|
I've posted this before but this discussion reminded me I don't understand why the Chinese public seems so unconcerned about climate change: How can only 18% of Chinese respondents think climate change is a serious problem while 49% respond it's harming people right now? Is this just a bad poll?
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I've posted this before but this discussion reminded me I don't understand why the Chinese public seems so unconcerned about climate change: People are dumb, death is certain, hail satan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:06
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
RedneckwithGuns posted:I would think this would be a good route for them compared to other first world nations since they don't have to deal with the myriad of hurdles we have to deal with before you can get a nuclear plant running. Well they have been doing it, it just turned out they should do it even more. See: buying 2-4 of every commercially available reactor design on the market, standardising on a
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I've posted this before but this discussion reminded me I don't understand why the Chinese public seems so unconcerned about climate change: My guess is that it comes down to political and technological optimism. It's tied to the low belief it'd affect them personally, and also the fact the number dramatically declined since 2010. Basically at 2015 most Chinese think that their government is doing/going to do enough to mitigate the worst effects. We'll see what they think in 2017.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/30/losses-soil-carbon-under-global-warming-might-equal-us-emissionsquote:A new Yale-led study in the journal Nature finds that warming will drive the loss of at least 55 trillion kilograms of carbon from the soil by mid-century, or about 17% more than the projected emissions due to human-related activities during that period. That would be roughly the equivalent of adding to the planet another industrialized country the size of the United States. Whatever happened to posters like Trabisniskof arguing that Climate Change isn't an issue because of treaties and government actions. They've been oddly quiet recently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
One thing I was thinking about recently - with sea levels rising, it ought to further destabilize ice shelves. Ice being buoyant, a rising ocean might lift them ever so slightly away from the land they are bound to, potentially causing rapid breakups. Such an effect is, in my opinion, potentially stronger than the intrusion of warmer water.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/30/losses-soil-carbon-under-global-warming-might-equal-us-emissions They never existed in the first place except in your own personal delusions
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
I'm going to a community college right now with the intention of transferring to a university. I liked my bio classes a lot, and gravitated toward genetic counseling or public health. However, the more I read about climate change the more I feel like I should be doing something about it. Is there a demand for a particular group of biologists, ecologist, etc? What kind of biologists will we need in the future? What direction should I take my studies if I want to help?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
You can do a lot of good if you're in public health or biomed, mostly because having folks who can put complex concepts into layman's terms is always useful. The latter especially needs more folks who have a good grasp on both the technical stuff and historical or societal contexts, because in the past decade or so there's been some disturbing trends towards genetic determinism that basically echo eugenics and other gross racist science rhetoric, which will wreak untold havoc if they don't get some sustained opposition within the academy. Generally though the best thing you can do is get involved in local activist groups, both on and off campus, and get used to doing the grunt work of organizing (i.e. canvassing, polling, speaking where necessary, etc). If you really want to combine environmental studies with a more sociological bent, I would recommend taking some courses in Human Geography, or possibly pursuing it as a major course of study. Plenty of environmental programs incorporate some measure of humanities focus these days but it doesn't hurt to delve deeper. I was lucky enough to take a handful of Human Geography-type courses during my undergraduate studies and it made a huge difference in how I approach my work now. Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Squalid posted:They never existed in the first place except in your own personal delusions Nah, there're definitely posters ITT defending the status quo Trabisnikof posted:And unlike labor, capitalist actually are being harmed by climate change directly. Trabisnikof posted:Goldman Sachs has done more to fight climate change than any poster here
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
It's good to see the US competing with China again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Just in case you thought Canadian PM Trudeau was somehow serious about climate change, his government approved two new pipelines today:quote:In the US, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline meant to carry oil from Alberta, Canada’s oil sands to refineries in Illinois and on the Gulf Coast ultimately died due to stiff opposition. That wasn’t the only route Alberta’s oil industry is pursuing to get its oil to market, though. On Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced decisions on three major pending pipeline projects. One was rejected, but two received a thumbs-up. The oil sands are a major employer and opposing the pipelines outright would probably mean writing off winning seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan entirely next election. Even the ostensibly socialist progressive federal party and it's provincial counterpart in Alberta support expanding pipelines, not that they're in danger of gaining power any time soon. Canadians as a whole just don't care about climate change seriously enough, it's a political no-brainer for Trudeau. At the very least they won't build the pipeline through the west coast rain forest, presumably entirely due to those adorable spirit bears. Maybe if polar bears were cuter people would care about Arctic ice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:It's kinda hard to see how that poo poo can be sustainable. ...or pretty much any city.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
