of Earth. It'd be a behemoth undertaking and very costly, but it's entirely possible.

Science is fun!

0
0

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

Your problem wouldn't be money, it would be energy. Sending even small amounts of mass on an escape trajectory is extremely energy intensive.

3
-1

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

We can talk about solutions only when people accept the facts.

6
35

[–] lord_nougat 6 points 35 points (+41|-6) ago 

Well, gravity is just a theory.

5
12

[–] Saufsoldat 5 points 12 points (+17|-5) ago 

It's both a fact and a theory, like evolution. You can directly observe it, that's the fact, and you have a theory that explains why it happens.

2
24

[–] Laurentius_the_pyro 2 points 24 points (+26|-2) ago 

thatsthejoke

0
6

[–] gosso920 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Gravity: Not just a good idea - it's the Law!

3
2

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

Just like over last twenty years we directly observed global cooling. The NWO got their calculations wrong on the sun's heat cycle. They thought that we would see 12 years of heating from the sun, but it didn't happen. Just like the Aztecs used to fool their people about their powers because the elite knew the secret of predicting the solar eclipse. So anyway, the NWO had to then change the meme to "Climate Change".

0
0

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

Actually what you're observing is a natural phenomenon. Gravity is a theory no fact

7
9

[–] Morbo 7 points 9 points (+16|-7) ago 

And we understand it about as well as climate systems. Any idiot on the street thinks they understand gravity but the reality is we are no closer to fully understanding it today as when we first acknowledged it as a fundamental force. There is a consensus from all scientists that gravity exists but none of them can truly tell you what it is. It's pretty similar to our knowledge of complex global climate systems.

2
18

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

And we understand it about as well as climate systems. Any idiot on the street thinks they understand gravity but the reality is we are no closer to fully understanding it today as when we first acknowledged it as a fundamental force. There is a consensus from all scientists that gravity exists but none of them can truly tell you what it is. It's pretty similar to our knowledge of complex global climate systems.

Actually, we understand loads about gravity. We don't understand how it unifies with the other 3 fundamental forces and we don't understand how it applies at very small length scales but we do have some good ideas and models for gravity.

For instance we understand that in general relativity, at long length scales, gravity is a curvature of space time around objects with mass. To dispute that or newtonian gravity (gravity on the earth's surface) would be somewhere between silly and flat out ridiculous.

Now with climate science we tend to know that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than a few hundred years ago. It is most likely there due to human activity and there is a strong correlation between the amount of CO2 in an atmosphere and the temperature, with more CO2 causing an increase in temperature.

Exactly what will happen over the next 50-100 years is more debatable. Will the poles melt entirely? Will we have more deserts? These things are dependent upon the model you think is correct. Exactly how some models say the weather tomorrow will be mostly sunny highs in the lower 40s and then that one model says raining and almost 50...

However, to imply that is will be sunny and 85 tomorrow (december in the northern hemisphere particularly say NYC) is just absurd with regards to the other models and in some sense that is where many conservative basically stand on global warming. If you deny that there is more CO2 and that that implies a higher temperature to come, you are as wrong as the looney guy saying it's going to snow in Egypt tomorrow

0
7

[–] Noisemaker 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

But on the other hand, we can predict exactly how gravity will function (at least at the macro scale). Everyone knows the universal gravity equation.

For climate systems, there is a lot more uncertainty and a lot more guesswork involved when producing any numerical predictions.

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

[Deleted]

0
4

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

No, I only have delicious parmesan ecosexuals. They're tasty when grated over pasta.

1
0

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

Unlike AGW, it's a theory with which physicists can make accurate and reproducible predictions about nature.

Environmentalists have plenty of models and love making predictions, but precious few of them actually come true.

12
19

[–] oedipusaurus_rex 12 points 19 points (+31|-12) ago 

Here's the deal with climate change.

It's a really fucking complicated system, and no one knows for sure exactly how it works. We've gotten to the point with our models that we can accurately predict general trends (whether it's going to get hotter or colder), but not the scale (how much hotter or colder it's going to get).

Human beings are definitely changing the climate (towards higher avg. temps) by using industrial age technology such as burning fossil fuels. We do not know by how much. A flat out denial of anthropogenic climate change is as stupid as a flat out denial of gravity, or a spheroidal earth.

Greenhouse gasses emit in the infrared spectrum when they are excited by sunlight. In layman's terms that means that the gasses get hot when they are warmed by the sun. Different gasses do this to different degrees, and different gasses are effected by different spectra. This is gen chem 101 stuff. The mechanism behind this is not the easiest thing in the world to understand, but it's definitely not the hardest.

