Where do people actually get their ideas of climate change from? Let's say humans are causing climate changes that will be harmful to the planet and humanity, then of course we should stop that from happening. My question is how can so many people just say that that is what's happening? To me it's pretty absurd. I've not seen anything that has made me come to that conclusion myself, and I'm someone who actually tries to figure out how things work in the world. There's no way all those people are better at it than me and have studied a lot of shit and come to that conclusion on their own. Ultimately they have to be acting on some irrational impulse, right? Yet we're supposed to treat that crowd as if they are being scientific?
By Anonymous | Updated 02/05/26(Thu)19:42:15
Where do people actually get their ideas of climate change from? Let's say humans are causing climate changes that will be harmful to the planet and humanity, then of course we should stop that from happening. My question is how can so many people just say that that is what's happening? To me it's pretty absurd. I've not seen anything that has made me come to that conclusion myself, and I'm someone who actually tries to figure out how things work in the world. There's no way all those people are better at it than me and have studied a lot of shit and come to that conclusion on their own. Ultimately they have to be acting on some irrational impulse, right? Yet we're supposed to treat that crowd as if they are being scientific?
Your fortune: Reply hazy, try again climate is changing since forever, yea the pollution is speeding up the proccess but in the end the zones are going to shift one way or another. Also one of those giant freighter boat pollutes the air with more emissions than all the cars combined not to mention the big industries. They just want to put it onto the small people again because thats what they can do best >>12771084
I mean I KNOW they do this with the "think of the children" bullshit, so why not this way too. greta will be my gf one day, i'm just waiting for our fateful meeting >>12771090
One thing that for a fact is happening is pollution, which isn't good in itself. So to me that's a different issue we should address regardless. >>12771081
honestly can't tell if this is trying to be satirical or if it's sincere Probably because they have actual data that it is happening. Even as a normal person I've noticed the weather is a lot shittier than it was 30 years ago. >>12771099
The solution would be to get rid of all the oild based plastics and stick to degradable sources like hemp plastic, you can build everything out of it
the real problem is to get of all the existing trash thats already in the system and will be there for a long time but eh who am i to know some guy once sat down and typed some numbers in a calculator and said yup oil thats where the millions are >>12771104
It's obviously sincere. I'm questioning how you could think it's satire. How that would even work in your mind. But I'm already getting the sense that you aren't a very logical person. Prove me wrong. >>12771116
so when you said
>There's no way all those people are better at it than me and have studied a lot of shit and come to that conclusion on their own.
you were being altogether serious? because you're "someone who actually tries to figure out how things work in the world" you actually think you know more than however many thousands of people who have devoted their entire careers to studying this? you're actually that far up your own asshole? >>12771119
>you actually think you know more than however many thousands of people who have devoted their entire careers to studying this?
No, that's not what I said. Please learn to read more carefully. I was talking about the millions of laymen in the world who have never studied shit but still are opinionated about it somehow. fapping to this
>>12771119
>>12771123 >>12771081
>Let's say humans are causing climate changes that will be harmful to the planet and humanity
It's fact, humans *are* the cause.
To put it as an "if" is like saying "maybe humans are the reason why there are gigantic islands of plastic in the ocean.
>then of course we should stop that from happening
I understand why you would think so, but no.
There's nothing we can do. >>12771123
>I was talking about the millions of laymen in the world who have never studied shit but still are opinionated about it somehow.
because they're listening to the opinions of experts, you mean? those experts who have been studying the subject for decades and reached a scientific consensus, and are sounding alarm bells about how dire the situation is? >>12771128
Saying something "is fact" isn't science and in fact is nothing more than a baseless statement that means fuck all to me as well as any sane person.
The question is why you think it's a fact. There's a reason schools tell you to "show your work". >>12771135
>because they're listening to the opinions of experts
Ok now we're getting somewhere. Do you believe that first hearing the opinion of someone, then going around shouting the same opinions is a sane, rational thing to do?
>>12771137
The Cook et al. (2013/2016) Studies, for just one. These analyzed over 11,000 scientific papers and found a 97% consensus on human-caused warming.
And I’m not saying "trust the consensus", I’m saying, read the papers.
Climate change is anthropogenic, but in my opinion that doesn't matter. It cannot be reversed, and although it's of human origin it's not our fault.
The oceans may become too hot pretty soon, kill a critical % of algae, and change the composition of the atmosphere, killing most life on the planet.
So what? No individual, species or even the planet itself had a chance of lasting for ever, climate change or no climate change.
The institutions that promete the idea that climate change is anthropogenic are mostly ideologically captured by lefty operators, and no one likes those, so in a final bit of irony, even if we could have done something, the info is in the hands of leftoids that mix proper info with lefty propaganda, making it so people don't taken it seriously.
