3 ms·

Here's your answer: because if we continue on our current trajectory, in a mere 30-50 years, we will be experiencing significant effects of societal collapse du

Here's your answer: because if we continue on our current trajectory, in a mere 30-50 years, we will be experiencing significant effects of societal collapse due to climate change that make the current societal effects of ecological collapse we're experiencing (breakdown of supply chains, erosion of institutions, loss of biodiversity, record high global temperatures, etc.) seem like "the good old days." I'm talking "kids born today will die in a world that resembles Mad Max" kind of effects. We don't have 500 years to do something about that. We have to do it now.

scythe 4y ago
>in a mere 30-50 years, we will be experiencing significant effects of societal collapse due to climate change No, we won't. You have no evidence for this and nobody who studies the problem believes it. Furthermore, climate change doesn't work that way: the 50-year outlook is largely "baked in", and reforms made now are trying to change the 100-200-year outlook.
pauldenton 4y ago
Citation needed
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  Go do your own research -- and I mean, real, honest research, not "I'm going go confirm my own ideological biases." Don't pretend you're here to be convinced by me. I've seen your post history.
  - scythe 4y ago
    >Go do your own research I'm a physicist. I have friends who actually study climate science, as in, it's their job. I have spend my entire adult life paying attention to the problem. Nobody believes the kind of things you're claiming. There's a simple graph here: https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ It shows that if GHG emissions drop by 2/3 in ten years and disappear in 50, we get a +1.3 C difference in 80 years (2100), whereas "current policies" is a +2.9 C change. When you reduce that to 50 years, it gets narrower; climate change is doubly cumulative (CO2 accumulates, which drives the accumulation of heat). But in practice, we expect to reduce emissions while continuing to grow the economy, thanks to renewables. The actual 50-year difference between shutting off the economy and just building some goddamn solar panels is probably less than half a degree. I'm not here to "be convinced" by you. I'm here to, hopefully, convince you to stop derailing the debate and making my side look silly. Climate change is a problem. It is a problem that needs to be taken seriously. It is not the end of human development.

scythe 4y ago

>in a mere 30-50 years, we will be experiencing significant effects of societal collapse due to climate change No, we won't. You have no evidence for this and nobody who studies the problem believes it. Furthermore, climate change doesn't work that way: the 50-year outlook is largely "baked in", and reforms made now are trying to change the 100-200-year outlook.

pauldenton 4y ago

Citation needed

actually_a_dog 4y ago
Go do your own research -- and I mean, real, honest research, not "I'm going go confirm my own ideological biases." Don't pretend you're here to be convinced by me. I've seen your post history.
- scythe 4y ago
  >Go do your own research I'm a physicist. I have friends who actually study climate science, as in, it's their job. I have spend my entire adult life paying attention to the problem. Nobody believes the kind of things you're claiming. There's a simple graph here: https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ It shows that if GHG emissions drop by 2/3 in ten years and disappear in 50, we get a +1.3 C difference in 80 years (2100), whereas "current policies" is a +2.9 C change. When you reduce that to 50 years, it gets narrower; climate change is doubly cumulative (CO2 accumulates, which drives the accumulation of heat). But in practice, we expect to reduce emissions while continuing to grow the economy, thanks to renewables. The actual 50-year difference between shutting off the economy and just building some goddamn solar panels is probably less than half a degree. I'm not here to "be convinced" by you. I'm here to, hopefully, convince you to stop derailing the debate and making my side look silly. Climate change is a problem. It is a problem that needs to be taken seriously. It is not the end of human development.