Le Glabal Heatdeath Thread

Found this on /n/ by sheer chance. granted the article on it is from Brietfart.


archive.is/pr1TL

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KzatOQd_c9k
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Weather_Modification_Office
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.htm
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/134.htm
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/017.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Out of everything that worries me about the next 4 years climate change is on the very top of that list.

...

We've already passed the point of no return tbh. Best we can do now is minimise the damage. Even if we had world socialism tomorrow, it wouldn't be enough.

t. capitalists

Only thing I can see to ensure our survival is domed heat resistant cities/transhumanism until the lights go out.

why are people so ecocucked?

making it harder to exist in this planet will only make it harder to achieve a fully automatd society because of the increasing challenges in logistcis, for example, in a certain point of the past people could easily get water by simply going to a river and drinking all the water you needed, now, because rivers are polluted as fuck we need bottled water otherwise we would die

its retarded

Deliberate dumbing down of education is part of the problem. What's funny is if they actually had a better education like the most, climate change would take it's place almost instantly, if out of desperation.

This whole thing worries me and it really shouldn't since there's ultimately no point. How long do we have?

Will people still keep claiming that climate change is a lie when the Maldives and Bangladesh go underwater? Will they still say it's a lie when the biggest refugee crisis in history will happen?


If you think you have a skill that can help alleviate our situation, you can travel abroad to work with people in non-burger/anglo countries. Seriously, everywhere else is the least spooked.

almost certainly. they'll just complain about the refugees rather than consider what caused them

so then basically Holla Forums's entire worldview

this makes me want to agree with the concept of the vanguard party

better move north boys. way north

I'm also hearing that the south of the equator is going to be more preferable for a while, before permanent night night.

South America might be mostly fine.

a pleasure posting with you gentlemen

Sounds like it's time for some space communism.

I've already switched to solar power, and I advise everyone to do the same. Then get an electric car if you can afford one.

Technically communism is the abolishment of both proletariat and bourgeoisie, so if all the proletatiat is killed the porkies don't exist because porkie needs to exploit in order to be porkie.

CAPITALIST REVOLUTION NOW

THE RIDE NEVER ENDS

One video in question for cringe:
youtube.com/watch?v=KzatOQd_c9k

I can see why Anonymous isn't taken seriously anymore.

Let me remind everyone that the US (and probably other countries) have had weather manipulation technology for several decades now:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye

China has developed the best weather technology. They piss off all their neighbors by seeding clouds to rain for crops in their territory and not leaving any for their neighbors. Pretty cool stuff actually.

This is real? Will it even help? I'm losin it.

I doubt it will help.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Weather_Modification_Office

All of these are "Action taken on climate change" written another way. A big problem with the language used to describe the "fight" against climate change is that it mimics all the other self-congratulatory moral crusades like the war on cancer, poverty, drugs etc. which people are well aware of of as being bullshit on the same level of self-help or western Buddhism, i.e. shit to make western consumers feel less guilty. In the totalising cry for war, all necessary nuance, complexity and interrelation is removed. To wage a war on something means to hate it, and to hate something means you deny its right to exist which is really just the other side of the coin of climate change denial (think about when liberals say that they "can't accept" that police brutality occurs/trump is president etc all it means is that these things shouldn't be happening in their idea of an infallible neo-liberal democracy). Both are self-indulgent wank to free people having to think about things structurally.

So in some ways I agree with the article, action on climate change IS useless. But if we focus on developing sustainable systems for growing nutritious food, providing clean water etc. we'll find that the climate crisis will take care of itself.

The only thing really "to ‘combat’ climate change" is to stop burning coal and oil.
So more renewable energy, more nuclear power, more electric cars, and investing in nuclear fusion research.
I really don't understand how anyone could think that this is a bad thing.

...

People want their personal needs fulfilled before they start thinking about the future.

Most "climate" spending goes to party activists and the mafia, but that's another story.

They have a point here. Geoengineering/cloud-seeding may well be having adverse effects on other aspects of the environment and our health.

It can help stop sunrays getting to earth in the first place. So yes, clouds kinda help. But this ain't a solution.

Don't let the hype on global warming worry you too much. Mainstream ICC consensus posits a ~3°C temperature increase and ~0.15 meter sea level rise by 2050. Barring highly unlikely death-spiral scenarios like clathrate guns or current inversions, that is very bad, but far from catastrophic.

Now remember the undeniable fact that what the neolib establishment represented by Clinton/Obama/Clinton offered (Kyoto/Paris treaties, carbon credits, limited backing of sustainable tech and conservation, continued subsidies to unsustainable tech) were symbolic paeans blatantly inadequate to actually fixing anything, and the short-term environmental costs risked through the accelerationist path of Trump (FAR better opposed by the mainstream "left", even if only for purely partisan reasons) are unquestionably worthwhile.


People keep hyping automation without "strong AI" as some magical quantum leap in economics and technology, but the simple truth is we theoretically could've done the a century ago if we were content with average quality of life on par with a medieval monk.

Due to Jevons' Paradox, infinitely increasing demand means that increases to efficiency don't cause decreases in labor, but merely increases in production to the limit labor capacity allows. Unless people reject greater riches, newer technology, and societal progress whole cloth, FALC is fundamentally impossible given human nature.

It's more of a long range thing (probably), but the coming of the next glacial period means we'll eventually need to artificially manipulate the climate anyways. Unless we don't mind everything north of Sacramento being buried under ice.


This. Almost every single thing needed to fight global warming is also a highly lucrative reform to our civilization in the short term, and a necessary step in acquiring sustainable technology to prevent the regular economic shocks of our current subpar infrastructure in the long term.

It's like NASA or other blue sky R&D spending, the long term rewards are gigantic, but the steady stream of immediate spinoffs are nothing to scoff at.

Forgot pics

I, on the other hand, completely support Trump's energy policy of "burn everything." Fuck this species, it deserves to choke to death on its own ashes.

Does this account for methane release from arctic ice melting?

Why not start with yourself?

Bumpity.

I think so, this is the latest edition of the report most of my assumptions are based on:
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.htm

These two chapters describe estimates of methane emissions and their sources, concluding with some uncertainty that recent increases are primarily attributable to direct anthropogenic activities such as agriculture, industry, land clearance, and waste disposal, also that there is little evidence of clathrate thaw feedback loops in past deglaciations:
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/134.htm
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/017.htm

I'm sceptical of this notion. Our forever increasing consumption is a function of capitalism perpetuating itself. Advertising is a perversely huge industry and penetrates every aspect of our lives.

Is capitalism really responsible for consumerism? Surely, it distorts the exact direction of peoples' desires, but I think it's a stretch to declare that it inflames them.

Take the much-vaunted prospect of "self-driving" cars. Does anybody with the slightest bit of reflection really think we'll just fire all the truckers to save a few bucks on our existing transit capabilities, or can we all agree that such technology would instead result in swarms of delivery robots for things currently thought of as too trivial to deliver, billions or trillions until we exhausted the human labor force's capacity for air-traffic controller-like "meta-truckers", maintenance technicians, inspectors, and such?

An obvious precedent would be the computer industry, instead of reducing the amount of paper and the number of people employed in offices to shuffle them, we instead use more paper than ever, and in lieu of flatfooted gofers, we employ about the same number of people in programming, sysadmin, and network technician jobs. All because we record, transmit, and manipulate once-unthinkable amounts of information on once-excessively-trivial subjects with highly efficient automation assisted IT workers.

Some, perhaps many, are natural monks. But I think such people are very much deviants rather than normal people.