Support NeoGAF

[ZoltanXerxes]

I love nuclear, no arguments from me. However those plants cost a lot to build and I can't believe any government in North America has set aside enough to fund one.

Do you think nuclear is truly sustainable? What about the waste?

Nuclear is the only way if we want to keep our standard of living. LFTR reactors are our best option. They can burn most of the nuclear waste that's already around and LFTR's can be extremely efficient (theoretically up to 90%) which means we have virtually an unlimited source of power. There are much more benefits (see below for a link to video about them if you have time to watch). People need to be educated on why nuclear is best option.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

 

[CraigerGamer]

Al Gore seems optimistic, though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVfgkFaswn4

I still can't believe we got GW Bush over this guy. I know many don't like him but I believed then as I still believe now that Al Gore would have been one of the best Presidents this country would have ever had.

 

[Oriel]

I always cringe when I hear claims that the planet is "being destroyed". The planet will be fine. Earth has survived planet busting asteroids and being frozen over entirely. We OTOH might not be so lucky although it should be mentioned we're a resourceful species and can weather these changes (no pun intended).

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Modern civilization will end but we won't go extinct.

You take away AC and cars from modern civilization, and everyone will just die walking around in the heat. Most people can't even last 10 minutes riding a bike in the summer without getting thirsty to the point that they can't think straight.

 

[FullMetalx117]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and yes I acknowledge that plenty of research has been done on this topic with multiple people dedicating their entire lives to it. But hasn't there been plenty of articles proving that this is a natural occurrence as well? There have been time periods throughout history where the world has been extremely hot. I just want to know the arguments from all sides, not just the gloom and doom side.

 

[PdotMichael]

Nuclear energy is a dead end.

Outside of China everyone else produce less nuclear energy and even China invests more money in renewable energy than in nuclear energy.

It's expensive, not sustainable in many places and also only effective as baseload ppower pants, so you need still other energy sources for medium load and peak load.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and yes I acknowledge that plenty of research has been done on this topic with multiple people dedicating their entire lives to it. But hasn't there been plenty of articles proving that this is a natural occurrence as well? There have been time periods throughout history where the world has been extremely hot. I just want to know the arguments from all sides, not just the gloom and doom side.

"Google this for me."

And you guys think we're resourceful enough to survive climate change.

 

[John Dunbar]

It's right there, in the previous sentence:



So no.

i read it, and the wording is very unclear. the whole thing reads:

A scientific report published last year revealed that in the near-term, Earth’s climate will change 10 times faster than at any other moment in the last 65 million years. Science already shows that we are currently experiencing change 200 to 300 times faster than any of the previous major extinction events

it says that the change is faster than at any time during the last 65 million years, but the second sentence does not make it obvious it's speaking of mass extinction events of the last 65 million years only, and could be read as meaning any previous one in history.

it's also not very clear to me how the climate is changing 200-300 times faster than during any mass extinction event, but "only" 10 times faster than at any moment during the last 65 million years. makes it sound like climate wasn't changing very much during the other major extinction events, at least during the last 65 million years.

 

[FullMetalx117]

"Google this for me."

And you guys think we're resourceful enough to survive climate change.

That's not what I want I meant from this statement. I already know that these other articles with counter arguments exist. I want you all to "google it" for yourselves. There are multiple angles to this climate change theory that Id think will be helpful for everyone to acknowledge

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

That's not what I want I meant from this statement. I already know that these other articles with counter arguments exist. I want you all to "google it" for yourselves. There are multiple angles to this climate change theory that Id think will be helpful for everyone to acknowledge

There actually aren't, though. They almost all point to the same conclusions, even if the timing or circumstances have variations.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

I always cringe when I hear claims that the planet is "being destroyed". The planet will be fine. Earth has survived planet busting asteroids and being frozen over entirely. We OTOH might not be so lucky although it should be mentioned we're a resourceful species and can weather these changes (no pun intended).

Being resourceful isn't going to matter when there are biological limits as far as bodily response to climate is concerned. Especially when we eventually reach the oven-level temperatures (obviously not for hundreds maybe thousands of years, but that's concerning in regards to the sustainability of the human race).

 

[pr0cs]

Oh boy another sky is falling article.
Yes let's go back to the stone ages because that's what we need to do in order to stop this acid rain or I mean global warming wait I mean climate change.
More propaganda where we can tax the shit out of everyone.

 

[Nivash]

I wanted to make a quick check of the source in the OP so I looked into the "IEA says 3.5 degrees by 2035" claim. It looks to be unsupported. The primary source clearly appears to be the Christian Science Monitor, seeing how most sources either quote it verbatim or link back to it, but try as I might, there's just no indication of there being an actual IEA release to that effect.

