How will the free market alone prevent global warming from destroying human civilisation?
If it can't, how can libertarians still support the idea of having a weak government that can't effectively unify its citizens towards solving such an existential threat?
It is a natural cycle. Humans have nothing to do with it.
You're wrong. Please research and then come back and answer before making up nonsense.
By the way, the Earth is round.
Well, easy. There is a natural temperature rise ceiling of 5-6 degrees Celsius over pre-industrialized temperatures. You really can’t get above it.
In any event, even if most of the world were to go tits up, everything would just be temporary, as the human population will largely die off and thus greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.
the free market wont be able to save your little island from being invaded what makes you think it can save you from the poos and chinese polluting until smog comes out yer ears?
>implying the sun has zero effect on the climate
youtube.com
You're wrong. Climate change is real and humans have an effect on it. The question is how much are we effecting it? The industrial revolution happened less than 200 years ago. On the timescale of the planet, that's practically nothing. The problem is idiots like you who believe we as humans can't possibly effect the earth. You're absolutely wrong and absolutely retarded.
He didn't say the sun doesn't effect the climate. Do you know what a strawman is? Because you literally just set up your own argument there and then knocked it down. Stop being 85 IQ.
Do whatever I'm still going to dump my antifreeze and oil in the storm drains because I don't care anymore.
its called the ultimate resource, look it up
You're a moron and I'm going to go idle my SUV now because I'm an American and fuck you, I hope your miserable little island floods, first even more with brown people then with the Atlantic Ocean.
No such luck though, because you're the one that's wrong, and also a faggot. Enjoy your niggers and your regulations.
Here's an article from 30 years ago giving the same 10 year doom forecast. The jig is up and even the normies are catching on.
apnews.com
based and redpilled
>such an existential threat?
God why is everyone such a hysterical woman about everything nowadays. So fucking annoying
Get your t levels checked vegan fag
>He didn't say
Hence "implying".
>the climate change is a natural cycle
>you're wrong, research it
Well that link right there is a life time of research proving that it IS infarct a natural cycle, you insufferable fucking moron.
Gee, it's almost as if I said it was a natural cycle here
Another strawman you tried to set up yourself. How fucking stupid can you be?
I know the Sun is round. And I also know that "climate change" is a natural cycle and humans have nothing to do with it.
If humans are responsible, what about all the other animals? Didn't scientists say that cow farts cause far more damage to the ozon layer than humans ever did?
Wow magazines can be retarded and climate change is a thing. Thanks for the valuable info!
>the human population will largely die off
I personally don't like the idea of the human race getting wiped, but that would help our planet.
Who actually thinks the Sun has zero affect on climate? I don't understand this strawman.
>I hope your miserable little island floods, first even more with brown people then with the Atlantic Ocean.
This will happen in the USA too as black/brown people flood it in numbers due to rising temperatures, meanwhile your coastal towns/cities get flooded.
The world definitely doesn't have to go vegan to reduce methane emissions.
>average of 4 years vs average of 30 years
Every large volcano eruption influences the climate more than we do.
The best example that the climate change is a natural cycle is that
the ice age happened when humans had no technology.
The climate self adjusts. Increase co2? Great, a nice green house that would green a desert.. long term who knows. We will all be dead before it becomes an issue so why worry.
Kill the cows!
Again, you're wrong. Humans output c02 with our industry. That effects the climate. Period. Full stop. This isn't an argument. Humans effect the climate. The question is how much are we effecting it? Stop saying we don't because that's simply wrong. The cow argument comes from the fact that there is more cattle now than ever before. Large scale industrial farming has literally never been a thing in the history of the planet. It only started in the last 200 years.
Ok? What's your point? I'm not saying humans are causing the largest majority of it. I'm saying we're effecting it. Why are you people so fucking dense?
Disprove the tree ring records faggot.
How fucking stupid are you? I wasn't replying to you in the first place faggot, op said it isn't a natural cycle and I posted research proving it is
Plants love CO2. The more CO2 they have, the more oxygen they produce.
