I get it. It's a tough pill to swallow - especially in the midst of this culture war. It means - as it pertains to this topic at least - those damn liberals were completely right all along and our side was completely wrong. (I'm assuming you're conservative at this point.)

The fact that there was an ice age tens of thousands of years ago doesn't challenge the scientific consensus regarding the climate crisis in any way whatsoever, and in the context of this conversation, is completely irrelevant. In fact, attempting to present it as evidence that this crisis isn't a crisis, or that it isn't unprecedented and completely anthropogenic, is an unfortunate display of ignorance.

There is no climate religion; there is only appropriate, commensurate concern. And there is no hate, obviously. You're just taking advantage of the opportunity to co-opt that word - likely because you're tired of the left hyperbolically lobbing it around in other, unrelated theaters of this culture war.

This issue really shouldn't be partisan. The only reason it is is because of a certain lobby - the same lobby that for decades successfully obfuscated the truth about rising levels of lead across the globe. The fact that it has somehow become partisan is a travesty of the democratic process.

I for one can understand your sort of thinking.
Actually, some people here in my country are harsh to environmentalists for the same kind of reasons, mostly because they are very worried about the economy and can't figure how the development model we've relied on for over 100 years - which is based on fossil fuels - could ever change positively. That's the fearsome challenge we're facing, definitely one of the hardest in entire mankind history.

So, you're not totally wrong in that everything has to be a subject to criticism, if not downright harshly questioned, except for things that are strictly, scientifically proven since these are no ideological dogma, they are just facts.

And you know what? By now science as a whole is already clear in that matter. Burning fossil fuels at the rate we do so to maintain our established economy releases an excessive amount of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere. Far far more than volcanoes do, and more that Earth can seize by its natural mechanisms to regulate the atmosphere.

Guess your professor couldn't answer your question because there is most likely no positive effect to this phenomenon, at least not for ourselves and most other species. The obvious prediction is that it would trigger a chain of events that would gradually turn Earth into an overheated hellhole, sort of like planet Venus whose atmosphere is saturated with greenhouse gasses, CO2 in particular.

There is a whole ton of credible documentation on the topic. So forget about politics, that's the annoying dogma, and just stick to scientific studies and conclusions.

I actually agree with you, this shouldn't be partisan. However, it seems to be that way on both sides.

Look at the GND, it was like 60% about anything but the environment. What does a federal job gaurentee have to do with the environment? Or sexism? Why do people like Bernie say they will not only not allow new nuclear plants(that are MUCH safer) but won't even renew older plants leases? If you TRULY thought climate change was the biggest issue on Earth, wouldn't every necessary step possible to stem the tide be worth it?

I'll explain this as simply as I can...I am a conservative. I know what they think. The phrase "green is the new red" rings true to a lot of people. This is because so much of climate change talk *always* reverts back to the government have massive new powers(and a lot of them having nothing to do with climate change). Bernie, for example, wants to spend 1.6 trillion dollars per year for the next 10 years, nearly doubling our budget. Meanwhile, places like New Delhi have air quality that can only be matched by American cities during extreme forest fires(I think SF came close last year). We ban plastic straws while one Amazon package has more plastic in it then all the straws I use in a decade.

A lot of this is moral posturing. That's why I like Yang's proposals. He is being serious about the issue but actually tackling it head-on and not including stupid things that have nothing to do with climate change. That's how you get the whole country on board.

But really, if you study climate change and can't name ONE positive thing about it, you're not researching climate change, you're researching how to make it look as bad as possible.

Appreciate the post. Yeah, that's why I've come up with my own GND...just waiting for some politician to ask me about it lol

The denialists are hoping that the coastal cities get flooded out which would make those states more red, since any excuse to gain an electoral advantage is all that matters.

Nothing about that statement is true. And there are indeed many studies of the positive effects of global warming. Some countries like Canada and Russia are expected to receive considerable positive benefits from it. The problem is just that the Earth is a sphere so there's a lot more surface area near the equator that would get worse for humans than there is surface area near the poles that would get better for humans. So the net effect is negative even though some regions see a positive benefit. It will be pretty simply to adapt plants to grow in the warmer climates though so food isn't likely to be much of an issue. The only real inescapable issue is sea level rise and the effect it will have on our coastal communities. Global warming is bad, but it's no catastrophe by any means. It's nothing like the threats our ancestors faces like say the bubonic plague.

^ plants can adjust to warmer climates but many places will face intensive desertification we which is harder for plants to adapt with. Anyway it's a weird question to ask since of course even the most reprehensible actions have positives. If we murdered 10% of people at random I'm sure many douchebags would be killed, for example.