And if you don't find that funny, well, I don't know what to tell you. I think the whole thing is hilarious.
We're so smart as a species, that we found the stupidest way to die!
And we're taking a good chunk of life with us! science is just what happens, innit?
when you observe
to be anti-science is to not trust your own senses >>12771194
Listen, you may have reached your conclusions in a scientific way, or you may not have. I don't know you. The topic of this thread isn't whether climate change is real though. It's about how the masses act the way they do. You still didn't say a lot about how you reached your conclusions. You listed a study, and used the word anthropogenic, which is a longer and more obscure version of man-made, which makes me believe you wish to appear smarter than you really are. >>12771081
Those people are good to invite a change that helps humanity. Just like cleaning a trashed beach, volunteers will help together as community. But corruption exist, so there are people who invite evil. I stay away from them.
Its your choice to pick a side or be neutral. I have my problems to solve that I stay neutral, but once I'm free I'll go help the good after all its a good deed~
Your fortune: Bad Luck you seem to think everyone must have a perfect scientific understanding of climate change to support policies to curb it or theyre 'irrational' and also le big words you have to look up upset you so everyone has to avoid basic terminology you dont like or theyre psueds or whatever i mean you are just retarded and annoying imo
Your fortune: Better not tell you now
>>12771928
I used the word anthropogenic because I taught English to myself, so I'm what you'd call self-taught (since I suspect you wouldn't like the word autodidact), and although I'm as disciplined as I can be, and when I learn things for fun I especially apply myself, I haven't been able to tune myself completely with colloquial English speech. Anthropogenic is a word that makes sense, so I used it. It's also the proper word, and the scientific term, so start using it too, because we're talking about science.
And that brings me to the second point: I didn't list a study, I showed you how to find several thousand studies. Research the papers on your own.
Get used to "smart" words, though. They're research papers, so you'll see the word "anthropogenic", among other ones.
Fun fact, only yesterday did I learn that the word "specially" doesn't start with an E.
That's why I used it here. That's my real smaet word of the day.
Ah, and people, in terms of the masses, believe in anthropogenic climate change because they're dumb. The masses are dumb, easy to lead, and they listen to the authorities. In this case, the "authorities" are lefty operators, who are telling the truth about one particular topic, but trying to use that truth to control people. >>12771964
>only yesterday did I learn that the word "specially" doesn't start with an E
See, I messed up! I'm still spelling it wrong.
I meant to say that the word "especially" doesn't start with an S.
I did spell it correctly the first time, but I then went with what I'm used to do.
Oh, well. Learning never ends. >>12771222
trips checky
Your fortune: Average Luck >>12771081
Net Zero specifically as it stands is a swindle to weaken oil and mining industries (or economies) that is only being inflicted upon western nations and that is why the reduction targets are meaningless and a con job. Because it's regulations ignore the planets biggest polluters who have no obligations to prevent it. Such as China to be more clear. There are others in that list but that is the elephant in the room in regards to non stop toxic pollution that make anything we do meaningless. I believe the real goal of the politicized movement of climate change is also to sabotage power grids and make a bunch of obsolete infrastructure that is liable to fall apart and be hard to maintain too. >>12771970
China is leading in "green" energy development, including both solar and nuclear, and they have every incentive to do so because in the event of a war the west can use access to oil as leverage against them. It makes more sense for them than for us, but even so, it would be nice if America did not have to constantly interfere in other countries business to maintain its energy security.
Did you know it's possible to store energy by pumping water up a hill? It's called pumped hydro, and is great in conjunction with solar. China is building more pumped hydro plants than any other country, to complement their solar energy investments. >>12771105
define "shitty" weather, and explain why climate change would result in something you subjectively find "shitty". If climate change were real, and it were truly killing off polar bears, shouldn't we expect lovely warm temperatures year round? please go back to r3dd1t or x or whatver
Your fortune: Good news will come to you by mail
>>12771989
>China is leading in "green" energy development,
I remember when one of my countries news station ran this story on their involvement with dirty nickle mining in Indonesia and everyone was bitching over this specifics of the fossil fuel industry making 'propaganda' in the comments. And that not everything made of Nickle contributes to EV batteries, that China uses LFP batteries apparently and never nickle. Which seems questionable that they rule anything else out entirely, but it's likely also the case of both. Nobody ever addressed the other specifics of the environmental havoc they were causing regardless and that could all be swept under the rug. Whether dirty nickle mining makes up the percentages of all EV battles still doesn't align with the claims that China has ever been leading in green energy at all. See video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNa
This is why i believe in the specific con jobs going on in the global environmentalist movements. Whether EV is apart of that con job is not entirely my point rather than what else was displayed here.