Isn't that what ecologists want? To protect plants
>Mfw everytime I see a visual scale of showing climate change it's always distorted or visually manipulated to show single digit/percentage changes as FUCKING MASSIVE and scary
Why does the north pole have a higher concentration of high temperature anomalies compared to the south pole?
When they quote thos ethings about scientists beliving in global warming, most of them are like " yeah gas reflects heat, but its not that big a dea" then the lefties get it to omg lets deindustrialize and africanize europe with climate refugees
Wow did you know that compared to the rest of the lifespan of our planet we are in one of the coldest eras? We are literally living in the tail end of an ice age. For most of Earth's history there hasn't been frozen water anywhere, yet in our time we have frozen poles. Yes the Earth is warming, no there is no concrete proof it is caused by humans because no one is taking data from every single square foot of the Earth to test for temperature changes. A fun fact is that most temperature readings occur within cities which actually trap heat in, especially as they grow larger and get paved roads. It's no surprise these readings increase. Also the Earth will not stay the same as it is today, there are warming periods and cooling periods. The landmasses will shift from what they are today, it is only a matter of time. Your fabled climate change is unstoppable, and the idea that humans caused it is ludicrous.
t. Biologist
Invest in Canada. The leafs are the next superpower after global warming is in full effect....Largest country on earth, untapped resources under the ice. Fear the leaf!
I replied to you because you set up a strawman and I wanted you to know you're a giant fucking retard. He didn't say anything about the sun. You were the fuck head that set up your own argument. Then your downey ass tried to come at me and set up another strawman pretending I said it wasn't a natural cycle. This isn't a private chat room you insufferable cunt. I'm allowed to reply to whoever I want. Now suck my dick you 85 IQ bitch boy.
That's pretty much my entire point. Humans effect the climate. It may not be a huge effect, but there is no doubt that we effect it in some way. Simply releasing more c02 is an effect that we have. I'm not saying we'll be dead in 10 years if we don't change something. But there is absolutely no argument that humans putting c02 into the atmosphere effects the climate.
I did know that, see above. You're quoting shit we learned about in middle school. Saying humans haven't effected the climate is stupid. Saying humans are causing global warming is also stupid. Maybe you should have put a little bit more effort into reading comprehension. Putting extra c02 into the atmosphere effects the climate. There is no argument there. Humans put extra c02 into the atmosphere, for anyone whose not retarded that means that humans effect the climate. Even if it's in a minuscule way. Saying humans have 0 effect on the climate is literally and factually wrong.
CO2 buried in ground gets burned and put into air. Half cycles naturally out of the atmosphere in one year. This creates acidification of Ocean, accelerates evaporation negating any effect of thermal expansion. Evaporation creates clouds and rain. Clouds provide massive cooling albedo effects. In winter time increased snowfall increases surface albedo substantially. Albedo further cancels warming effects from blowing out of proportion. In summer the extra warmth and CO2 greens the northern latitudes absorbing it into the biosphere.
There so many other biofeedback loops that make focusing on CO2 alone, utterly ridiculous. This is why Jow Forums laughs at climate scientists.
I agree earth is round. Not sphere tho
>global warming
>2019
globalwarming.org
> So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle.
How will global warming destroy civilization?
>Pakistan and China btfo
Based
>I also know that "climate change" is a natural cycle and humans have nothing to do with it
How exactly do humans have nothing to do with releasing CO2? Why say you know about something you have no clue about?
>The climate self adjusts
What to?
Why have you erased recent findings from the data? Airbrushing out data seems to be an art form to climate science deniers.
Luckily enough for us, volcanic venting of CO2 is roughly balanced out by CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by chemical weathering.
The problem is not ground-level CO2, it's when it rises and becomes a greenhouse gas.
Data isn't displayed graphically just to look nice. It's usually meant to display a trend. Continuous temperature rises will obviously build and hurt us more over time. Plus, if the global temperature rises by 5 degrees C, we'll be facing threats to our ecosystem, our cities, and human life as a result.
It's not a problem. It's a benefit.
phys.org
delet dis
So you're telling me that all these years of balls sweating were during a period when global warming was taking a break? Holy shit I can't imagine how hot it'll get when it resumes. This country is slowly turning into Morocco, both in people and climate.