It's an entirely relevant question to ask when we're discussing spending many Trillions of dollars to stop global warming. Most rational people would weigh out the pros and cons of even a modest purchase and you're expecting us not to do the same for decisions which would cost Trillions? This sort of thinking is exactly the reason environmentalists are so damn stupid. They get offended at any sort of rational cost/benefit analysis. Their logic is entirely black and white. They deem something bad and they think no amount of money is too much to fix it. That's not how the world works.

I certainly wouldn't bet on any fact that northern regions like Canada or Siberia could ever benefit from the phenomenon already ongoing.

Suppose a 3°C global increase, on average. That is an average, which means temperatures on continents would most often be unbearable in the summer season. In fact, all seasons over land areas would be completely messed up.

Water can seize some heat, so temperatures would likely remain more moderate over oceans, but land areas release the heat they receive, as a return.
It definitely would be hellish. I'm so scared just thinking about it... Far from sure it would be feasible, possible to manage.

Add other factors to the scary issue, like human population constantly increasing, vital resources like phosphorus limited and so on, you get to an equation that no one can solve.

Of course we're all freaked out like nuts now. But who should we blame on? Our own greed, most obviously.
It appears Earth was designed for humans to be fair and friendly, not so greedy or aggressive.
That's all. We got to deal with what we've actually got.

Yeah, it's pretty bad and some of the most expensive homes are on or near waterways or within a mile or so. That doesn't bode well when we get a lot of rain. I am about 2 miles from the river and that's close enough. Homes that were within that range flooded during Harvey. If you're house is built up a little; higher elevation by just a few feet than the street, you're also fairly safe. Galveston gets the brunt of the storm surge and winds but we just flood.

This is because 0.1% of people wondering about the positives of climate change are interested in rational debate on the topic and the other 99.9% are disingenuous denialists.

Yes climate change will make some currently uninhabitable places more habitable at the cost of making many currently intensely inhabited places uninhabitable. Woohoo? I guess everyone from Jakarta can move to Whitehorse and we'll rebuild Manhattan in Yakutsk.

Sure it's possible to do an economic analysis of the issue. We can start with the costs of inaction: https://eiuperspectives.economist.co...inaction_0.pdf

^ Your link goes to a classical 404 - page not found error to me...

I'm wondering whether anyone on here is aware of the tremendous complexity of the problem. It is scary as hell.

I hope some more advanced minds rise from the terrible problem.
Usually, when there's a real bad problem, people suddenly grow smarter.
Ha ha ha.

I'm sure the kids whose best idea is to boycott school to attract attention to the problem will rise to the scientific challenge in due time. :P

(Sarcasm, just so it's clear.)

Ah yes, the new political competition of who can be the most proud of their ignorance. Children trying to talk about science while simultaneously skipping actual science classes is pretty high up there indeed. :haha:

Is that what you did? Boycotting school? Lol, c'est pas bon, hein ?
Sorry...

If you'd been to school, you'd know the poor autistic kid you're thinking of would be bullied in there, at school, so she would feel very uncomfortable and depressed anyway.
I would've bullied her as a kid and teen, myself.
It's not like I'm proud of it.

That's life. :)

I fixed it (I think). People who put spaces in URLs should be taken out back and shot :).

The "classic" economic study of course is the Stern Review, although it is quite old at this point (and many of its assumptions about the rate of climate change turned out to be overly optimistic).

The common result of all serious cost-benefit-analyses has been that action is necessary and of course they differ on how much reduction of carbon is optimal. Unfortunately we are far short of achieving even the bare minimum reduction required by any analysis, which leads to increased costs down the road.

Nobody in this forum, to my knowledge, is an expert on the climate. So we are all just giving our opinion.

stop being reasonable.

didnt you hear? IT RAINED a LOT in Louisiana it means the world is ending. I read about it from a twitter celebrity I particularly like and agree with.

I'm not a medical doctor, but I can still have an opinion that vaccines are good. I'm not an expert in geography, but I can still have an opinion on whether or not the Earth is flat. You don't need to be an expert on something to have an informed opinion.. especially when 99% of people who ARE experts on it all agree on something.

Ha, it makes me thinking, have you guys read the Ecclesiastes in the Bible?
It's some kind of philosophical lesson to teach us how to despise material things.
That's what they call "renoncement" here, which is very disturbing, I'll admit.
It is a pain to me as to anybody.

In a nutshell, the Ecclesiaste says - WTF is that for? I don't need it. I don't care.
If I remember well, it even despises women and sex, which is kind of wrong, though. Lol.
People need sex to be satisfied anyway.

But in the end, I think if we were more inspired by this kind of mindset, it would solve a whole lot of our issues.
Possibly even that of so called "climate change".

Just a note of mine on here. I didn't care much about philosophy when I was younger. I was just a spoiled child, not really intelligent... That's not my fault.
Now, as a grown-up, I find it interesting. It actually carries out some solutions, that's awesome.