>im retarded leave me alloooone >>12772019
>if climate change were real, and it were truly killing off polar bears, shouldn't we expect lovely warm temperatures year round?
Your fortune: Reply hazy, try again >>12771964
>I used the word anthropogenic because I taught English to myself, so I'm what you'd call self-taught (since I suspect you wouldn't like the word autodidact)
As did I. I'm technically a autodidactic polyglot and hobby linguist, yet I wouldn't use that word. So your stated reason doesn't seem valid.
>Ah, and people, in terms of the masses, believe in anthropogenic climate change because they're dumb. The masses are dumb, easy to lead, and they listen to the authorities. In this case, the "authorities" are lefty operators, who are telling the truth about one particular topic, but trying to use that truth to control people.
You should have said that to begin with. So we basically agree. In the OP I questioned the nature of what you call being dumb. >>12772009
>shouldn't we expect lovely warm temperatures year round?
Yea say that to people in UK suffering heat in their brick homes during heatwave 2022. Generation of families living in cold experiencing outside comfort temperature within what, a century? This also effects animals and plants mind you. People do a lot of weird shit, and when you ask them why they think and do such and such, they make up reasons that have nothing to do with reality.
I find that human nature is often overlooked when someone wants to achieve something, and they just try to brute force it instead.
Richard Dawkins is like the poster boy of being smart, yet spending his whole career wondering why people are retarded, and trying to talk sense into them.
It's neglect of the real phenomenon at play.
>>12772026
>So we basically agree
We probably do, about many things, except for
>Let's say humans are causing climate changes that will be harmful to the planet and humanity
>then of course we should stop that from happening
No, there's nothing we *should* do.
First of all, because you cannot derive an _ought_ from an _is._
Second, because there's nothing that can be done.
If you wanted to know why people accept anthropogenic climate change without doing their own research, as I said it's because they're dumb, and here's a better example of that: evolution.
Evolution is a fact because there's evidence and even direct observation of it, at every level and through every mechanism. But the masses don't accept it as fact because of that, they accept it as fact because they saw it mentioned on TV and in comics, presented as fact by characters.
So the masses end up accepting something as fact, but not by understanding it, so they learn it wrong.
They may accept evolution as factual but still think that the model is "we come from monkeys", or "chimps are less evolved than humans", or "one day all fish will walk on land, or at least that is their goal". we should cull people
we do not need 9 billion people let slone 7 >>12772062
>we should cull people
Why should we bother, if the mess we made is gonna cull us all anyway? >>12772038
They migrated to Australia and it didn't kill them. Far from it, the UK will have much nicer weatherif climate change is real. climate change is either fake or good/ethically mandatory for human fluorishing. Green fascists have no moves to play. >>12772088
nice dubs im going to pretend your post is satirical to preserve sanity
Your fortune: Good news will come to you by mail >>12772088
My stance at the end of the day is whether you believe or not despite the truth/evidence in front of you, its ones choice to be ignorant.
I'm moving on.
Your fortune: Better not tell you now >>12771081
are you even 25? personal observation and feelings are not scientific data. regardless you're seriously denying that weather is getting more extreme? and you're denying that we did shit for 100 years before your newfag ass was born that literally ripped a hole in the ozone and worse? that's what you're denying?
>>12771081
For starters, we know from Chemistry that some gases in our atmosphere, such as CO2, absorb solar radiation (technically they absorb the solar radiation reflected off the Earth's surface), trapping heat in our atmosphere and causing it to be warmer, whereas much of the sun's radiation is simply reflected into space. For this reason, if the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the planet should be expected to get hotter. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at all, the planet would be significantly colder. Throughout geological history, the planet's climate has changed dramatically in response to changing proportions of greenhouse gases. For example, 250 million years ago the largest extinction event in world history, the permian-triassic extinction event, was caused by volcanic eruptions that released enormous amounts of SO2 and CO2 into the atmosphere, causing the Earth's surface to heat up dramatically.
You can verify the radiation-trapping properties of CO2 yourself with a simple experiment. Take two clear containers and put a thermometer in each. Fill one with CO2 using a Co2 cartridge and seal it shut. Fill the other one with regular air. Place both under a UV heat lamp at equal distance. 15 minutes later you should see that the bottle filled with CO2 has absorbed the heat lamp's radiation better than the control, and the thermometer will display a slightly hotter temperature.
