5 ms·

There has been sea ice in the Arctic for well under 50% of the planets history. Life thrived The Sahara desert was a grassland 5000-10000 years Life thrived.

gowld 7y ago
Most people are interested in a particular subset of life thriving.
- huffmsa 7y ago
  You don't think we will? Perhaps not as many of us. But that's part of the problem isn't it? Too many humans, chopping down forests, over fishing, sucking melted dinosaurs out of the earth.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    This is a genocidal argument couched as environmentalism. It's not acceptable, because you and I know full well that the world's poor and those who already live in warmer climates will be the first and most helpless victims of this outcome while those of us from richer countries will be much more capable of navigating the coming changes. If you're eager to reduce the global population, start from yourself and your family rather than writing off most of the global south. Stop consuming energy and don't have kids.
    - huffmsa 7y ago
      1. Pretty sure suggesting murder suicide is against the rules. 2. The warm areas of are planet aren't recently poor. There's a very narrow habitable band of temperatures in which human society has thrived. The extreme energy needed to develop those areas is contributing more to the degradation of the environment than benefit to the species it is providing. It's not sustainable. It's going to kill us all. Not everyone can win.
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        1. I'm pretty sure I was suggesting not having kids. It's a bit terrifying that you went here. 2. This doesnt change the calculus of what you're proposing at all. And it's not energy that is the missing resource; that's available in quantity. It's resources and water. Sitting here saying, "Well the people I'm proposing the death of are historically poor and therefore their hardship inevitable" isn't a rebuttal, it's a rationalization.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    What you're essentially defending is the right for nations contributing the most to climate change and what not to essentially put people in nations most affected by climate change to the sword if they chose to immigrate away from their ravaged nation. Instead of making an argument justifying genocide, perhaps we should instead take action against climate change before it becomes a problem? Or would you prefer the next war to be fought over water instead of oil?
  - MagnumOpus 7y ago
    If I undertand right, your proposed alternative solution to cutting carbon emissions is to let a few billion people die in famines and resource wars? I kinda question that the living quality and wealth of the survivors ends up better in your scenario...
p1necone 7y ago
https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
losteric 7y ago
Life will undoubt survive our mistakes. The question is whether we will. Civilization is a fragile thing.
tunesmith 7y ago
We're just a small planet, the universe - even our galaxy - heck, even our very solar system! - will be just fine.
JustSomeNobody 7y ago
You say that, but some countries have big weapons.
Proven 7y ago
> For forcing projections that were close to linear, this didn’t make that much difference, but for scenarios that weren’t (notably scenario C in Hansen et al (1988)), the correction does not work well. Notably the RCS article (quote above) emphasizes that the non-alarmist papers were sort of accurate, while the alarmist crap was off by a lot. The climatists trumpet this news as if the alarmist crap (examples from your comment) was right on the spot. No it wasn't - it was ridiculously overrated just so that statists and plunderers can get their hands on our liberty and income.

gowld 7y ago

Most people are interested in a particular subset of life thriving.

huffmsa 7y ago
You don't think we will? Perhaps not as many of us. But that's part of the problem isn't it? Too many humans, chopping down forests, over fishing, sucking melted dinosaurs out of the earth.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  This is a genocidal argument couched as environmentalism. It's not acceptable, because you and I know full well that the world's poor and those who already live in warmer climates will be the first and most helpless victims of this outcome while those of us from richer countries will be much more capable of navigating the coming changes. If you're eager to reduce the global population, start from yourself and your family rather than writing off most of the global south. Stop consuming energy and don't have kids.
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    1. Pretty sure suggesting murder suicide is against the rules. 2. The warm areas of are planet aren't recently poor. There's a very narrow habitable band of temperatures in which human society has thrived. The extreme energy needed to develop those areas is contributing more to the degradation of the environment than benefit to the species it is providing. It's not sustainable. It's going to kill us all. Not everyone can win.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      1. I'm pretty sure I was suggesting not having kids. It's a bit terrifying that you went here. 2. This doesnt change the calculus of what you're proposing at all. And it's not energy that is the missing resource; that's available in quantity. It's resources and water. Sitting here saying, "Well the people I'm proposing the death of are historically poor and therefore their hardship inevitable" isn't a rebuttal, it's a rationalization.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  What you're essentially defending is the right for nations contributing the most to climate change and what not to essentially put people in nations most affected by climate change to the sword if they chose to immigrate away from their ravaged nation. Instead of making an argument justifying genocide, perhaps we should instead take action against climate change before it becomes a problem? Or would you prefer the next war to be fought over water instead of oil?
- MagnumOpus 7y ago
  If I undertand right, your proposed alternative solution to cutting carbon emissions is to let a few billion people die in famines and resource wars? I kinda question that the living quality and wealth of the survivors ends up better in your scenario...

p1necone 7y ago

https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

losteric 7y ago

Life will undoubt survive our mistakes. The question is whether we will. Civilization is a fragile thing.

tunesmith 7y ago

We're just a small planet, the universe - even our galaxy - heck, even our very solar system! - will be just fine.

JustSomeNobody 7y ago

You say that, but some countries have big weapons.

Proven 7y ago

> For forcing projections that were close to linear, this didn’t make that much difference, but for scenarios that weren’t (notably scenario C in Hansen et al (1988)), the correction does not work well. Notably the RCS article (quote above) emphasizes that the non-alarmist papers were sort of accurate, while the alarmist crap was off by a lot. The climatists trumpet this news as if the alarmist crap (examples from your comment) was right on the spot. No it wasn't - it was ridiculously overrated just so that statists and plunderers can get their hands on our liberty and income.