Industrial activity releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The gasses don't stay there forever, some of them are captured by biogenic processes (carbon dioxide) and used to build shells, or plant matter, or any number of different organelles. Water vapor is also captured and used by life, most often as an electron donor in cellular respiration.

The earth is roughly 200,000,000 miles². Give me an accurate measurement of how much carbon is being sunk from the atmosphere. The other variables are easier to get an idea of how much of an effect they are having, but it's going to be back of the napkin calculations at best (within an order of magnitude or two is a reasonable estimate for how accurate those measurements are).

No one knows how much climate change is caused by humans. We are in a warm period within an ice age. This ice age is going to last until Antarctica moves from it's current position. Antarctica has been there for a while though, and during that time there have been other warm periods. My best guess as to what is causing this one is humans. There haven't been any large volcanic eruptions in around 100,000 years. No significant meteor impacts. Just us digging up carbon that was sunk into the geologic strata and combusting it, releasing it into the atmosphere.

I don't know how much change it's going to cause, and anyone who says they do (one way or the other) is lying to you, and possibly to themselves. We are however gambling, and the risk we're taking may be existential.

I think that industrial power infrastructure is on it's way out. There are "cleaner" ways of producing electricity that are going to become more affordable as time goes on. As these sources become cheaper than traditional sources we are going to move on to the cheaper sources.

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

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] oedipusaurus_rex 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I'm going to reply to one part before I read any further.

That's not what's being disputed or denied. It's more like one side not wanting to give an inch to the other

I don't know which side you are talking about (yet), but both sides are doing this.

I've read the rest of your comment now. I agree with you on most of it. If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I'm calling how we respond to climate change a gamble. There are risks for both sides, and rewards for both sides. I do tend to agree with the greenies but that's only because the risk for keeping with fossil fuels is greater than the risk (in lost opportunity cost) of moving to "green" technology. I also disagree about the solar shingles. That's a brilliant idea, but our government and industry isn't ready to deal with ideas like decentralized power generation. It's going to cost a lot of jobs though so I'm not on board until someone starts floating better ideas than universal basic income.

Greenpeace is a fucking fraud. You can't be against nuclear power and seriously call yourself an environmentalist (unless you're one of those idiots who want to go back to a paleolithic lifestyle). Oil companies pay people like me 6 figures a year to find the correct variables in our papers that support the view that global warming isn't a big deal. The federal govt. prefers to fund studies that say otherwise. There is an economic incentive to parrot the party line for both sides (unless you're in the habit of committing fraud the oil companies will send more cash your way).

6
5

[–] AnthraxAlex 6 points 5 points (+11|-6) ago  (edited ago)

Have an upvote. Additionally i would add that the vast majority of co2 and methane are produced by the bio load of farming and raising cattle in the large scale manners required to feed the massive populations of humans. It's been suggested that the bio load of higher order organisms is higher now than at any point in the history of the earth. There is no way to solve this problem and still feed the population of humans that live on earth. The carbon cycle is intricately linked to the amount of bio load being supported by the earth and we wont be able to significantly reduce the levels of green house gasses without drastically reducing that bio load. No one has a workable solution around this because organism biology dictates how much carbon is needed by the cycle to support current yields.

0
2

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

You mean without getting people to change their diets. Insects convert grain to protein much more efficiently, are used to living shitting app one another on a pile of food, and are just as safe to eat as cow is "safe" with mad cow or the e. coli outbreaks from the shit spilling into our waterways. We could also eat more plants instead of this insane system of monocropping because of tax incentives.

But that would all require people to change their habits. Won't happen if a lb of beef can be sold for a profit under the price of production.

0
2

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

Additionally i would add that the vast majority of co2 and methane are produced by the bio load of farming and raising cattle in the large scale manners required to feed the massive populations of humans.

Actually the vast majority comes from natural sources, but of the portion released by humans, farming would be a good bet, yes.

1
1

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

If humans were not here it would be forest fires contributing more CO2 to the world than we possibly can burning forests in coal power stations.

1
0

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

We've gotten to the point with our models that we can accurately predict general trends (whether it's going to get hotter or colder), but not the scale (how much hotter or colder it's going to get).

Even then not really. It's been getting hotter since the end of the little ice age, so scientists are fairly safe so long as they say "it'll probably get warmer." They would have to get very unlucky for the trend to shift right when they make their prediction, so it's a risk-free position to take.

0
0

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

We're currently in a thermal maximum within an ice age. The ice age is going to last until Antarctica moves away from the pole.

1
0

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

I think your intent is good and offers some positive changes for society/earth but you are operating on conjecture and assumption and calling it Fact. As some others have already pointed out, gravity is a theory and as our knowledge and ability to measure/ observe increases the discrepancies and conflict becomes even more apparent.

