right? like i realize that climate change isnt doing much at the moment but im not stupid, it's hard for us to change the climate back and it would take a lot of time so if we wait until it causes a severe problem then it'll probably be too late for us to fix.
She didn't even seem to realise she got blown the **** out. She just put a *********** grin on her face and said "alright" like she was listening to a child that is way too old to believe in santa but still claims he's real.
I don't know how, but this fills me with irritation.
Actually she was on the same side as him during this talk. I don't remember why she asked him to say this, but they were in agreement about climate change. ppl just love to take those 8 seconds out of context
We actually are doing pretty good.
No matter what complaints we have we live in age when poor people have enough to eat (even if food they can afford is bad) where there are fewest wars globally and most wealth then ever before.
We have our problems. Our middle class is shrinking, terrorism etc.
But climate change is the biggest long term problem.
Because climate change isn't "its gonna get warmer" its weather patterns will change and parts of the world people live will become uninhabitable, deserts will grow, sea currents will change and it will cause mass fish extinctions etc.
All things that combined can destroy this pretty ******* good way of life that we have now.
Its not something we should ignore, or think it can be fixed easily or quickly. But it is our biggest long term problem.
The lady interviewer wanted Bill Nye to back down on his claims about climate change, but Bill Nye got no chill, fam, and straight tore into that lady.
I'm way more concerned about running out of fossil fuels and resources over climate change.
I mean **** , if I was unemployed than my view would probably be that creating jobs was our #1 priority, if I was a gun store I'd say that gun ownership was my #1 priority. There's a lot of things that affect an individuals survival at the very moment.
Not that climate change isn't important, but I'd argue that there are a lot more pressing issues, as bitch face put it I really hate crossfire , "right now" that need attending.
There's a theory that 6 degrees warming would cause a catastrophic chain reaction that could kill 90% of life on the planet. So yeah I'd say that takes precedense. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11538-015-0126-0
Just pointing out that maybe, just maybe, she wasn't implying that there is no climate change or that climate change isn't an issue, but rather that there are more important short-term things to solve than climate change?
I think the magic word here is "urgent". Sure climate change is important, but it will take some years to have any considerable effect, and even when it does, it's not like we won't be able to live on Earth anymore, things will change, climates will change, but that's it, we will adapt as we have done all these centuries. So when you compare it to things such as wars, hunger, homeless people... you can't really claim climate change is our most urgent, number one priority now, can you?
That is basically speculation, what you mean is, with our current technology and knowledge, the longer we wait, the harder it will be. You don't know how things will turn out, you can't even claim climate change will bring a bad outcome, I am not saying it won't, what I am saying is we can't say for certain it will. On the other hand, you have problems that are happening right now and that are killing people. Don't get me wrong, I do find climate change important, mostly because it often goes with pollution, but what was asked was to claim that climate change is our number one priority right now, which I would say isn't.
It's not speculation, the higher amount of greenhouse effect gases there are, the harder it will get to wipe them out. Are we going to find a solution with a newer piece of technology in the future? I hope so, but the thing is the longer we wait, the harder it will get to wipe out. If we slow down the rates, we might gain some time until that happens but if we literally do nothing, the present conditions in the world will change dramatically and much more people will perish than they are doing right now because of poverty or wars.
Fellow anon. Peoples lives are cheap. The consequences of climate change is far more important to prioritize. Starvation is only as big of an issue as there is people who are starving. When the issue passes, so does the person.
However, climate change will affect our children and their grandchildren. Huge amounts of ice melts each day. The CO2 that is belching out into the atmosphere is in gigatons. The fact is that even though we've done all we can to cut emissions, the increase in people still means millions of gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. A portion of this CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, increasing its acidity, which in turn kills coral reefs, which results in less fish, which starves other fish, which in turn destabalizes an eco system that we rely on. Due to global warming, we are currently experiencing the latest of multiple mass extinction events, caused by ourselves.
The increase of temperature also has effects in the world. For one, the power and frequency of storms will increase. Also, my once lovely cold north didn't get any snow this year. That annoys me to no end. Long story short, there's no need to wait for its effects, they are already here, affecting us daily. Species get extinct due to starvation caused by us, causing extinction of another and another. Is it really more important to focus on the unfortunate few humans rather than trying to fix the mass extinction of important marine life that the planet needs for a healthy eco system?
Now, we're anons, we're not dicks. So stop being a dick.
youd think the destruction of our only known biosphere and extinction of our species would be important in most peoples eyes... but... eh, what do I know. I only study this **** for 5 years.
Would you mind share some sources to your claims? I mean everybody is talking about this stuff but have you checked any of it?
Like for the last 18 years there has been nearly none increase in global temperature. All the predictions claim there would be like 2-3 K warming at the end of this century, meaning there should be about 0,4-0,6 K increase per 20 years. The measurements show about 0,1 top which is about the normal rate of natural climate change. So where is your Global warming?
You claim the ice is melting. Where did you get that from? Yes there has been slight decrease of ice on north pole, but on the other hand there is increase on the south pole. In fact in 2014 new record was set by most of the ice area ever recorded on south pole. So where is all that ice of yours disappearing?
Reason why you didnt have any snow in 2015 is big El Nino, so thats not consequence of your claimed man made Global warming. And there is much much more that is usually said and is not true.
Yes CO2 is greenhouse gas. Yes we produce CO2. But that doesnt mean we somehow affect the global climate in any significant way. Climate will probably do what it were doing for last 4b years. Our actions are much like farting against the wind. It will change speed of it for some extend sure, but wind will still blow however it wants...
