We're saying that we are rapidly changing the enviornment

And we are doing it in a way that we have no real way of actually adapting to it

Floods will suddenly become common in places that weren't like so, crops are gonna be ruined in many places, many animals will die

These are a few things that happen in that sudden shift

And it already sounds terrifying

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9614457/uk-weather-forecast-rain-hail-floods-warning-met/

Im sorry but you can not look at the CO2 levels chart from the mid to late 1800s to now and draw any definitive conclusions. From a geologic perspective the rise in CO2 is a hiccup. Currently we are in a CO2 deficient time period compared to the rest of geologic time. Since the 80s they have said we will be 2 degrees Celsius warmer now than we were then and that has not happened but none of that matters at all until you address the root cause of all pollution which is our population. More people more consumption. I am not saying humans are not effecting our environment I am saying we are not the absolute main drivers of it. I will not call it "climate change" in the political sense because our climate is always changing and always will.

@BIBOMO You have to understand that the conclusions that scientists have drawn come from far more than a single "chart". There are mountains of evidence. And believe it or not but the scientists are smart enough to look for confounding variables, and consider "natural" climate change in their predictions and assessments.

Greenhouse gasses, and in particular man-made CO2 are the biggest "drivers" of climate change.

I agree that we don't need more humans, but functionally (considering the technology we currently have, not even considering what breakthroughs may happen) the planet Earth can support FAR more humans than we currently have.

Not having kids to counter the problems from an increasing population could have its own problems

You'd have a graying population crisis on your hands

Such as the one Denmark has right now

The government there literally created an ad on it and told people to have sex more and also gave tips on how to improve your chances of having sex

Or japan

@BIBOMO i love the idea you have that scientists use just one chart . Do you imagine hundreds if them gathered around it like the mona lisa?

On the topic of cow farts, that many conservatives point to as evidence of...something, im not sure if you people think cows were the dominant species on the planet before humans or what but large scale cow farming of cows specifically bred to be docile and meaty is a new phenomenon largely driven by demand in developed countries. Which still counts as human caused co2 emmissions.

Also they belch. Its not their farts. If youre going to make fun of libs at least get your farts and burps right for fucks sake

And finally, the final argument: climate is always changing. Yep. So is your bank account balance. That doesnt mean i am allowed to empty it.

Go ahead and close down this channel now. Debates over

im going to pretend your right for the sake of the argument, what should humans eat if we cant have livestock?

That's not the argument.

This is a debate about whether anthroprogenic climate change exists

But you'd like to talk about possible solutions?

Because i dont think vegetarianism is a real solution if thats whaf youre getting at

It actually would help. I think the math of it is undeniable if you get into it (which i can if you think its relevant) but so untenable as a solution as to not be seriously considered

Green energy sources AND changes in biz practices to take advtanage of that new tech are necessary but not sufficient either

We are probably to the point where you need to acrively reduce CO2 or the temp somehow

im just wondering what you think we should eat so there is no mass starvation

Meat

I think i just said that

:/

And vegetables and grains and probably drink some water too

I think per square foot of space regulated to producing food, growing stuff is more efficient than livestock

Idk you want a menu?

But yeah, making meat go away isn't really part of the discussion usually

@Dr.Cosby it is but also not relevant to what i said

Like thats its own debate

<:political_thinking:583244726040264704>

I suppose so

You can debate climate change itself and then you can debate solutions