Climate change is real

Sadly, it will get more hot.

And USA depends on fossil fuels.

Military doesnt run on solar panels lmao

People in the world can either give up their militaries and be conquered by those who dont, or they can all perish together.

They call this painful choice argument.

Everyone wants to win, but that might cause everyone to lose.

Yes, it appears to be real. Ideally, establishing and discussing the realness and severity of climate change would be reserved for the Science and Nature Forum. Discussions of policy would be in the Politics Forum.

And fanfiction about the end of the world can go in the Artistic section.

Nellis air force base does.  Lol

Lol

The severity seems to be what is most difficult to predict. My issues with mitigation strategies are:

1. Be careful that the mitigation measures are worthwhile, and that they don’t end up being as consequential as the problem itself.

2. The human race has shown itself much more adept at adaptation rather than prevention.

3. The globe basically shut down for over a year, and it barely made a dent in mitigating climate change. If that didn’t do much, what will?

I read somewhere that 61,000 people died in Europe last Summer.

You have to wonder with all those efforts at "fixing the planet" why they couldn't set aside a few Euros for 61,000 air conditioners....

And as bad as Summer is for killing people, the Cold is far worse.

Again, how hard is it to set aside a few Euros for some heating?

While climate change may or may not cause deaths down the road, in the short term, energy shortages cause immediate deaths, which you would think should be preventable considering our advanced energy producing technologies.....

The smarter path would be to generate a surplus of energy before experimenting with a retooling of the production of energy so those people don't die every year.

Because genius, those air conditioners require a very expensive monthly electric bill.

China benefits a lot from green policies. Europe, USA... not so much.

So either bow to China either have more global warming.

The term "warming' should probably be changed. Global burning is a more appropriate term. Warming doesnt accurately describe whats happening to nature.

USA politicians make a lot of money off of green energy stock returns inflated with corporate tax subsidies and also campaign donations.

This is about getting the rich richer. it was never about "the planet" or the people. A massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the elites based on a manufactured crisis.

There's climate change, and then there's climate change.

I'd imagine people have 'long long known of 'natural climate changes,

Whether because people believed in The Flood,

Or believed in The Ice Age.

How quick, how much, when?

Are questions people are uncertain about maybe.

. . .

'Manmade 'global climate change,

I don't know much about.

'Local manmade climate change, number of examples in history.

Greening is a better term.

This appears to align with candidate Ramaswamy’s strategy.

They should invest in nuclear energy. Solar panels dont work. However, they are made in China. So in a sense, they work for China. Europe just got a very stupid government that had to lock its economy from the rest of the world to be able to compete. Electric cars break down at 10:1 rate of regular cars. Better buy electric bicycle. Also, most of electricity used in electric cars is produced by burning coal. Europe isnt even at 40% clean energy, and they are facing problems. Solar panels dont work when there is no sunlight. They are expensive. They are made in China. They produce so little energy. Biofuel might be a slightly better option. But then again, a military problem. Tanks dont run on solar panels. Fighter planes also dont. There is no hope for humanity.

Imagine an electric tank.

"Sir, the enemy is attacking us"

"Okay, tell them to wait  12 hours for me to charge my tank".

Well that would mean the ultra rich would have to let poor people live instead of freezing to death. We can't have any of that.

Military will always get fossil fuel priority. Destroying the planet with bombs is a priority.

Japan was actually smart enough to invest in nuclear energy. It came at the cost of radiation, yes. But hey, better a few radiated people than entire planet pollutted to shit.

I am not even sure how any reasonable person can look at energy sector and conclude that we should invest in solar panels.

Most places dont even have warm enough temperatures for solar panels to be any good.

Nasa is a big believer in the negative effects of AGW 

There is nothing to deny.

Put CO2 in the air = pollution

Pollution = people die from polluted air

Also, yes, the pollution causes global warming. But even if it didnt, it still causes harm.

Plus, to deny the correlation of global warming with amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would seem like a stupid gamble for anyone.

Cities also cause global warming. Plants are natural absorbers of heat.

In cities, there are rarely any green areas. Buildings and roads get very hot.

Plants never get hot, because plants absorb heat. Buildings deflect it back up.

But its not like humanity is smart enough to figure out that taking too many risks guarantees failure. 

Also, the second law of thermodynamics works  against humans. The systems degrade over time. All systems do.

Are you saying the scientific community knows more about science than politicians, no way.

What's next, are you going to try to tell me that we shouldn't be ingesting bleach to fight COVID?

Yes, its real. But is not "man made".  It is a natural phenomena that is caused by the movements of the planets in relation to the position of the sun.

Name the scientific organization that says that

I have almost 200

co is a pollutant. Co2 is not.

You mean the uncensored and paid scientists?

Sure, they really do care about you.

You're not allowed to say that either.