... To check the temperature measurement google "giss surface temperature" and look at the graphs. It shows that global temperature is increasing at steady rate for tha last ~ 140 years. To check the ice level google "cryosphere today" and see that there is not really any change...
Well over 50% of arable land will be rendered unusable, and we already can't feed everyone on our planet due to faulty infrastructure. Are you honestly telling me you think that everything will be fine just because "the future", when our food output is cut in half despite our population having risen even higher than it is now.
Wait, have we been considering homeless people as a priority? When did this happen? Last I checked there were still 2.5 million homeless people in the US and still growing at a steady 3% per year. Has that changed? Because I walk by store fronts with spikes on the ground and homeless shelters that are closed down. Homelessness is as much of a priority to the people in charge as giving all their money away.
The things is with people that don't see climate change (or even believe it is real) as an important and imminent issue are the same people who are going to die before it starts seriously ******* up the planet.
We are only experiencing the beginning. Our children's children are going to be the ones living in a radical and tumultuous where every day is spent wondering how they are going to survive another hurricane after the last dust storm broke all the windows.
Yeah and since it's not my problem, but my descendant's, I'll rather keep living the dream and ignoring the **** that's coming upon us. Top tier logic.
You know those nights you spend drinking whiskey, and then in the morning you seem to not be able to find words- as if they floated somewhere far, far away? I'm experiencing that right now and it's Pissing me off.
The worst part about all of it is that they don't have any reason not to believe it a priority. There's nothing to suggest that the Earth isn't going through some pretty intense atmospheric changes. I promise you the people that don't see this as a priority are also the ones not vaccinating their children- due to their inability to see consequences further than their own lifetime.
I believe we are talking about different people. The ones who don't vaccinate their children may or may not have a (according to their point of view) stance thinking they are doing the best for their children. The ones who refuse to give importance to the global warming are either delusional ignorants who just don't give a **** or greedy assholes who can't be bothered to stop earning so much money for a while and start thinking on what kind of world are they going to give to their children/grandchildren.
But to be frank the real power in vaccination is herd immunity developed over time. If we all vaccinate our children, and in turn they vaccinate their children, then the vaccine builds up and it takes longer and longer for the virus to evolve. When you don't vaccinate your kids you give that virus essentially a workbench to work on a more high performance virus. So the dangers of not vaccinating are just as imminent as climate change... but admittedly not on nearly as large of a scale.
Also, if a virus infects an unvaccinated person, I don't think it makes the virus mutate to be stronger, since it's not finding anything strong to fight. That's rather what happens when a bacteria/virus gets bombed mindlessly with antibiotics and the remains survive and multiply, creating a newer and stronger strain
As I've said, we are talking about different things here. Are both stances harmful? It seems so. But one is a completely ignorant/greedy one and the other one could have some sort of good intentions behind it.
She's S.E. Cupp, a conservative commentator who seems to think global warming isn't a big deal and people like Bill Nye are just using scare tactics to exaggerate its importance.
I acted like a dick and thumbed a bunch of your comments down i dont know why was a stupid thing. Anyway i'm not a dork anymore and i appreciate your kindness
You're in the club now, pal.
I don't know why you weren't added because I normally always check every comment section for mention requests. Weird. I guess I missed ya My mistake
Oh, airhead means their head is full of air: it's empty. At least, that's been my American interpretation of it.
He is probably a bit of an asshole. So is Stephen Hawking and just about every other highly intelligent person not currently undertaking some major humanitarian work.
It just comes with having the intelligence to know the world is ****** due to ignorance despite your best scientific efforts to really prove why they're wrong. Most end up disregarding the average person.
It doesn't help that many, in my opinion which could be wrong as I'm not a psychiatrist, appear to have some form of social disorder which while keeping them from the distractions of a social life also caused them to isolate themselves.
I think it's rather charming, but then again I'm your average schmuck just aspiring for the opportunity to educate these types.
Climate change is a real mixed bag. You got liberal jews saying we need to tax carbon to save muh polar bears. You got conservative jews saying climate change isnt real. Then you have actual scientists saying that the world will end. Weird **** .
I remember watching a documentary on this and some dude or chick said that if we dont stop our constant growing pollution then all the coastal cities in the world will be ****** in like 20 years.
It's not about ******* polar bears, its about the ocean level rising and flooding out parts of the earth which would also cause an economic catastrophy. and really? What do Jews have to do with climate change? I'm ready for the reddies
You dumb ****** , it's not about ocean levels, its about methane in the atmosphere super-heating the Earth to Permian levels, killing 90% or more of all life on Earth. At this point, the economy doesnt matter. Of course, we wont know if this will happen unless it does.
Well, you've got scientists saying the world is ending tomorrow, and you've got 300 more scientists that said the exact same thing last year, and the year before that, etc.
The end of the world is always around the corner. I guess we ran out of crazy christians saying the second coming of jesus was tomorrow, and we didn't have any more ancient world ending prophecies, so the next best thing is to just repeatedly claim global warming will be the end of the world in the next 10 minutes.
So what scientists are saying the end of the world is tomorrow? if anything is een some religious idiots claiming to know the date of judgement day and they been wrong several times since 1999
He's not a scientist, but you might be interested to learn that Al Gore's "point of no return" is January 25th, 2016.
The guy is right in that people have always been claiming that the world is about to end, whether it be fundamentalists or otherwise.
For example, Paul Ehrlich is the Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University and president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology. He's said such fun things like "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" (1969), and "In ten years all important animal life int he sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.' (1970)