Also, how fuck is our species?
Where were you when agent Orange decided to fry the planet
Carter Morales
Other urls found in this thread:
news.nationalgeographic.com
nypost.com
independent.co.uk
independent.co.uk
archive.is
en.wikipedia.org
academia.edu
xkcd.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
mars.jpl.nasa.gov
mars.jpl.nasa.gov
news.nationalgeographic.com
news.mit.edu
space.com
abc.net.au
news.mit.edu
scienceagogo.com
nature.com
space.com
science.nasa.gov
archive.is
archive.is
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
William Ramirez
so fucked that you ought to kill yourself now
Gabriel Rogers
I'd say som fuk.
Eli Adams
Grayson Jackson
>president withdraws from paris agreement
>states ignore him
This is what looks like is going to happen.
Cooper Nguyen
who the fuck cares get started on that fucking wall instead
Jace James
Not all. The poorest of our species are who will probably really suffer.
To Europe, meeting climate goals is a moral obligation (you know, not fucking a good part of the world up AGAIN like with muh exploitative imperialism, world wars and so on) and insurance against some potentially costly events. But not existential.
We already know that even near worst case scenarios would be manageable and not necessarily very much more costly to us than trying to reduce emissions is.
But 2-3 degrees Celsius warming fucks the poor world. Very badly. Hundreds of millions displaced, many killed. And they will know it, too.
Basically, not really doing anything is very bad PR at the very least.
Camden Russell
Funfact:
>Paris Climate Agreement will subtract just 0.2 degrees from the global increase in temperature expected in 2100
Anthony Murphy
It's a good thing the most productive states are democratic majorities, funny coincidence actually...
Cooper Barnes
>implying you can isolate yourself from the rage and WMDs of the "poor world"
Nathaniel Ross
That's not actually little.
If I was the emperor of Earth and Earth only and wanted my humans to be productive, I'd want the raised productivity and habitability of 0.2 degrees. Never mind the extra migrations and unproductive fights that will happen the more things change.
Apart from that, since there is no emperor of earth, it requires to get started "seriously" for anything more to happen in ten years from now. We will not do anything more without the inertia and technology and tooling that comes from getting actually started on a larger scale.
Adam Morris
>All the rich people live by the sea
>The poorest of our species are who will probably really suffer
??
>Hundreds of millions displaced, many killed.
Except global warming is actually making it easier to survive in the 3rd world:
archive.is
Nathaniel Lewis
It's just one agreement that wasn't actually enforced by anything. It's a pledge by all of the nations in it to tighten their controls on pollution. Many of the countries in it are not very industrialized in the first place so they don't even have anything to lose in pledging to join it. For these countries their pledge is partly symbolic and also to steer their future developments toward efficiency and renewables.
Luke Walker
>coincidence
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Gabriel Roberts
I think he was using it sarcastically.
Austin Watson
>non-legally binding agreement with largely symbolic meaning
>literally gaining nothing but pissing the illiterate off
7D curling
Benjamin Thompson
Just consume less you dope
Thomas Long
Thank whoever you're not the emperor of Earth. A warmer Earth would be a better place to live in by every objective metric.
Aiden Rodriguez
If they get WMD (which we might not as easily permit to happen anyhow), why would they point them at Europe?
If the current trend continues, we'll have fairly seriously tried to pay and work for this not to happen, and also supplied them with some mitigation measures.
I think they might be more pissed off at some other places.
> Except global warming is actually making it easier to survive in the 3rd world
Probably not. Overwhelming body of evidence points at sea level rises, precipitation issues in many areas, and more issues with water management overall, among other things.
That plants will probably have more warmth and CO2 to grow will not solve all our problems by any means, it's also making life even easier for insects, bacteria and so on that fuck the poor world pretty badly already.
Jeremiah Ramirez
Climate change may be real but the alarmism is unwarranted.
Luis Cook
>It's just one agreement that wasn't actually enforced by anything. It's a pledge
So sort of like NATO but look how Estonia still hasn't been invaded.
It's much better than nothing and can be built upon as alternative technology improves.
Luke Bell
Just imagine how much CO2 this fucker's rockets are outputting every time he launches something.
Hope that evil cunt he's dating fleeces him dry.
He's a beta fag.
Josiah Thomas
>If I was the emperor of Earth and Earth only and wanted my humans to be productive, I'd want the raised productivity and habitability of 0.2 degrees
Except you're decreasing productivity 10x more than you gain from the -0.2 degrees by fucking up with the economy, which will decrease innovation and thus the speed at which technology to solve climate change problems is developed. And that's assuming that the amount of expected warming WILL decrease productivity when there is evidence to suggest it would actually increase it ().
Nathan Harris
climate change may be real, but people dont affect it the most. also what even is wrong with it. i hate cold.