Quite the contrary: actual IEA releases seem to predict a much more modest 3.5 degrees by 2200 under current committments scenario.

https://www.iea.org/publications/fr...2015SpecialReportonEnergyandClimateChange.pdf

During the search, I also found indications that the source is plagiarising Mother Jones with that terrifying list of theirs that the 3.5 degrees by 2035 claim is on.

http://www.motherjones.com/environm...nvironment-apocalypse-human-extinction?page=2

Big caveat: I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about - there absolute is. But whenever you see these claims that climate change is proceeding much faster than expected or that we'll reach some temperature decades or centuries earlier than previously thought; be skeptical. Climate scientists are really good at what they do. Their models are pretty much on point, that's not the problem. The problem is the incredibly slow response on a global scale. But even a business as usual scenario is completely unlikely to create a sudden climate apocalypse; rather, it's the slow march towards it by the end of the century that should scare us, because that's when our children and grandchildren will live through it.

 

[ZoltanXerxes]

I always cringe when I hear claims that the planet is "being destroyed". The planet will be fine. Earth has survived planet busting asteroids and being frozen over entirely. We OTOH might not be so lucky although it should be mentioned we're a resourceful species and can weather these changes (no pun intended).

This. People who claim of a mass extinction is upon us in 19 years are drinking too much of the climate change doomsday cool aid. That being said, we are, as living human beings, changing the climate of the planet. That is of no question. I get turned off however when someone claims a mass extinction level event because of climate change in such a short amount of time.

I wanted to make a quick check of the source in the OP so I looked into the "IEA says 3.5 degrees by 2035" claim. It looks to be unsupported. The primary source clearly appears to be the Christian Science Monitor, seeing how most sources either quote it verbatim or link back to it, but try as I might, there's just no indication of there being an actual IEA release to that effect.

Quite the contrary: actual IEA releases seem to predict a much more modest 3.5 degrees by 2200 under current committments scenario.

https://www.iea.org/publications/fr...2015SpecialReportonEnergyandClimateChange.pdf

During the search, I also found indications that the source is plagiarising Mother Jones with that terrifying list of theirs that the 3.5 degrees by 2035 claim is on.

http://www.motherjones.com/environm...nvironment-apocalypse-human-extinction?page=2

Big caveat: I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about - there absolute is. But whenever you see these claims that climate change is proceeding much faster than expected or that we'll reach some temperature decades or centuries earlier than previously thought; be skeptical. Climate scientists are really good at what they do. Their models are pretty much on point, that's not the problem. The problem is the incredibly slow response on a global scale. But even a business as usual scenario is completely unlikely to create a sudden climate apocalypse; rather, it's the slow march towards it by the end of the century that should scare us, because that's when our children and grandchildren will live through it.

Thank you for this.

 

[Ekai]

It's kinda disturbing how much people scoff at what is basic science here. Alternative energy is a necessity to the survival of the planet.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Oh boy another sky is falling article.
Yes let's go back to the stone ages because that's what we need to do in order to stop this acid rain or I mean global warming wait I mean climate change.
More propaganda where we can tax the shit out of everyone.

LOL, what?

 

[ahoyhoy]

Oh boy another sky is falling article.
Yes let's go back to the stone ages because that's what we need to do in order to stop this acid rain or I mean global warming wait I mean climate change.
More propaganda where we can tax the shit out of everyone.

But what if it's all a hoax and we ended up making the world a better place for nothing?

 

[Pandy]

Oh boy another sky is falling article.
Yes let's go back to the stone ages because that's what we need to do in order to stop this acid rain or I mean global warming wait I mean climate change.
More propaganda where we can tax the shit out of everyone.

Sigh.

But what if it's all a hoax and we ended up making the world a better place for nothing?

I forgot how much I loved that line.

 

[PdotMichael]

But what if it's all a hoax and we ended up making the world a better place for nothing?

not with building nuclear power plants.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

"Liberals are just using the rapid death of entire bee, fish, and rain forest populations to tax us!" SERIOUSLY? You guys need to stop centering the world around you. There is an entire world trying to survive without giving a single fuck about you or your petty politics.

 

[DragonSworne]

not with building nuclear power plants.

Why not?

 

[Noirulus]

"Google this for me."

And you guys think we're resourceful enough to survive climate change.

A bit off topic but Just go google it you idiot is probably one of the most annoying GAF responses. It's not that someone isn't being resourceful, it's just that they don't have the time to research a topic that has numerous different answers even when you do google it. It's far simpler and is in the spirit of discussion to have an already knowledgeable guy chime in with a 2-3 sentence answer.