So we know that if large amounts of greenhouse gases were released into the atmosphere, it would cause global temperatures to rise via the greenhouse effect. We also know that large amounts of greenhouse gases are being released into the atmosphere, because burning fossil fuels like coal and oil releases massive amounts of CO2 as a byproduct. Since 1850, humans have released an estimated 2,650 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
(1/2) post above me and below me are gay >>12772311
So we know that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere will cause the global temperature to rise, and we know that we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. So is the temperature rising? Yes, it is. Scientists have found that Earth's average yearly surface temperature has been rising every year for decades, just as theory would predict. The rate of warming reached its highest level so far (.27 degrees C per decade) at the same time as humanity's CO2 emissions also reached their highest level. This is why there is a widespread scientific consensus that CO2 emissions from burning fossils fuels are responsible for the Earth's rising average surface temperature. >>12772057
>No, there's nothing we *should* do.
>First of all, because you cannot derive an _ought_ from an _is._
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Why did you make that post then? There's a thing called morality. it's deriving things we aught to do from what is. You'd have to have an extremely dumb, simplistic view of what is if you can't say what you aught to do from it. Also your pic makes no sense. >>12771099
Pollution is another myth. Plants NEED CO2 to survive, exhaust fumes are healing mother Earth. >>12772586
CO2 is just a gas, not pollution. >>12772593
excessive CO2 gases warm the earth and mess with the climate
>>12772526
>I have no idea what you're trying to say
"Cannot derive an ought from an is" (Hume's Guillotine) argues that descriptive, factual statements ("is") cannot logically entail prescriptive, moral conclusions ("ought") without an intervening value judgment. Popularized by David Hume, this principle highlights an unbridgeable gap between facts and values, meaning one cannot determine what should be based solely on what is.
Key aspects of this philosophical principle include:
-Definition: It is impossible to validly infer a value judgment (e.g., "you ought to do X") from purely descriptive premises (e.g., "X is the case").
-The "Gap": The transition from factual descriptions to moral prescriptions is a logical error because facts do not inherently contain normative values.
Example: Saying "Eating meat is natural" (is) does not logically lead to "You ought to eat meat" (ought) without the added, non-factual premise "You should do whatever is natural".
-Requirement for Value Premise: To reach a normative conclusion, a separate value premise must be introduced, which itself cannot be derived from a fact. >>12772673
But most people already have pre-existing moral beliefs such that new information would alter their beliefs on what actions ought to be undertaken. If one already believes (as most do) that it would be bad if millions of people died, then the knowledge that millions of people will die unless action is taken to counteract climate change will cause one to support taking action to counteract climate change. Nothing irrational about it. >>12772673
That is complete nonsense. While your post could be taken as a red herring, I'll still reply this once. Descriptive, factual statements are where normative values come from. Your fallacy seems to be a very limited view of what descriptions and facts are. It's as if you're looking at a picture and only describing the values and shades, while completely disregarding all underlying patterns. Values come from evolution, evolution comes from the laws of nature. >>12772689
>If one already believes (as most do) that it would be bad if millions of people died
I think most people would agree that suffering is (or rather, can be) worse than death.
Is it death the thing we all agree we should avoid for millions, or it is suffering? >>12772704
Non sequitur that does not refute my point at all. >>12772712
What are we trying to accomplish, is the question.
To avoid the death of millions?
Or to avoid the suffering of millions? >>12772724
In this particular case, both. Rising global temperatures would reduce counterfactual quality of life, and also many people would die.
Think of it like any other disaster. Did Voltaire wish the Lisbon earthquake had never happened because of the deaths it caused, or the suffering it caused? Obviously both. It doesn't even need remarking. >>12772730
>In this particular case, both
Wouldn't you avoid the death and suffering of countless trillions in the future by erradicating mankind today?
If we accelerate climate change until no human can survive, and there's no reproduction, you're saying literally all of mankind from having to suffer and having to die. >>12772737
Is this the new Republican platform? >>12772741
No, it is a question.
A question is not a platform. >>12772737
To give you an honest and good faith answer, the reason that most people are not in favor of eradicating mankind is because they generally believe life is positive, even though it contains suffering (which is bad) and ends in death (which is bad because it ends life which is good). Earthquakes and climate change cause death and suffering (which are bad), but DON'T cause life and pleasure (which are good), unlike reproduction, which causes both. I'm oversimplifying of course but my point is that most people, including presumably OP, hold pre-existing values under which the effects of climate change would be viewed as negative. Maybe if you're an antinatalist you could make a case for climate change, but most people are not anti-natalists. >>12772747
>the reason that most people are not in favor of eradicating mankind is because they generally believe life is positive, even though it contains suffering (which is bad) and ends in death (which is bad because it ends life which is good)
Yes, exactly. I agree with your answer, and I agree with the values behind it.
But the question I was asking was to show that it's not really the desire to avoid the death and suffering of millions what motivates us. If it was, then we would all agree that we ought to not reproduce now.
We approach the is/ought problem.
Anonymous is a reporter from /s4s/