Kevin Wilson
Overwhelming body of evidence also points to a two decade stagnation in global warming. Yes, "hottest year on record" has been pure propaganda for two decades now.
Isaiah Ramirez
>That plants will probably have more warmth and CO2 to grow will not solve all our problems by any means
It will solve a large chunk of the "not enough food" in Africa etc problem.
Logan Lewis
paris agreement had shit about allowing migrants in and other stuff that had nothing to do with climate change
Hudson Morales
That is extremely unlikely to be the case, according to most guesses we can take and even the initial (already happened) warming observed.
Just a tiny fraction of the breakdown can be found here:
en.wikipedia.org
It's definitely not going to be the apocalypse - certainly not for "club richfag" anyhow, but it'll be shit overall.
And that doing nothing but accelerate the temperature change is the optimum is wishful thinking.
Robert Taylor
>If they get WMD (which we might not as easily permit to happen anyhow)
too late; a number of fundamentally unstable but hardest hit countries like Pakistan and Iran either have or work on WMD stockpiles
>why would they point them at Europe?
climate change happens to effect muslim areas the most while they are not responsible for much of the pollution
Cooper Lewis
>Overwhelming body of evidence points at sea level rises
As I said, it's the rich who live near the sea.
>precipitation issues in many areas, and more issues with water management overall
Where are the proofs? This is all confirmation bias.
Brandon Davis
>moral obligation
Found the communist.
And Europe didn't fuck the world, you must be thinking about great Britain
Evan Nguyen
Sorry to break it to you but you seem to be living in an information bubble.
Bentley Roberts
It's a good start. It's pretty difficult to get something huge with 200 countries trying to negotiate at the same time but this agreement opens the doors to other more extensive agreements in the future.
Carson White
What don't you understand about mutually assured destruction? Hell, US and Europe can probably block a nuclear rocket.
Joseph Roberts
>It's a good start
No, the Paris agreement is actively harmful.
Nathan Rogers
>imblyign
Jaxson Gray
Eli Hall
Since there is no punishment for going against paris accord, whats to stop fucks like india and china to keep shitting up the planet even after "promising" not to.
Brayden Perez
>WAAAAH FOUR YEARS OF RELAXED EPA REGULATION WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WE'RE ALL GUNNA DIIIIIIE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
David Roberts
Can I get a tl;dr?
Does he argue for yes or for no?
Michael Bailey
That's part of the reason people are pissed off about this. There was literally no reason for him to leave this agreement, it was not binding in any way. If Trump wanted to tone down some of the pledges he could have done so without leaving it. He's acting like he had to leave it even though the proposals in it are voluntary.
I'm of the opinion that he left it just to spite Obama and he plans to re-enter the agreement after "negotiating" the completely voluntary terms himself to make it look like he made a better deal than Obama. He's that stubborn and his fans are that stupid.
Jeremiah Moore
a lot of africa was french, belgian and italian, and did you ever notice who much of south america speaks portugese and spanish?
Juan Morales
> Except you're decreasing productivity 10x more than you gain from the -0.2 degrees by fucking up with the economy
Your raising of productivity without restrictions on efficiency and emissions will just flat-out increase emissions at a rapid if not (for a while, while the rest of mankind catches up and everyone utterly maximizes their economic potential regardless of emissions) exponential pace.
> which will decrease innovation and thus the speed at which technology to solve climate change problems is developed
This technology will get developed and deployed if there is a myriad of incentives to do so, which is literally what these various agreements are trying to do.
If you can meet or surpass all goals, you can economically speaking grow your company. Perfect incentive.
It just happening otherwise is wishful thinking.
> Overwhelming body of evidence also points to a two decade stagnation in global warming.
Not at all. Not sure how you concluded this or where you heard such bullshit, but it's not the case. We got an ongoing trend since the industrialization, tendency accelerating. Kinda obviously since more parts of the world are now building more industry based on fossil fuels.
Liam Ward
He avoids motivated reasoning.
Joshua Jenkins
It's basically a big "fuck you" to global engagements. Trump won on a big nationalist note, shitting all over the UN, NATO, and all the agreements inbetween. He's just trying to gain points from anybody at this point.
Alexander Adams
>What don't you understand about mutually assured destruction?
radicals in disintegrating societies laugh at your empty threats
> Hell, US and Europe can probably block a nuclear rocket.
it can't but you should also think more creatively how they could deliver it
Leo Sanchez
This guy is on point. If you think he is wrong, you are a dreamer. You shouldn't fuck the market and pour billions in uncertain strategies, you have to let the will of the people lead this pro-climate trend. This is the cheaper and the most moral solution.
William Campbell
t American redneck talk radio "expert" in sniffing green house gasses A.K.A. farts
Angel Thompson
Is that what he meant by "shaking up Washington"?
Going against what literally everyone says just to gain brownie points from hicks in the Bible Belt?