/endrant

 

[Divvy]

LOL, what?

Ignore him, he's grown unhinged ever since Trudeau won

 

[ezrarh]

The sad thing is we can provide great quality of life for most people in an economic system with much lower dependence on fossil fuels with the technology we have. We've gotten to the point where we feel entitled to everything that we currently have without considering the alternatives.

 

[ZoltanXerxes]

not with building nuclear power plants.

Nuclear is the only way if we want to keep our standard of living as it is now. Understand that I'm not talking about the water cooled Uranium reactors, I'm referring to the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor). See my post above for a video on it if you wish. I recommend people watch it to educate themselves on nuclear power as a whole and why solar and wind power is a worse option to consider.

 

[Insane Metal]

I check this link every month http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2016

And it's always bad news.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I check this link every month http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2016

And it's always bad news.

From this link:

There are people in this thread saying this is natural LOL.

 

[Steel]

Nuclear is the only way if we want to keep our standard of living. LFTR reactors are our best option. They can burn most of the nuclear waste that's already around and LFTR's can be extremely efficient (theoretically up to 90%) which means we have virtually an unlimited source of power. There are much more benefits (see below for a link to video about them if you have time to watch). People need to be educated on why nuclear is best option.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Yeah, I've always found the anti-nuclear sentiment to be insane.

 

[Lime]

"Liberals are just using the rapid death of entire bee, fish, and rain forest populations to tax us!" SERIOUSLY? You guys need to stop centering the world around you. There is an entire world trying to survive without giving a single fuck about you or your petty politics.

"but my car, my fastfood, and my AC!!"

the US is such a hyper-consumption society that I have no idea how it will ever adjust. Infrastructure is just built on individual hyper consumption of resources and pollution.

 

[PdotMichael]

Nuclear is the only way if we want to keep our standard of living as it is now. Understand that I'm not talking about the water cooled Uranium reactors, I'm referring to the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor). See my post above for a video on it if you wish. I recommend people watch it to educate themselves on nuclear power as a whole and why solar and wind power is a worse option to consider.

LFTR is not even state of the art nuclear energy technology. There are no attempt of commercial use of euch reactors - too many safety risks.

It's a running joke within the English speaking room.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

For what are viable large-scale energy solutions in the short to medium term if we are serious about mitigating climate change, take a look at this free ebook:

"Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air"

It gives great insight on how existing sustainable energy technologies can mitigate climate change and dispels the mythos that this is a problem that can be solved from the ground up. It will take large, top-down, systemic infrastructural changes to make a real impact, because culture and ingrained behaviors will not change in time.

 

[Oriel]

Being resourceful isn't going to matter when there are biological limits as far as bodily response to climate is concerned. Especially when we eventually reach the oven-level temperatures (obviously not for hundreds maybe thousands of years, but that's concerning in regards to the sustainability of the human race).

Oven level temperatures?! Good grief! This doom porn is why so many are hostile towards climate advocacy. Can we please have a mature discussion? Yes climate change is real and yes it should be taken seriously. But no, humans aren't going to go extinct and no, Earth isn't going to turn into Venus.

 

[ZoltanXerxes]

LFTR is not even state of the art nuclear energy technology. There are no attempt of commercial use of euch reactors - too many safety risks.

It's a running joke within the English speaking room.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next-gen-nuclear-reactor-program/

China is putting heavy research into the molten salt reactor (which is a type of LFTR).

 

[Aki-at]

Oh boy another sky is falling article.
Yes let's go back to the stone ages because that's what we need to do in order to stop this acid rain or I mean global warming wait I mean climate change.
More propaganda where we can tax the shit out of everyone.

Well if an event that can cause the extinction of my species can be solved by taxing me more than tax away.

As long as it's being used for something that is undeniably a benefit to the population than the tax money is being put to good use.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Oven level temperatures?! Good grief! This doom porn is why so many are hostile towards climate advocacy. Can we please have a mature discussion? Yes climate change is real and yes it should be taken seriously. But no, humans aren't going to go extinct and no, Earth isn't going to turn into Venus.

I want to point out how hilarious it is that you wrote the non-bolded part in the same post as you wrote the bolded part.

 

[Oriel]

not with building nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power will have to be part of any long term approach towards combatting climate change. Wind farms and solar power aren't going to be enough.

 

[Oriel]

I want to point out how hilarious it is that you wrote the non-bolded part in the same post as you wrote the bolded part.

What's wrong with asking people to stop suggesting humans are going to go extinct?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

What's wrong with asking people to stop suggesting humans are going to go extinct?

