Think of it, who can convince people better that climate change is real: a group of world-renowned scientists, or an autistic girl that's never worked?
Even if someone doesn’t believe in climate change. She’s right and we’ve got a bunch of environmental problems that if we don’t alleviate we’re fucked.
We’ve got a insect that extinction problem on land and a phytoplankton swimming in plastic problem and they’re the whole start of the water food chain.
Not to mention the dioxins problem where humans are building up a non natural chemical in our bodies, everyone world wide, that produces things like hormone changes, physical deformities and birth defects, along with slow sterilization. Mostly due to how we dispose of plastics and some other stuff like incinerators that don’t actually burn trash away away it just rains down on us in chemicals we can’t see.
It’s not removable in men but when women give birth most of their accumulated dioxin goes into the baby. If we cut dioxin producing products now we would even be able to get back to how much a 1950s adult had in their system for 6 generations.
Fine. TLDR: 70 years of industrials plastics we’ve killed the food chain as it’s dying in motion and poisoned humans through dioxin for generations to come if it doesn’t sterilize us first.
Don't forget sudden colony collapse. Shit is scary and may be connected to a widely used insecticide whose patent owners will sue the pants off anyone that insinuates such
You should read you’re own link further. We still have them. They come from burning our trash and import products still. We’ve also switched a large amount of trash disposals to incinerators since we have to much to bury. Which isn’t good either but better than blanket poisoning.
In fact, a large part of current exposures to dioxins in the United States is due to releases that occurred decades ago (e.g., pollution, fires).
You act like the US is sleeping on this issue when the bulk of the problem was addressed decades ago. What percentage of existing exposure is due to new sources?
I don't really get this argument. Greta never claimed to be a scientist, and basically, every argument she made amounted to "listen to the scientists."
Conservatives have been ignoring scientists for years, the idea they were hostile to Greta because she wasn't a scientist doesn't really pass the sniff test.
They were hostile to her because she said climate change was real, and to listen to the science, and called out conservative climate deniers.
Yes, but the rest of us just find her annoying because look at her. I'm not a fan of preachy people, whether they're fundamentalists in Alabama or wokies in Brooklyn or autists in Scandinavia.
I don't really get this argument. Greta never claimed to be a scientist, and basically, every argument she made amounted to "listen to the scientists."
No, it was "listen to journalists misrepresenting scientific consensus", which is an understandable but still bad thing to say.
We've been through it Pizza, you can't both a) dismiss the 1990s predictions that Manhattan will be underwater by 215 as "that's journalists, you should've listened to actual scientists instead", and b) keep supporting the current doomer narrative promoted by journalists, despite actual scientists saying that AGW will cause a 4% decreased GDP by 2100 maybe.
the global gains from complying with the 2° target are approximately US$17,489 billion per year in the long run (year 2100)
This is an unfaithful paper because it provides this number instead of percent GDP. This number is less than one third of the current world GDP and will be a minuscule fraction of 2100's GDP. If you want to read deep into it and prove me wrong, please do.
Yes, I read the abstract, then started reading the paper but caught myself: they are unfaithful liars, why waste my time if I can demand prooflinks to actual data from Pizza?
B) The point of the paper was to show you why the modeling is flawed and can't predict natural disasters:
GHG emission growth and its global warming consequences are a significant threat to the Earth's future. Assessing climate change impacts to the global economy and national incomes, and the potential benefit of climate change agreements, however, is complex, requiring large‐scale modeling to even approach a comprehensive answer. For economists, the standard tool is CGE modeling. But, here, save for a few valuable country studies and some dynamic recursive modeling efforts, current models are either dimensionally too small or bound by myopic forecasting rules to be completely useful or compelling. The extension of the GTAP‐INT model used in this work fills that gap, providing estimates of global warming damages on GDP and its rate of change for 139 countries in the GTAP database, by various temperature changes, as well as by measures of the benefits of complying with a trade agreement, such as the Paris Climate Accord.
Although GTAP‐INT is country detailed and uses forward‐looking approaches to forming price and profit expectations, there are a number of significant caveats to be aware of and considerable scope for future research. First, the model dimension does not computationally allow for random shocks or any of the usual jump‐diffusion characteristics of a stochastic process that may impact both technology or living standards in the economy, among many other things. This lack of randomness is a serious shortcoming of all CGE modeling, except those with very small dimensions, and it needs to be worked on. There are ways forward, but it will require very large dimensional modeling and the use of parallel processing techniques, at the least, as in the GTAP‐INT model and related work (Ha & Kompas, 2016; Ha et al., 2017; Kompas & Ha, 2017).
Second, given the lack of a random component, it is not possible to include the effects of natural disasters or more extreme weather events that occur year to year in the model. The costs of these can be considerable. For now, all that is captured is the effects of SLR, changes in agricultural productivity, and key health effects. Indeed, some of the significant effects of actions concomitant with global warming, such as the effects of air pollution, losses in biodiversity, the spread of invasive species, changes in energy mix, and the costs of significant migration, are also not included. Capturing natural disaster shocks and these other effects is possible in GTAP modeling, but it has not been done for the global economy to date, and this too needs to be worked on.
B) The point of the paper was to show you why the modeling is flawed and can't predict natural disasters:
Are you literally retarded? You come from: AGW will wreck everything, yes we only have studies saying otherwise but what if they are all wrong? I come from: the studies say it's not that bad, what do you have to claim otherwise besides your gut feeling?
Reddit should make a statue of a science admirer shaped after your drooping face.
Are you literally retarded? You come from: AGW will wreck everything, yes we only have studies saying otherwise but what if they are all wrong? I come from: the studies say it's not that bad, what do you have to claim otherwise besides your gut feeling?