Easton King
> whats to stop fucks like india and china to keep shitting up the planet even after "promising" not to.
There was nothing to stop them in the first place, the idea of the Paris accord is that developing countries don't have to do shit because they've got to keep developing their economies, hence US and Europe are the ones who have to pay.
That said, to answer your original question:
>Their ability/lack thereof to breathe
Lucas Nguyen
Like I said, you seem to be living in an information bubble. There is absolutely nothing controversial about stagnation in warming.
>trend
Gibberish term. Literally.
Learn some math.
Jack White
Keep proving how you have no idea what you're talking about.
Zachary Adams
It was a campaign promise to withdraw, he's just delivering.
Grayson Scott
>US and Europe are the ones who have to pay
No, we don't. Fuck them.
Joshua Flores
It's bad, but with the rest of the planet still party to it, the effects won't be as dramatic as the agreement simply not existing.
Michael Wilson
>No, we don't
They've literally already agreed to it
Christian Rivera
>the effects won't be as dramatic
>effects
>dramatic
Nathan Gonzalez
All this gesture says to the world is that the US will not uphold its agreements which puts the US in a worse position when it negotiates future agreements.
Zachary Lopez
What part of purely symbolic is so hard to understand? No one actually cares about climate change (Earth's climate has never been 'unchanging'). Politicians only use it as a shibboleth.
Jackson Reed
> you seem to be living in an information bubble
Yea, as big as I can make it (can't exactly jack myself into ALL studies and data sources).
But taking in maximum information tells me that, at this point, we have a ridiculously obvious trend.
> There is absolutely nothing controversial about stagnation in warming.
It isn't even consistent with measurements we have from around the globe (ground and satellite based) - how much *more* controversial could it be?
> Gibberish term. Literally.
> trend (trĕnd)►
> n.
> The general direction in which something tends to move.
> Learn some math.
You do that. "Trends" - negative, positive and so on are even a thing in maths.
Jaxon Cook
No, all this gesture says is that the US is realigning its geopolitical interests.
Dylan Smith
This guy is serious.
China is bigger problem as they don't decrease the pollution and still depends on coal. Literally this what Trumps want, but fracking made the coal a meme.
Andrew Cox
Good. If we kill the poor, then there wont' be any communists.
Jonathan Green
I'm anti-Paris accord, I'm just stating their logic.
If it comes to a game of chicken where the US China wait as long as possible to make a move in fixing the problem, the US wins.
Camden Lewis
Oh god... Do this with WTO too and make america great again :^)
Anthony Young
>567px-Global_Temperature
Interesting how the Great Depression, rise of fascism and WW2 "coincided" with a huge spike in global temperature.
Eli Mitchell
I wonder about that. Communism is almost dead anyhow.
But yes, it's going to mainly kill and displace the poor. We are pretty much safe unless something peripherally related (and unlikely) gets us.
Jonathan Jones
China is rolling out tons of solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear plants and coal is quickly being phased out apparently. It's kicking the US' ass at addressing pollution. It's also not fair to blame China for the pollution that was largely caused by foreign companies including American companies. America and the west basically outsourced its pollution to China.
Nolan Reyes
>But taking in maximum information tells me that, at this point, we have a ridiculously obvious trend.
This is Dunning-Kruger effect. Any non-scientist who thinks they can make an informed decision about the science is deluded.
Brayden Ortiz
'Trend' is a thing in statistics, and it is meaningless without the context of a time series. Like I said, you're talking gibberish, passing of colloquial, informal, dumb, "line on a graph" tripe as "analysis".
Julian Miller
No, he's gaining brownie points from everyone not in a leftist echo chamber.
Connor Evans
Burgerland have leftists? The last time i saw muh liberal tears salt mine memes at trump's echo chamber.
Forget governing, it's all feels like, everything is about avenging Obama's 8 years.
Joshua Morales
> The great depression
1929-30, you can see a small dip in annual mean there, but smoothed it did nothing much. We're also only talking about ~15% GDP reduction that in most places was recovered quickly.
1900-WW2 saw overall a good bit of industrialization and population growth, though.
> WW2
Dunno. Might just have been a few 0.1 degrees warmer years. (If that's a huge spike then 1910 is a huge dip?). Or might have been related.
I guess you could look at the outliers, but the point isn't really how to avoid these but how to avoid the trend.
Nathaniel Jackson
>Burgerland have leftists?
How about the majority of its population? Does that count as having leftists?
Jaxon Reed
> without the context of a time series
~ Beginning of industrialization (pick your time, steam engines being invented or commercialized might be one) till now is the typical reference, but you can use any longer time series, like this:
xkcd.com
We're generally talking about WTF happened in the final part of that graph.
Luis Mitchell
I can't trust that as they don't know what is communism either aside """free""" stuff which is bullshit.