One of the authors of that Nature article on carbon emissions from soil did a pretty nifty explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrKOpPJIbXA. More stuff like this would be great in communicating complex issues to folks without a lot of scientific background. There's even a Dutch language version!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
http://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...change-research A good article on how Lamar Smith is going to use the House Science Chair to silence Climate Change proponents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
I can't find the study now, but there was a report that put together a general idea what to expect as far as climate change in the US. Specifically for the PNW, they expect the coast to suffer somewhat from sea level rise, but the real changes will be from increased mudslides and coniferous tree eating bugs. We'll still get plenty of rain, but our forests will eventually change from coniferous to deciduous and more people will die/be displaced by multiple Oso style mudslides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I've posted this before but this discussion reminded me I don't understand why the Chinese public seems so unconcerned about climate change: This reminds me of an episode of the West Wing where Josh Lyman tries to understand a similar thing: Josh: 68% think we give too much in foreign aid, and 59% think it should be cut. Will: You like that stat? Josh: I do. Will: Why? Josh: Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for "I have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input." So ya the long and short of it is that people are dumb and often don't even know the implications of what they're saying or being asked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I can't find the study now, but there was a report that put together a general idea what to expect as far as climate change in the US. Specifically for the PNW, they expect the coast to suffer somewhat from sea level rise, but the real changes will be from increased mudslides and coniferous tree eating bugs. We'll still get plenty of rain, but our forests will eventually change from coniferous to deciduous and more people will die/be displaced by multiple Oso style mudslides. Anybody interested in climate change impacts in the US should go and download the Third National Climate Assessment. In fact, you should probably download it anyway, as it is probably going to get scrubbed from the internet over the next four years. It is a comprehensive look at the best available science (as of 2014) on projections of climate and impacts in the U.S. The regional and sectoral reports are particularly good, if, like all government endorsed climate research, a bit conservative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
question: given that we seem mostly unable to change our behaviours, how much of the world population would have to be brutally murdered for our presence and natural resource exploitation on this planet to be sustainable? 50%, 20%, 10%? I mean I'm not saying we need orbital death-rays, but at this point, would they help?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:This reminds me of an episode of the West Wing where Josh Lyman tries to understand a similar thing: No, it's not quite like that. They believe it's their right to pollute for a while to improve their economic condition. As long a GW hurts other people more than them they don't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
double nine posted:question: given that we seem mostly unable to change our behaviours, how much of the world population would have to be brutally murdered for our presence and natural resource exploitation on this planet to be sustainable? 50%, 20%, 10%? If you happen to have an orbital death ray, the best course of action for saving the world would likely be to wipe off any densely populated Chinese, Indian, and American city. I suppose that's roughly two billion people from the first two and at least 300 million from America, which adds up to about a third of the world's population. It's not really about population numbers though, if you were to eliminate a third of the worlds population but left those three countries alone, you wouldn't affect climate change very much at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
double nine posted:question: given that we seem mostly unable to change our behaviours, how much of the world population would have to be brutally murdered for our presence and natural resource exploitation on this planet to be sustainable? 50%, 20%, 10%? 99.9%
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:If you happen to have an orbital death ray, the best course of action for saving the world would likely be to wipe off any densely populated Chinese, Indian, and American city. I suppose that's roughly two billion people from the first two and at least 300 million from America, which adds up to about a third of the world's population. what about europe? Especially the whole benelux/rhineland corridor seems awfully destructive?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Mozi posted:99.9% Oh come off it, the Earth can only support 7 million Americans with SUVs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:
Seriously. 40% of the United States' carbon emissions come from burning coal. Instead of genocide, you could just put the money you'd use to build and launch said orbital death ray into developing alternative energy and mitigating the effects on ARE JOBS to consign the use of coal in power generation to the extremely black and cancer-causing dustbin of history for good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:Seriously. 40% of the United States' carbon emissions come from burning coal. Instead of genocide, you could just put the money you'd use to build and launch said orbital death ray into developing alternative energy and mitigating the effects on ARE JOBS to consign the use of coal in power generation to the extremely black and cancer-causing dustbin of history for good. But, but, but ... orbital death ray!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
