Climate change will create a refugee crisis. There will be mass migration of Africans and South Americans into less affected areas like Europe and the Northern United States. These migrants will feel entitled to migrate because they’ll see the western world as the cause of the crisis.
It’s gonna get worse boys.
>ice age soon
>Europe be of snow again
>Africans come north
OY VEY IT'S ANUDDA NEANDERTHALOCAUST
Gene specific disease. You people worry too much.
Europe won’t be colder than it is now. It’ll just be colder relative to areas close to the equator.
Can we just get an ice age already I WANT ZEUS TO FREEZE THE PATHS INTO EUROPE
>55
Climate refugees.
Very red pilled.
Start buying land in the true northwest territories
the migrants don't need to feel entitled to be able to move freely between countries, the UN has already stated that's what it wants them to do. global warming is the starting point for the one world gubbermint
checked
Me driving an suv is a good reason to import millions more people whose carbon foot prints will go up x10.
This.
The migration will also exponentially increase the rate of white genocide.
Pretty sure (((they))) aren't trying to tackle climate change in any way because of this.
They only benefit from it
already did. Got myself a nice piece of Finnish Lapland.
so wait
are you saying
climate change will magically only affect poor areas in africa and south america
yet leave europe and usa untouched?
IT SEEMS TO ME
THIS INCOMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS
IS INCREDIBLY CONVENIENT
TO THOSE PUSHING CERTAIN AGENDAS
I personally don’t know how to deal with climate change from a nationalist perspective short of military force.
I’m open to ideas.
Adding to this, the US, Canada, et al could do everything in their power to stop it, but we can’t necessarily control India or China. Maybe sanctions would work?
I think you have a poor understanding of the dynamics of Earth's climate. It's like the people who think because "sea levels are rising", inevitably every currently sea-level locality will flood, but this isn't so. The distribution is disproportionate, relative to a number of other factors. What is equally likely is that global climate change will turn the better half of the Sahara desert to irrigated farmland, for example.
It's not simply "world is heating thus people migrate from equator". That's along a 4th grade understanding.
>military force
Good luck bombing volcanoes
Checked. Northwards they will go
Easy. Let it happen.
Anthropologic climate change is the farce everyone's talking about.
It turned out recently that if my country invests €8.000.000.000,- on environmental measures, we can prevent a whopping 0,00007°C of global warming.
EIGHT BILLION
FOR THAT LITTLE CHANGE
Because it's not us causing the changing. It's that big bucket of heat we call the sun.
I go with the scientific consensus. Multiple independent studies have demonstrated that carbon emissions lead to climate change.
Although it doesn't help that professional researchers like this Yan Li in this article...
indiatoday.in
...state things like "The Sahara is the largest desert in the world." Antarctica is the largest desert in the world. So it doesn't help that on both sides, "experts" are borderline idiots.
>it's the weather
>not the absurd population increase in an already poverty stricken shit hole full of people with an average IQ en par with a somewhat clever chimpanzee
A desperate attempt to win over the right on the climate change scam
I would like to have significantly more information including
a) how much of global warming, climate change, whatever buzzword suits your fancy, is caused solely by humans
b) who has stakes in all these "progressive power" companies
the UN's global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration says that due to global warming 'migrants' will need to be relocated. this plan correlates to the mass labor needed to be first world companies for infrastructure upgrades on a mass scale, ie. by 2030. This is why the new climate change report says that if we don't act by 2030 we are doomed. it's the progressive push for change I certainly didn't ask for.
They should be only allowed to migrate 1) US 2) Russia 3) China 4) India
Other nations are almost irrelevant in their emissions.
You might be right. I’ll research this
you do realize what you are advocating for, right?
we're getting diminishing returns in the developed world for our efforts, all of the work to be done is in developing world.
the best bang for the buck would be INVASION and FORCING COMPLIANCE.
you know that, right?
we're, more or less, doing the most we can. anything more on our side is futile in comparison.
Honestly afraid of this. Even if europe had fully closed borders, theres no way to stop hordes of migrants from just storming the checkpoints
I am concerned about problems that arise from raw temperature and humidity though. 105 F + 80% humidity can kill in a matter of hours
Also, I can't fucking stand the Walt Disney understanding of "Ice Ages". The planet is in the midst of its 5th ice age. Those things people call ice ages with the wooly mammoths and shit are periods of glaciation, and we are concluding an inter-glacial period.
People get the words wrong, and without semantics we cannot arrive at close scientific conclusions. A bunch of chicken littles, with their Disney understanding of climate vocabulary, should not be making decisions for the rest of us.
Have you read up on CO2's thermal capacity?
With the limit at 2,3°C and with 1.9°C already fulfilled, there's little room for CO2 to influence the climate.
>I go with the scientific consensus. Multiple independent studies have demonstrated that carbon emissions lead to climate change.
cool. care to share the most convincing model?
as i remember it, ALL of the models are waaaay the fuck off, and the consensus is due to them not funding researchers that won't concede.
African nations generally have low carbon emissions. It’s the Indias and chinas of the world where this logic is valid.
The burden of proof is on you to prove a conspiracy as far as I’m concerned.
oh, so what you're saying is that we should invade india and china to force compliance?
because, short of that, anything we do will have a negligible effect.
>see the western world as the cause of the crisis
... somehow. Gee I wonder what would make them think that... But don't you worry and keep drinking your Cock Cola and eating your McDongle's assburgers.
also, if your dumb ass thinks europe and the us are going to be less affected you've got another think coming (not that thinking is your people's strong point).
When you start talking about greenhouse gases, remember to include that the planet, itself, is releasing higher amounts of greenhouse gases than humans ever could by their own devices. The planet goes through these changes and has for millions of years. Eventually the Earth will have another glacial period and clean up all this supposed mess we're causing.
I guess at that point someone will be similarly lobbying to try to prevent glaciers because they, too, are caused by humans...
actually, no.
the burdon of proof is on the guy stating that he believes the concensus. which is why i asked for a single model that's deserving of belief.
I think there’s something to that yeah. I’m not sure I think it’s the only solution, but it is a solution
Scientific consensus in an image
And the burden of proof remains with you. You’re the one claiming that the experts are wrong. Prove it
so, i was attempting to use hyperbole to demonstrate how absurd that would be.
china cannot be invaded successfully, which is why this is dumb.
it's like trying to fight a house fire with a thimble of water at a time. sure, i guess you could say that the thimble of water is doing something, but in reality to effect change you would have to use a fire hydrant. in this example, the fire hydrant is being guarded by people that would rather watch the house burn, than give you access.
basically, we've done our part, there's realistically nothing more we can do.
preaching about climate change to the choir is pretty much useless, ESPECIALLY since the models don't actually support the hypothesis of climate change in the first place!
we have these laws because in the 90's the clintons realized that saving the rainforest was a good way to kneecap the bushes ideas of promoting job growth by relaxing environmental regulations. remember "save the rainforest"? ever wonder what happened to that? it was a political stunt driven by hollywood: ferngully, lorenzo's oil, etc... all that shit came out at the same time, remember?
where did it go? did anything actually change?
yeah, bill got elected, so there wasn't a good reason to push for it anymore.
are you seriously glossing over the irony of your statement?
you are making the claim that they are correct.
that's an incredible claim! there should be incredible evidence!
i'm not asking for incredible evidence, i'm asking for a single model that stands up to scrutiny.