🧵 Is climate change a meme?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:52:14 UTC No. 16246855
there's about 3 or 4 ways to fix global temperature that would cost around $5 billion a year, chump change for most nations. if it was a real problem then they would just fix it, correct? Am I missing something here?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:56:10 UTC No. 16246859
above image doesn't include artificial upwelling, but it's a clever way to do carbon capture while also increasing fish populations in otherwise barren parts of the ocean. more expensive than SRM, but fishing gains could potentially offset costs to the point of profit even.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 07:44:16 UTC No. 16247066
>>16246855
>if it was a real problem then they would just fix it, correct?
yes
>Am I missing something here?
yes, look at /sci/ for example. Many are still skeptical or simply against such decisions, and those people vote too. Not to mention that even if they are in favor of such a change, there's too much debate as to what exactly is the best approach. They should just pick one or two, and go all-in.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:16:29 UTC No. 16247089
>>16247066
>They should just pick one or two, and go all-in.
Saudi Arabia could do it since they have money and don't seem to give too many fucks about they spend it on. Also it's way too hot in their shitty country so they have a big incentive to turn down the global thermostat, global warming or not.
>pick one or two
Cloud seeding seems the best after aerosols. Both are cheap, but cloud seeding seems more marketable and the chemicals used are less exotic (just sea water). Also it's more localized so there is more control of cooling and sunlight reduction area by area.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:08:48 UTC No. 16247152
>>16246855
meer.org
Note: geoengineering isn't going to solve environmental overshoot
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:20:42 UTC No. 16247163
>>16247089
>Saudi Arabia could do it
I know, but I'm not in charge there, what can I say...
>Cloud seeding seems the best after aerosols.
Maybe that'd work, I'm not sure how large the scale of the effort would have to be.
I would just hike the price of retail/leisure fossil fuels to a level that people would only dare to drive for their basic needs. That'd keep cargo transportation costs relatively stable End the party, but keep on living. And, I'd like to make it very clear, that I LOVE TO DRIVE, and I LOVE TO FLY, they're some of my favorite things to do, but a junkie loves his heroin as well, so there's no way out of this with some serious sacrifice, from all of us.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:57:00 UTC No. 16248008
>>16246855
>Am I missing something here?
Yes.
You are missing Shirkey's Principle.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:05:28 UTC No. 16248015
It would be better to put that $5 billion per year into renewable energy because we will eventually run out of oil and natural gas.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:07:45 UTC No. 16248016
>>16248008
>Shirkey's Principle
Interesting. I learned today, thank you.
It seems to be a feature of modern day capitalism: create insecurities through advertising, and provide the goods and services to counter those manufactured insecurities. Pushers, basically.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:51:55 UTC No. 16248353
>>16247163
even if we cut personal transportation down 50%, back to 60's level, it would make practically zero difference to CO2 emissions. not only that, but that huge cutback in transportation would have huge effects on the economy and quality of life.
>I LOVE TO FLY
commercial? last time I flew I was sandwiched between a fat midwestern woman who smelled like fish and a 6'5" Jamaican aspiring rapper. nice people, terrible experience. I wouldn't mind if air travel was replaced with high speed rails.
>>16248015
5B for renewables would be a drop in the bucket. solar is getting dirt cheap anyways, so it will naturally take over with or without subsidies.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:25:21 UTC No. 16248425
>>16246855
We could solve overpopulation for 0$ a year by ending all aid to Africa and India but we don't do it. We're ruled by shortsighted retards who won't do shit until it starts fucking up the economy is impossible to misinterpret ways. It doesn't help that oil companies pay for lying campaigns.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:27:28 UTC No. 16248429
>>16247066
>Many are still skeptical or simply against such decisions
Denialnigger NEETs are a vocal minority, even here most posters generally agree that it's going to be a huge problem (but no one knows exactly how bad).
t. Knower
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:30:36 UTC No. 16248433
>>16248353
>even if we cut personal transportation down 50%, back to 60's level, it would make practically zero difference to CO2 emissions
I don't think you're accounting for the downstream affects of cutting it that much. You'd cut the demand for new vehicles and infrastructure as well, which would then massively decrease steel and concrete requirements. Transportion feeds industry all across the world.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:03:26 UTC No. 16248469
>>16247163
>>16248353
I think co2 is just a scapegoat, the real goal is to reduce oil consumption because oil is running out.