My original post was to generate discussion about politics and whether Liberatarian ideology really can solve problems that many believe can only be solved through unified action, whether by fascism, socialism or whatever.
If you want educating on science, go bother
By saying that it's not a bad thing. Just like subpar companies die off through the competition in free market, so do subpar civilizations die off by boiling themselves.
Hence why we need a civilisation with a strong government that can induce change when necessary, not a bureaucratic democratic capitalist civilisation AKA the road to communism.
This is hubris. Who is to say that the government is doing the right thing? With natural processes like free market or evolution, you're guaranteed to get the optimal result without having to rely on the very limited power of humanity to predict things.
So the solution is just to accept our fate and do nothing about it? No corporation ever became successful by sitting on their arse and doing nothing (well, maybe there are a few examples).
>Humans effect the climate.
Yeah, in a very minuscule level. It doesn't count.
>Why say you know about something you have no clue about?
Why are you assuming that I don't know about it?
I'm not just assuming you're wrong. I know you're wrong because empirical evidence proves that humans do have a lot to do with climate change. In fact, humans are the primary factor behind it.
It's almost like media outlets are full of shit or something. If only there were scientists and satellites studying this stuff every day. You fell for the boomer meme about an ice age coming in 1972. Congratulations you're retarded. Even Exxon knew we'd be at 415ppm CO2 by now. Want to know how they knew that? They commissioned scientists you fucking mong.
>Climate change is real
yes
>and humans have an effect on it.
nah, probably not in significant way
Source? The only information I can find says volcanoes output a fraction of a percent what humans do. Have they're been a lot of volcanoes in the last hundred years? Because since then CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 40%. There's more CO2 now than in the last 3 million years. And it all changed in the last 100 years. Something changed the chemical composition of our entire atmosphere in the last 100 years. Do you understand what I'm saying?
We're not doing nothing though. We're burning dat shit as fast as we can, and accelerating with each year.
>we need to lower CO2 levels
>plants won't be able to survive, but earth will stop heating
>worth it
How much has the temp raised since the last ice age?
Unfortunately our brains don't love it. You niggers always use this argument, do you think everyone on Jow Forums is a plant or something?
a possible signature of human contribution to global warming would be an acceleration of sea level rise.
however, sea level rise is constant for at least 100 years !
learn more here sealevel.info
Why do you believe this?
Are you also religious?
Great question. It's most likely due to the fact that the majority of the South Pole is a massive ice sheet and ocean currents transporting warm water to the north. The North Pole isn't completely frozen, only Greenland and sea ice. All of the physical forces of the planet are pushing the heat into the North Pole and it's like an open refrigerator and everything is getting soft and mushy ovaries
Inside.
>what is a lagging indicator
Dowry Industrial Index is up
Plants need C02 to live...but ok.
The problem is we have uninformed, disruptive communist hippies representing people who want the government to actually to something.
Then there are the retards lapping up lobbyist shite and believing everything that comes out of a Republican's mouth in America. I thought this board was more redpilled but obviously not. Half the posters here probably think Israel is always in the right and that Jews have never done anything wrong.
>A fun fact is that most temperature readings occur within cities
Lmao, trying to use such obvious bait as an argument
Climate change cause by humans is probably real. But the truth is we aren’t going to do anything about it. All the incentives go the other way.
Sh*t, we can’t even clean up the homeless druggies that are everywhere, and you can actually SEE those. We aren’t doing anything until all of Florida becomes Atlantis
Hey faggot OP, disprove and I know you can't but you can try anyway you fucking shill
sage
why do you believe it's human caused?
are you also religious?
Vostok records antarctic temperatures, not global temperatures. The authors of the paper who released this data were measuring oxygen isotopes in air bubbles trapped within the ice. They were measuring antarctic temperatures, not global temperatures.
Same thing but in Greenland.
>climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100
This is from the study itself.
Easy enough, but anyway I won't be responding to much more of this stupid graph-posting by people who have no idea what they mean. I already told you to bother /sci/ if you want to be educated, or maybe try finding things out on your own like a big boy.