You have to back that up if you want to have a mature discussion.

 

[Night Hunter]

I think climate change is a big deal, but I have a feeling this article is exaggerating the situation a bit

 

[Skittles]

I just posted this in response to someone doing one of those "lul hilary" and his friend replied that climate change isn't real. My generation is so fucking stupid holy shit

 

[Nivash]

The sentiment is good, the suggestion in this context isn't. If you exaggerate the effects of climate change you will either breed apathetic dispair or distrust when your predictions fail. Being consistently on point and referencing the best available science is paramount to long-term success.

Especially with claims like 3.5 degrees by 2035. If that was true, we would be so well and truly fucked in even the short term that the most rational course of action would be to ignore the environment completely and party like there's no tomorrow, because there wouldn't be one. 3.5 degrees by 2035 would put us on track for, what, 35 degrees by 2100? Venus by 2200? The sun by 2300? The exponential curve would be literally off the charts.

 

[anaron]

we need AVALANCHE

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

The sentiment is good, the suggestion in this context isn't. If you exaggerate the effects of climate change you will either breed apathetic dispair or distrust when your predictions fail. Being consistently on point and referencing the best available science is paramount to long-term success.

Neither behavior matters if there is widespread stubborn opposition to the idea itself based on conspiracy theories and being fully committed to not losing any luxury in your lifestyle.

You're asking people to stick to cold hard facts in an argument with emotional conspiracy theorists.

 

[reKon]

But what if it's all a hoax and we ended up making the world a better place for nothing?

god damn

 

[Nivash]

Neither behavior matters if there is widespread stubborn opposition to the idea itself based on conspiracy theories and being fully committed to not losing any luxury in your lifestyle.

You're asking people to stick to cold hard facts in an argument with emotional conspiracy theorists.

The conspiracy theorists aren't the problem, the ignorant public is. If you intentionally lie to them you'll just increase the risk of convincing them that there actually is a conspiracy, because in some sense, there would be.

 

[pr0cs]

Well if an event that can cause the extinction of my species can be solved by taxing me more than tax away.

As long as it's being used for something that is undeniably a benefit to the population than the tax money is being put to good use.

That's assuming you believe the government knows how to spend my money better than I do. My current govt appear to be barely able to walk and chew gum at the same time so you'll forgive me if I don't believe everything they spew.
There is nothing wrong with keeping the environment clean and safe but not when it means putting the human race back thousands of years to do it

 

[Skellig Gra]

The conspiracy theorists aren't the problem, the ignorant public is. If you intentionally lie to them you'll just increase the risk of convincing them that there actually is a conspiracy, because in some sense, there would be.

Exactly right. Unfortunately we're in a damned if you damned if you don't scenario at this point.

 

[Keri]

The sentiment is good, the suggestion in this context isn't. If you exaggerate the effects of climate change you will either breed apathetic dispair or distrust when your predictions fail. Being consistently on point and referencing the best available science is paramount to long-term success.

Seriously. I partly understand the logic in trying to scare the world straight, but if you go too far, people will just give up. There has to be a chance at some level of success, if you want anyone to do anything. Otherwise, we'd just accept our fate and continue on as normal (if not worse).

 

[Oriel]

You have to back that up if you want to have a mature discussion.

Sure.

At this point I'm convinced it's just a matter of time until we eradicate ourselves.

We deserve everything that is coming for us and then some more. Humans are greedy and selfish and inconsiderate of other species on this planet and even of each other. We think we can just take and take and not give anything back to the planet.

It's disheartening to see this issue so widely ignored by the general populace. We can do something about it, but we won't.

If we don't kill ourselves with nuclear war or constant warfare, this absolutely will. It's only a question of when.

So, mature discussion?

The sentiment is good, the suggestion in this context isn't. If you exaggerate the effects of climate change you will either breed apathetic dispair or distrust when your predictions fail. Being consistently on point and referencing the best available science is paramount to long-term success.

Especially with claims like 3.5 degrees by 2035. If that was true, we would be so well and truly fucked in even the short term that the most rational course of action would be to ignore the environment completely and party like there's no tomorrow, because there wouldn't be one. 3.5 degrees by 2035 would put us on track for, what, 35 degrees by 2100? Venus by 2200? The sun by 2300? The exponential curve would be literally off the charts.

Well said. Emphasizing the very serious effects of human induced climate change is important but we do a disservice to exaggerate all this because all that does is turn people away from supporting much needed change.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

This is so upsetting I don't even know where to start. The groups forcing the status quo here are at fiction levels of villainy.

we need AVALANCHE

Seriously.