Samuel Nelson
Solar panels aren't all that good for the environment. All the left-over waste that goes into making them has to go somewhere. Not to mention they're not really all that powerful.
Ian Ross
PS: The image with the plot I posted had an obvious "time series", too.
You know, the bottom part was time - years when measurements were taken, eh.
Jordan Gomez
It's true the production of them is not very clean but they're still a significant step up from coal. Unfortunately they're not sustainable all by themselves but they can be supplemented with batteries and wind and other forms of energy production which can pick up the slack in less than ideal situations.
Ayden Bailey
Dude, even fucking Al Jazeera admits that France's colonization of Africa was overwhelmingly benevolent. All they did was give them medicine, education, French citizenship and ability to move to France.
The only reason they invaded North Africa in the first place was because Barbary slave traders kept attacking European ports and kidnapping Europeans as slaves:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Having colonies LOST Europe money - that's why Britain had to give theirs up after WWII.
Landon Barnes
>but they can be supplemented with
Nuclear power.
Brody Phillips
mars.jpl.nasa.gov
mars.jpl.nasa.gov
news.nationalgeographic.com
space.com
abc.net.au
scienceagogo.com
nature.com
space.com
science.nasa.gov
Jacob Morales
nice meme
Caleb Walker
>people hating because US taxes won't pay for international nigger gibs me dat
Asher Myers
>This technology will get developed and deployed if there is a myriad of incentives to do so, which is literally what these various agreements are trying to do.
Government subsidies don't work and almost always backfire.
Wind power for example is an inefficient meme that kills thousands upon thousands of birds and can create more emissions than it saves (archive.is
Ethanol subsidies backfired:
>A decade ago we were plowing money into ethanol subsidies as one response to climate change. But that turned out to be not just environmentally destructive but was also arguably responsible for the spike in food prices that soon followed, as farmers turned away from cultivating corn for human consumption to cultivating it for ethanol production.
Smog prevention subsidies backfired:
>Another example: The New York Times recently reported on the massive increase in smog over London. The cause? Let me quote from the story:
>“The British government provided financial incentives to encourage a shift to diesel engines because laboratory tests suggested that would cut harmful emissions and combat climate change. Yet, it turned out that diesel cars emit on average five times as much emissions in real-world driving conditions as in the tests, according to a British Department for Transport study.”
Merkel's green energy program backfired - electricity prices went through the roof yet emission levels are exactly the same as when they started in 2009.
archive.is
There already is a myriad of incentives - whoever solves the problem gets rich.
Nathaniel Perez
>It's kicking the US' ass at addressing pollution.
Good, looks like we don't need to get involved then if the world's biggest polluter is fixing everything for us :^)
Michael Parker
communism / socialism is making a HUGE resurgence right now, and historically the poor only take so much before they fight back en masse.
glhf capitalist pigs is what im saying basically. The rich will be eaten
Camden Hernandez
>Where were you when agent Orange decided to fry the planet
oldfag detected
Christian Martinez
Nice non-argument
It's literally undisputed history
Nicholas Nelson
The "poor" are starving in Africa. No one who has an internet connection can be considered very poor in any sort of historical context. You may not be as rich as the richest mofo but I sure as hell bet all your basic needs are being met.
So fuck off spoiled commieshit.
Noah Gray
>Government propped up bankers are pillaging us, let's give government more control!!!
Gavin Phillips
>communism
>not equally-distributed poverty
Pick one
Leo Roberts
Per capital the US is the largest I believe. China is bad but not the worst and it at least has the excuse that almost all of its economy is industrial. The US absolutely does need to be in any climate agreement it's among the worst and it doesn't even have an excuse for it.
Matthew Sanchez
>Merkel's green energy program backfired - electricity prices went through the roof yet emission levels are exactly the same as when they started in 2009.
The part where they exit nuclear power isn't really about them trying to save on nuclear green house gas emissions, no.
They simply just wanted out of nuclear power and decided renewables were going to be used (rather than coal or such). It was always clear it'd cost a good bit. And it certainly is question if that is a good idea and worthwhile to imitate.
That said, apparently:
> Germany has made significant progress on its GHG emissions reduction target, achieving a 27% decrease between 1990 and 2014
> en.wikipedia.org
Mason Jenkins
Lmao internet access cannot be looked at as a factor of wealth or class, there is no 'historical sense' lol
Also what about all the shitters in India who don't have running water but have a cheapass subsidized phone with internet?
Noah Brooks
>agent Orange
hup holland
Robert Ramirez
>Per capital the US is the largest I believe.
Yeah well per capita doesn't mean shit in respect to overall warming - also it's not.
Julian Clark
Yes some (((Accord))) devised by Obongo and EU cuck leaders with no children is really necessary to the survival of the world
Juan Bailey
What's he trying to say is your an Starbucks commie who probably owns a $700 iPhone
Wyatt Jones
Keep it up pajeet lmao