Mt Pinatubo in 1991 lowered the earth temp by 1 degree or more by itself tho a super volcano could lower the earth temp by 10...
The reality is that we could do a lot but currently aren't doing much at all. Finding alternative sources of energy would remove our reliance on oil nations and solve the problem of OPEC, while at the same time allowing us to switch to electricity-powered cars. We'll also have to change farming methods. Geoengineering research must be supported too to provide solutions.
Solving the global warming issue won't be simply, but it can definitely be done. Might be easier if we all just sanctioned countries doing nothing about the crisis until they get the message.
Breathing affects climate by your standard. The question is, how much? Currently we are at 400ppm CO2. Anything less than 250ppm causes mass extinction.
CO2 causes minimal warming (which is disputed by climate ideologues who don't understand correlation =/= causation)
The SUN and our weakening magnetic field (which can deflect less ionized plasma) is the cause of 96%+ of climate variation.
NOTHING HUMANS CAN DO
CO2 is indeed a "greenhouse" gas" but it’s suspected effect on temperature is only logarithmic. A doubling of CO2 causes only a linear increase in "back-radiation". This is called the "climate sensitivity". Despite claims to the contrary,the value of the climate sensitivity is unknown. Alarmists claim 3 or more °C per doubling, various critics claim different lower values, some even zero. Extrapolating from the past 100 years the sensitivity is around 1°! For the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 increased constantly at 2 ppm per year. It would thus take 200 years until the next doubling!
There is no increase in drought
There is no increase in hurricanes
For decades, the general strategy of anti-global warming activists has been to maximize predictions of apocalypse, death, and destruction. This over-the-top approach has been used to promote the idea that virtually no cost is too high when it comes to implementing global governmental control of all human activities in the service of avoiding climate change.
After all, what use is cost-benefit analysis when you're faced with the apocalypse? Ultimately, the message is no more complicated than this: either hand over control of the economy to a small elite of climate planners, or we're all going to die.
This sort of thing is a propagandist’s dream of course, but in real life, where more rational heads — on occasion — prevail, the costs of any proposed government action must be considered against the costs of the alternatives. For the sake of argument, let's just assume that many predictions of global warming are true. Nevertheless, if we are to be convinced that climate activists and their friends must be allowed to seize control of the global economy — and impose wealth-decimating regulations on us —we must first ask and answer the following questions:
1) What is the cost of your plan to various populations in terms of the standard of living and human lives?
2) Is the cost of your plan greater than or less than the cost of other solutions, such as the gradual relocation populations from coastal areas?
3) Can you show that your plan has a very high probability of working, and if not, why should we implement it when we could spend those same resources on other more practical solutions and more immediate needs such as clean water, food, and basic necessities?
1/?
The response to these questions has often been "just trust us, you anti-science troglodyte! You're wasting valuable time. In fact, if you don't do as we say right now, you're all the more sure to die horribly." In situations like these, questioning the proposed solutions and strategies isn't even acceptable. There's a pre-packaged policy agenda that will "solve" the global warming problem, and you can either take it or leave. If you "leave it" of course, you're "anti-science" regardless of your actual opinion about the science.
Not surprisingly, though, even people who are sympathetic to warnings about global warming — and who are hardly libertarians opposed to all forms of government intervention — have found this approach to be less than constructive.
Humanity Is Already Pursuing Solutions to Environmental Problems — Without a Global Climate Bureaucracy
Many better-informed observers on the matter have noticed that human ingenuity has been faced with a great many very difficult challenges. And, while human history is hardly a non-stop parade of grand successes, there are enough successes in there to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the climate-change narrative of impending-apocalypse is misplaced.
And it appears that the Apocalypse Party may be losing the rhetorical war.
Last month, Scientific American published "Should We Chill Out About Global Warming?" by John Horgan which explores the idea "that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems."
Specifically, Horgan looks at two recent writers on the topic, Steven Pinker and Will Boisvert.
Neither Pinker nor Boisvert could be said to have libertarian credentials, and neither take the position that there is no climate change. Both assume that climate change will lead to difficulties.
