heheh :- )

they take a study saying "this bad stuff will happen over the next 100 years or so" and say "in the next 10 years all this shit will happen!"

@Grenade123 The end result is that the majority of people are sure that _something_ is going wrong at _some rate_, but completely confused as to how much.

yep

and somehow preppers are still laughed at

Al Gore is the probable granddaddy of modern climate change denial

Al Gore has a piss tape

(though he doesn't know he's the father)

http://n4mb3rs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2012_movie.jpg

Man, now I'm kicking myself for not including provisions to let me keep my giant investigative graph database and explorer tool; I bet it'll be way more expensive to license it back from my client.

That was a solid ~~month~~ three months of work which they probably would not have minded me having a transferable license to.

xorgy, are you a developer?

Ja

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALlCRmH9Zw0

Jillian has been on panel discussions with Deirdre and Deirdre is also on the advisory board for EFF. I think Tim and Jillian would get along famously, and perhaps together they could have a talk with Deirdre to ask her "what the hell?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r08UGtgHxSw

Reading back a bit. I think most people are okay accepting that man has had some impact on climate. What they aren't sure about is how much of an impact, because that's what everyone seems to be hyperbolic about...them polar bears are still there and the coasts aren't under water like they were suppose to be 10 years ago or some shit. Another thing is the cost to stop it, prevent it, and fix it. If it requires killing 90% of the world's population (or some other cost), then it's really kind of important to be certain of the rate (the cost shouldn't be worse than the impact).

I said this the other day, but I'd back an environmental plan that fits my principles and makes the air less shit. I've got no issue with that. My problem is when it becomes ideological and works against my core values

Its already known that were well above the sustainable population of the earth in terms of food

I think all of India, China or Africa would have to die off to bring us back to a sustainable population amount

its fine, either we make more food, or there is massive die off

this is how nature works

Well the argument is not that we can't produce enough food, it's that the methods we have for producing food fuck things up

yup

Is it known? I don't know that. I don't think we all own farms and shit....

same with water

Methane and CO2 production, loss of habitat etc

Nitrate based fertilizer is what we use almost everywhere

Once we get cheap energy through fission or fusion (the one we don’t have) it will be easy to clean up the mess we made. We can do it now, it’s just not energy efficient.

It slowly pollutes the water tables that it sinks into

use hydroponics, now we just need to have the energy to synthesize water to feed them

>implying greens and normies will allow mass adoption of fission
It's the correct answer but we'll always get fearmongering

It's sad

Fission is safer then anything. It doesn’t have radiation and if it has a melt down, it just breaks and stop making that energy. It’s like the opposite of the other lol.

i think you mean fusion?

Yeah he has them backwards.

I'd be less concerned with food and energy, more concerned with the raw materials, such as rare earth minerals, that go into everything modern society uses. We have a lot for current uses but as society develops and the rest of the world catches up, we'll see just how long they hold out before we have to expand beyond Earth.

So once we have cheap energy, we can adapt more vehicles like trains to hall goods. Cutting down emissions massively. (I might)

Met, so you watch Issiac Author on YouTube?

Nope