1
1

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

except gravity is a theory thats proven with mathematics...

2
1

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

you are operating on conjecture and assumption and calling it Fact.

If you actually bother to read what I wrote then you'll find that I'm only pointing out that others are operating on conjecture and and assumptions calling it fact.

What both sides of the debate are doing is they are picking the models that give them their preferred results. The models are, by the very essence of what models are, simplifications of what is actually going on. What this does is it gives us a way to understand the process, and from this understanding broad brush predictions can be accurately made. Predictions such as "it's going to get warmer" or "it's going to get colder". The problem comes in when you chose a specific model and say "the global temp is definitely going to rise 2 C° in the next 50 years". That could happen, and the people making such predictions could be correct. A good deal of this success can be attributed to luck though. They just happened to choose a more correct model. Education increases your odds of choosing the correct models and variables, but this only increases odds of success. It doesn't guarantee success.

You are correct in pointing out that there is a Darwin style evolution in scientific models. Models that predict well are modified with the intent to improve upon them, while models that don't are left behind.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 12 points (+15|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

4
11

[–] GreatDrok 4 points 11 points (+15|-4) ago 

Depressing more like.

4
10

[–] dynamiteVacancy 4 points 10 points (+14|-4) ago  (edited ago)

It's actually doing pretty well right now. There are rarely people interested in science who deny climate change is happening, usually the argument is whether or not it will be catastrophic to human life or not. Either that or they're arguing about the reasons certain people are pushing for climate change policies.

7
8

[–] rwbj 7 points 8 points (+15|-7) ago  (edited ago)

Hahah. The top comment - 'screw climate change, plastics and chemicals in the ocean are the number one threat to humanity!' I honestly think some people have to be upvoting this stuff just to egg these guys on. You know, think I'll go upvote him.

5
8

[–] Caesar_Augustus 5 points 8 points (+13|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Well, you know, climate change is the greatest threat to humans in the entirety of their miserable existence.

The ice caps are melting, the polar bears are dying, and the sea level is rising at the utterly insane, completely catastrophic and murderously cataclysmic rate of...

3 millimeters a year.

Repent of your sins or face DOOOOOM!

2
10

[–] primar 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

Climate change is real. It being the end of the world? Fantasy

6
1

[–] Aetrion 6 points 1 points (+7|-6) ago 

It won't be the end of the world, but if you don't like a shitload of refugees from third world countries maybe changing the world in a way that forces them to run for the shrinking temperate zone isn't a brilliant idea.

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

[Deleted]

0
2

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

Why would they flee third world countries when warmer temperatures have (in the past) made the equatorial regions more fertile?

0
0

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

it is if you have a loaded rifle facing the third world country.

those countries are full of natural resources, and the inhabitants are too stupid to organize enough to exploit them.

8
-5

0
3

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

The Sierra Club doesn't like it? Sign him up. These fucksticks wanted to lock off the Sierra from Highway 99 to Highway 395. The only access was by foot. No mule, bike, motorized vehicle, plane, (Helicopters are outlawed currently unless special circumstances) or auto.

Not, well they just cant go off road, From Highway to Highway with specific routes to Yosemite. Fortunately they were seen as so fucking crackpot it was tossed out. The fact it was Brought Up?

0
2

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

No mules? Sounds a bit odd. I know of one guy still using them in the US, but that's about it. Is mule trekking a big thing and I just hadn't noticed?

0
1

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

The Sierra is Famous for the Mules. But the Sierra Club feels that the excessive traffic from mule trains is detrimental to the land. Crazy huh? I lived in Sierra for 20 years. Rode many tracks and trails just east of the Sierra range and in the Inyos and Whites.That said, every early summer we had to burn back in the trails because the land took it back. Sagebrush would seed under the snow then germinate during spring and pow. No more trail. The planet will take back what is hers quickly. It was a constant struggle. Boxer and Feinstein were zero help. I hope fleas take up residence in their crotch.

3
3

[–] Baconmon 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

I love Trump just as much as the next voater, and I agree with 99% of what he says, but 2 things I disagree with him on: 1: global warming, and 2: his stance on NSA and whistleblowers..

I admit though that there are 99 problems that take priority over dealing with global warming.. For example, I'd rather that coal miners have some jobs for now rather than shut down all their jobs to protect the environment.. But I think we need to be working towards renewable energy though..

2
-1

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

Have you ever watched the arguments and lectures given by Lord Monckton about Climate change hoax?

1
1

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

The guy who claimed he had developed the cure for Graves’ Disease, herpes, AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, the flu, and the common cold with his miracle tonic?

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

load more comments ▼ (25 remaining)