2/?
Both, however, also conclude that the challenges posed by climate change do not require the presence of a global climate dictatorship. Moreover, human societies are already motivated to do the sorts of things that will be essential in overcoming any climate-change challenges that may arise.
That is, pursuing higher standards of living through technological innovation is the key to dealing with climate change.
Boisvert, in an essay titled "The Conquest of Climate" in Progress and Peril, begins:
"How bad will climate change be? Not very.
No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic.
Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards."
Boisvert goes on to note that issues such as high temperatures, droughts, and the displacement of populations from flooded areas are all issues that are best addressed by technological innovation — of the sort that people are already pursuing.
3/?
We Need Capital and Innovation More than Ever
In the case of droughts, for example, experience has shown that the best tools in addressing them lie in fostering wealth. Specifically, Boisvert uses the example of recent droughts in the Middle East and how they have "affected Israel much differently from the rest of the middle east - because Israel has more capital and more human ingenuity."
Wealthier, more market-based societies are better able to deal with these problems and more. After all, it's not a coincidence that 20th-century Communist regimes were among the most environmentally disastrous regimes the world has known. Wealth brings both the desire for — and the means to achieve — a more pristine environment.
In his essay titled "Enlightenment Environmentalism," Pinker takes exception to the "radicalism and fatalism" of the climate change movement which has fostered some especially dangerous ideologies. Specifically, he notes the brand of environmentalism favored by activists like arch-anti-capitalist Naomi Klein who, "in her 2014 bestseller This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, [contends] we should not treat the threat of climate change as a challenge to prevent climate change. Rather, we should treat it as an opportunity to abolish free markets, restructure the global economy, and remake our political system."
4/?
The problem with Klein's position, Pinker suggests, is that wealthier societies are the sorts of societies that are more likely to deal prudently with environmental problems. He concludes:
Humanity is not on an irrevocable path to ecological suicide. As the world gets richer and more tech-savvy, it dematerializes, decarbonizes, and densifies, sparing land and species. As people get richer and better educated, they care more about the environment, figure out ways to protect it, and are better able to pay the costs.
Pinker spends much of his article illustrating with empirical data the fact that, yes, richer societies are cleaner, more ecologically-minded societies. The parts of the word most characterized by market-based systems are the parts of the world most mindful of environmental maintenance and cleanup. We can already see in the world poverty data that poor sanitation, hunger, and extreme poverty have all been lessened in recent decades, at the same time that global markets have expanded.
5/?
While neither Pinker nor Boisvert are advocates of unhampered markets, both also recognize that the innovation and wealth-producing power of markets are what produce the technologies that that are so essential to overcoming environmental dangers and problems. Boisvert concludes that if humanity continues to develop the technologies it is already pursuing:
We will grow more food, harness more water, cool ourselves more vigorously, move to new lands and build—and-rebuild—new cities. We will exploit technological breakthroughs, but mostly we will improve familiar technologies and deploy them more widely. We will do all this not because of global warming but because of more pressing challenges like population growth and the demand for higher living standards. The means by which we will overcome specific problems posed by climate change look less like the pristine “sustainable development” envisioned by greens and more like the ordinary development that has always sustained us. [emphasis added.]
These last two sentences are especially important. It is not new, special, world-remaking regulations or global regimes that will keep humanity thriving in a world of affected by global warming. It is "ordinary development" — driven by an everyday desire for higher quality of life — that will create the technologies essential to dealing with environmental problems.
6/?
This means, contrary to the global-warming radicals, it is not necessary to smash capitalism, adopt primitivist lifestyles, or revolutionize human society in the image of the central planner. In truth, people already want all the things that would make life both tolerable and enjoyable in a post-warming world. The necessary incentives are already in place. People already want technologies that will increase energy efficiency, cleaner air, and beaches without oil slicks. What many environmentalists refuse to admit, however, is that markets are the driving force behind the technologies that will deliver these solutions.