What we need is a compromise. Just shoot the coal with your laser
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
double nine posted:question: given that we seem mostly unable to change our behaviours, how much of the world population would have to be brutally murdered for our presence and natural resource exploitation on this planet to be sustainable? 50%, 20%, 10%? 60-90% depending on which parts of the world population 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
double nine posted:question: given that we seem mostly unable to change our behaviours, how much of the world population would have to be brutally murdered for our presence and natural resource exploitation on this planet to be sustainable? 50%, 20%, 10%? 10% of the global population produce 30% of emissions. So basically nuke the English speaking countries, plus a few of Germany, Russia, Japan and Korea. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/CO2_emission_per_capita.jpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Oh come off it, the Earth can only support 7 million Americans with SUVs? No, I was being a little pedantic. But if there were only 40 million of us total we'd have a hell of a lot more room to be jerks to the environment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:Seriously. 40% of the United States' carbon emissions come from burning coal. Instead of genocide, you could just put the money you'd use to build and launch said orbital death ray into developing alternative energy and mitigating the effects on ARE JOBS to consign the use of coal in power generation to the extremely black and cancer-causing dustbin of history for good. gently caress me I didn't know coal was responsible for that much percentage wise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
It seems like it would be more effective, if you have a orbital super weapon, to target major sources of pollution and then intimidate the rest of the population into swiching to clean energy and building a carbon capture industry. Humans seem pretty capable of , repopulating so mass laser murder is only really a short term solution
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Really I prefer the 'secretly mind control the president of the United States' supervillain plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
With this president it's as simple as "Hey Donald, do you remember that really fantastic idea you came up with about X? It goes like this..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
just convince Donald you can somehow gold plate Solar panels and get him to invest in them. He's nakedly just aiming for his own profit so if you can get him to invest in Solar and Wind he'll go whole hog for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:gently caress me I didn't know coal was responsible for that much percentage wise. Eahhh OK it's really not actually that high, I was quoting an NRDC statistic because I've been applying for jobs there haha. According to the EIA in 2015 coal fired plants produced 1,374 million tons of CO2, about 71% of the total power generation total of 1,925 million tons. Which is about 38% of the total CO2 emissions in the country, so we're talking more like 26% of total emissions. STILL. Also coal burning plants are dirtier than petro plants so there's more poo poo GHGs like oxides coming out of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Despite it being one big violation of human rights, the one cool thing is that there are groups out there who are winterizing the Standing Rock water protectors' camp with solar panels for electricity and heat. The silver lining of that whole ordeal will be a field test on how well those technologies work when using on structures recently built and how sustainable/effective they are. People are so focused on Trump loving over everything (and he will) but Obama isn't doing much of anything either. I'm disappointed in my own Senator Warren for not speaking up against the police brutality too. Where the gently caress is the leadership? So little initiative among these clowns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Just in case you thought Canadian PM Trudeau was somehow serious about climate change, his government approved two new pipelines today: I complained about this earlier in the thread. We are relatively sheltered from climate change (for now) and its really affecting how seriously people take it. Its going to take something tragic or dangerous happening that directly affects a large chunk of the population to get most people here to care enough about the damage we do to the world. The US using NAFTA to claim all our fresh water to feed California/Nevada was something someone mentioned as a possible trigger but even now Im not sure that would be enough. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:just convince Donald you can somehow gold plate Solar panels and get him to invest in them. "Trump Solar settled out-of-court today to resolve plaintiffs' claims that their solar panels, which were advertised as "the greatest solar panels money can buy", in fact only returned an average of .5% of their cost in electricity savings before breaking down, often in less than six months."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
If anyone is familiar with the fake news and right wing propaganda networks that gained a huge amount of momentum this election, then you shouldn't be surprised by proposals to gut NASA. I mean, people old enough to have seen the space race in the 60's were telling me NASA is full of "Obama's people", that their part of the leftwing conspiracy to run the country into the ground by spending on wind and solar (SOLYNDRAAAAA!!!), telling me all the "good" scientists left NASA because they wouldn't peddle liberal lies about anthropomorphic climate change, and more! The fact that Trumps appointees are already saying NASA is guilty of "politically correct science" is just more proof that this administration doesn't just use fake news as a propaganda tool, but they believe a lot of that poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:57
|
|