Right now we only have 1.365 trillion barrels of oil left and that's just gonna last us for about 37 more year. A lot of the oil we have discovered, like the one in Venezuela, is largely inaccessible because of the incompetent leftist government there.
Oil consumption is also growing as more and more nations are getting industrialized. We're running into a situation in which we'll run into shortages and see global economic collapse due to this.
Both the EU and China a fewer oil reserves than the US and thus we can see both of them invest more into electric vehicles than the US government does; they have more of a risk when oil starts running out. The US in comparison has a large production currently but even that will eventually run out.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:47:33 UTC No. 16248523
>>16246855
>Is climate change a meme?
Climate change should be looked at from two angles, the science and "the movement".
>the science
climate is a very dynamic system that spans much longer than a human life.
Humans are very bad at making predictions but those two things make it even harder.
Climate change scientists making predictions have the same accuracy probability as random chance.
A lot of climate scientists that appeared between 2000 to 2010 seem very ideological driven, if you read their research the majority if not all could be classified as alarmism
>the movement
It's an offshoot of environmentalism co-opted mostly by leftists and business interests to further their agenda.
it's evolved from global warming to climate change with the focus becoming more death cultish to create a sense of urgency amongst the general public
>Summary
I'm not a climate change denialist but think it's completely subverted at this point from the research scientists to politicians to journalists.
IMO the debate needs to be re-framed as one of broader "Sustainability" movement that isn't as alarmist
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 01:20:06 UTC No. 16248568
>>16248433
sure, but there are probably other knock-on effects we aren't considering when decreasing transportation. increased economic inefficiency/waste from reduced transportation could offset the primary gains. Since industry is the biggest polluter, a small increase in % waste could be comparable emissions-wise to a large % decrease in transportation.
>>16248469
it only becomes more expensive, it's not like someone turns a valve and all oil disappears. totally manageable the way things are going, especially with advances in cheap solar.
>>16248429
Mr. Knower, could you answer my question in the OP?
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 07:05:25 UTC No. 16248877
>>16248523
>co-opted mostly by leftists and business interests to further their agenda
If its warm when I don't want to: Climate change.
If its cold when I don't want to: Climate change.
If it rains more than I like: Climate change.
If it rains less then I like: Climate change.
>Climate change = replacement for religios "weather god"
Also Climate Change is not simply "the climate is changing".
Which may or may not be true.
And even if true:
>the anthropogenic cause because carbon
Is the biggest problem anyway.
Because climate policy literally toppled concern about environmental pollution.
Pollution literally became irrelevant, and all there is now is "carbon".
carbon here carbon there.
It's all da carbon.
"there is a price to carobon"
"you are made from carbon, you breath carbon, you metabolize carbon"
"there is a price to your existance"
"Your life is guilt, because carbon"
And who set this up?
Big Oil !
What ?! I thought Big Oil is against "le green movement"!?
lol no.
The whole "decarbonisation meme" and "carbon credits" and "anthropogenic climate change", was set up by Big Oil, Big Chem & Oil Conglomerates.
It is a proxy for a "eugenics" agenda, which is a proxy for "population control".
Here some documentary about how and why big oil conquered the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6r
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCh
And if you are interested to understand how the carbon & green energy meme got propagated by installed big oil puppet Maurice strong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dK
He literally was paid by Petrol canada and Dome Petroleum and aquired Denver Oil.
He is a meme lord of the biggest kind.
It's a PR campaign concocted by Maurice Strong and the eugenicitsts and Nobel and Rockefeller family.
They wanted an excuses to demonise a thing that is unavoidably produced by any living being.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 07:32:03 UTC No. 16248914
>>16248353
>huge effects on the economy and quality of life.
I am very much in support of that:
>there's no way out of this with some serious sacrifice, from all of us
>sacrifice
>solar is getting dirt cheap anyways
yep, at this point is almost as cheap as making glass panes.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 07:55:16 UTC No. 16248927
>>16248914
we have options that don't require sacrifice. sure, it would make a great story if everyone banded together and sacrificed to resolve some impending crisis, but that's in the realm of fantasy. real solutions only need the right people with the right ideas and access to resources, not flowery thoughts of human togetherness.