So let us go back to our earlier questions we addressed at the beginning of this article. What is the cost of implementing a global climate plan that would stifle markets and impose a more "sustainable" (i.e., lower) standard of living on global populations? If Pinker and Boisvert are right, we're forced to conclude that the cost would be extremely high. If radical new environmental regulations are adopted, it is likely that market-based innovation and capital formation will be affected in a highly negative way. While anti-capitalists would cheer this, the likely result is a destruction fo the very things we'll need to address the environmental challenges that will face us.
7/7
Don't you just love how they make a 2 degree difference seem like the world will burn up with that color scheme?
>It is a natural cycle. Humans have nothing to do with it.
Based half flag
The sun has cycles. In 1960 it was freezing. In 2000 it was burning. In 2040 it'll be freezing again.
Also:
>1951-1980 baseline
That range of years is so ridiculously large, they probably cherry-picked the hottest days they could to make the graph look worse
Free markets encourage people to provide solutions were there's demand for solutions so the answer is simply wait until the demand goes up.
What's more likely to happen is that instead of solving climate change itself it's likely that people will just focus on easing the effects, so people will build structures higher to overcome flooding, they'll dam off areas they want to protect, they'll install air conditioning in places they want to cool.
If you want examples of this just go to Vegas, hot as hell that place and the entire city is cooled down to perfectly fine temperatures. Look at Hong Kong, the place is always flooding so they just build the area higher.
People always like to talk about the "planet" and the thing is that no one gives a shit about the planet outside of these nutty green voters. What people care about is conditions of their life.
Right now in the west it doesn't really matter, governments can oppress the hell out of their citizens and it wont make anything but a tiny dent on global emissions because you have developing nations like India and Africa turning on hundreds of coal fired power plants every year and like everyone else who is poor the environement comes second. All that the west is doing by playing that game is putting themselves at a disadvantage for no real benefit.
It will be technology that solves these problems long term. Clean energy from fusion, and technology to clear the air and re-balance the ozone gasses.
An Israeli plant maybe
You must be mistaken. The global warming does not destroy human civilization. It's actually beneficial for us.
It's also happening at a much slower rate than any IPCC models. They should be fucking sued for the shit they pull every year.
Present to me a model for a strong world government that can effectively unify its citizens and convince them to give tree-hugging yoghurt-knitters total power over their lives. Reminder that the world largely consists of niggers, sand-niggers, and rice-niggers, and among Whites the prevailing view is that you are a bunch of faggots.
>Thinks CO2 has any large effect as a greenhouse gas
The wavelengths that CO2 blocks are largely saturated already. It doesn't matter if there is 400ppm or 6000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, it's not going to affect the temperature more than marginally.
Do you expect we'll pump 3000ppm worth of CO2 in the atmosphere or what? Fucking mongoloid.
>My original post was to generate discussion about politics and whether Liberatarian ideology really can solve problems
Then why are you posting about "Global warming" which is not a problem in any objective way.
>I know you're wrong because empirical evidence proves that humans do have a lot to do with climate change. In fact, humans are the primary factor behind it.
"Let me pull a retarded claim straight out of my shitstained asshole and present it to everyone like a motherfucking chimpanzee"
This is how you look like.
>t-t-t-trust m-m-me
>i-i-it'll r-r-r-rise i-i-if y-y-y-you j-j-just w-w-w-wait
Yet the temperature is not. Gee, I wonder why!
The earth is FLAT
The earth is FLAT
The earth is FLAT
Join the server because the server is pilot of SHIT
Why the FUCK you not there yet , why you did'n'?!'t joined this server yet?
Flat earth server for flat earthers(me u and US), You can even bring on your Jenni pet...
discordapp.com
Copy this link to your browser...Literally EZ PIZII, EZ...NO-RULES, no wild-yannies only pet-yannies
GO GO GO
ADCOMPAIN_ID: j56wis9064
CAN YOU FUCKING TELL ME WHY YOU'RE NOT HERE YOU SILLY MOTHER FUCKER
STOP READ YOU SILLY JEWSTEIN
COPY THAT SHIT TO YOUR FUCKING BROWSER
discordapp.com
discordapp.com
discordapp.com
Shitpost with us and share your flat earth believe's with us