>>16248918
you need profit incentive. the UN could have created a 10B dollar bounty for an engineered solution and we would have had one decades ago.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:07:08 UTC No. 16248940
>>16248914
While that it is true.
Solar Panels are MOSTLY made from Glas and Aluminium.
The important thing is "mostly".
Which means there are other parts.
Also it is pretended that "glas has a fixed type of composition".
Which it has not.
And those "minor" parts include incredibly harmfull and hard to obtain and to recycle compounds such as, arsenic as conductive elments and antimony as glas enhancing compound.
Both of these incredibly toxic metals, are truthfully not a MAJOR part of the composition of solaropanels, yet only minimal amounts are incredibly toxic.
Solar panels and the slavework required to obtain the minerals, is ignored.
The damage to the environment of extracting minerals with great condoctivity but also toxicity is ignored.
The fiasko of recycling solar panels without literally poisoning the environment is ignored.
Renewables is the most amazing marketing psyop chuzpe that ever existed.
What exaclty is "renewable"?
It's the decentralized fragmented machines and utilities that permanently will require maintainance.
Distributed all over the country.
While having to deal with the resulting toxic waste of these materials.
One single plant is at ine place. Logistically and economical and ecolagical not wastefull.
Solar and wind, is a logistical nightmare.
Engeneers will travel longer than actually maintain and repair these products.
Frequent exchanges of highly modular crap.
And solar panels are literally laced with arsenic and antimony. So you need extra cash to recycle those.
It is a renewable source of income while generating so much overhead, to even maintain this shit, that it will become so expensive that we will end up und a hand to mouth Economy, just for believing in the esotheric meme of green energy.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 03:33:12 UTC No. 16250298
>>16247163
you're not in charge here either, but feel free to engage in your narcissistic world building fantasy play where you imagine yourself king of the planet anyway.
>this is what I'd do if I was in charge!!
>it would be so great!!
>everyone would love me!!
>then I'd finally get the respect that I know I truly deserve because I'm such a genius!!
nice coping mechanism, the kind of cope is like admitting that you're a total loser. successful people don't waste their time on power fantasies, they have no need to
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 07:16:53 UTC No. 16250463
>>16248940
I'll leave China to worry about their strip mining pollution, and if we need to recycle solars we can just send them back to China, lmao.
the based Chinese flooded the market with cheap polycrystalline silicon and now the biggest barrier to cheap energy are installation and permitting costs, so you should really blame the boomers doing the wiring and the Jews writing your city code.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 23:48:19 UTC No. 16251877
>>16248927
there is no solution because its a made up problem that was invented as an excuse for power grabs and taxation. because its a fake problem that means it can never be solved and can always be used to justify more greed and power hunger
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:31:01 UTC No. 16253008
>>16248940
on the other hand burning coal has no toxic byproducts, the only emission is plant food that makes the environment healthier
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:03:17 UTC No. 16254350
>>16253008
Modern coal plants are remarkably emission free compared to the ones from 50 years ago, its one of the few areas science and technology has improved dramatically over the past half century.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:29:55 UTC No. 16256087
>>16254350
Coal is the real green energy, the CO2 thats added to the atmosphere makes planet healthier and grow faster and able to grow in a wider range of environments.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:13:02 UTC No. 16256295
>>16253008
funny whataboutism.
There are multiple filters nowdays, that even catch fines tust, magnetic and static filters that catch heavy metal and sulfuric residue.
But lets ignore all the other economic factors of:
>modular spread across vast distances
>logistical maintainance managment
>replacement of parts
Compare the set up of "renweables" which are as stated "renewable" in the sense of "requiring a permanent stream of repair and maintainance".
"renewables" have a huge complex supply and maintainance chain, which is economically and ecologically retarded.
While large output plants, have a comparativly easier logistical managment chain and supply chain.
Few locations, fixed routes of supply.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:20:58 UTC No. 16256303
>>16246859
nice, very interesting idea
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:26:15 UTC No. 16256308
>>16253008
>burning coal has no toxic byproducts
if know how to use the internet, you can read about these