This isn't about a gut feeling you buffoon. The outcome of a natural disaster is invariably bad, that is why it is a disaster. If the "modeling" you tried to cite shows a 4% reduction in GDP without including any natural disasters we can assume the natural disasters will make this number even worse.
Increasing numbers of hurricanes destroying coastal areas.
Mass migration driven by famine.
Tornadoes happening more often, with greater intensity.
So yes, when talking about the possible future damages of climate change we should absolutely assume the worst and respond accordingly because the alternative is a serious global crisis.
I have no idea why you're even trying to argue a topic you clearly have not a basic comprehension of.
Nope, not succumbing to the first clop in your gish gallop.
If the "modeling" you tried to cite shows a 4% reduction in GDP without including any natural disasters we can assume the natural disasters will make this number even worse.
Then provide papers that include the "much worse" stuff in their projections. "All papers say this but my gut says that it will be worse than what the papers say" is antivax reasoning my dude.
Nope, not succumbing to the first clop in your gish gallop.
We're done here man, you're mentally ill and this is pointless. You literally are too scientifically illiterate to even know what is being said to you and you're just miusing terms like "gish gallop" to avoid reading papers.
No, I read the paper. I'm just not going to entertain this bullshit pathological lying you engage in, nor do I care for your blatant scientific illiteracy.
You're wrong, everyone knows you're wrong, and you will remain wrong.
Drama posting as a whole rots your brain, the sub is easily one of the most transphobic subreddits filled with Enlightened centrists and alt-light trolls, the mod team is a bunch of weirdo nominally left succdems who post on Stupidpol about how they're the bastion of left thought.
One of them made a post about how they used to be a SJW but alienated all their friends and family and now decries idpol, when in reality they're probably just insufferable to be around
62 comments
50 employee10038080 2021-03-09
I was never a huge fan of a child telling me I should be ashamed of myself but now that I know Greta is a disciple of Uncle Ted, I'm on board
38 trosdetio 2021-03-09
Think of it, who can convince people better that climate change is real: a group of world-renowned scientists, or an autistic girl that's never worked?
32 employee10038080 2021-03-09
Well the scientists have been trying for years and rightoids still think climate change is a hoax cause it snowed one time in the middle of December.
So I'm gonna side with the autistic tedpilled girl now
19 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2021-03-09
Even if someone doesn’t believe in climate change. She’s right and we’ve got a bunch of environmental problems that if we don’t alleviate we’re fucked.
We’ve got a insect that extinction problem on land and a phytoplankton swimming in plastic problem and they’re the whole start of the water food chain.
Not to mention the dioxins problem where humans are building up a non natural chemical in our bodies, everyone world wide, that produces things like hormone changes, physical deformities and birth defects, along with slow sterilization. Mostly due to how we dispose of plastics and some other stuff like incinerators that don’t actually burn trash away away it just rains down on us in chemicals we can’t see.
It’s not removable in men but when women give birth most of their accumulated dioxin goes into the baby. If we cut dioxin producing products now we would even be able to get back to how much a 1950s adult had in their system for 6 generations.
15 employee10038080 2021-03-09
I'm not reading that
6 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2021-03-09
Fine. TLDR: 70 years of industrials plastics we’ve killed the food chain as it’s dying in motion and poisoned humans through dioxin for generations to come if it doesn’t sterilize us first.
15 employee10038080 2021-03-09
The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race
4 JeanPeuplu 2021-03-09
Truer words have never been spoken.
3 trapochaphouse 2021-03-09
The real 14 words.
3 Whaddaulookinat 2021-03-09
Don't forget sudden colony collapse. Shit is scary and may be connected to a widely used insecticide whose patent owners will sue the pants off anyone that insinuates such
2 RochelleH 2021-03-09
O well
2 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-03-09
Dioxins were banned from production and use in the US decades ago.
2 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2021-03-09
You should read you’re own link further. We still have them. They come from burning our trash and import products still. We’ve also switched a large amount of trash disposals to incinerators since we have to much to bury. Which isn’t good either but better than blanket poisoning.
2 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-03-09
You act like the US is sleeping on this issue when the bulk of the problem was addressed decades ago. What percentage of existing exposure is due to new sources?
edit: check out table ES-1
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
Slowly sterilizing humans is very good for the environment though.
1 AugustinesBitchBoy 2021-03-09
Yeah I'm not bothering caring about this doomer shit. Some autist will fix it when it actually becomes a problem.
1 Big-Ant_ 2021-03-09
Reddit moment
This argument is so stupid, yeah they don't listen to the scientists so surely they'll listen to this little autist.
3 employee10038080 2021-03-09
Reddit moment
Taking my shitposting seriously
4 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
I don't really get this argument. Greta never claimed to be a scientist, and basically, every argument she made amounted to "listen to the scientists."
Conservatives have been ignoring scientists for years, the idea they were hostile to Greta because she wasn't a scientist doesn't really pass the sniff test.
They were hostile to her because she said climate change was real, and to listen to the science, and called out conservative climate deniers.
7 reseteros 2021-03-09
Yes, but the rest of us just find her annoying because look at her. I'm not a fan of preachy people, whether they're fundamentalists in Alabama or wokies in Brooklyn or autists in Scandinavia.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
We're at the point where we need preachy people because nothing of substance is being done to address very serious problems.
1 reseteros 2021-03-09
True, but Jerry Falwell thought the same thing about our very serious "morality" problems, and that tactic didn't work on you, did it?
3 DefectiveDelfin 2021-03-09
I would say theres a difference between endless evangelical whining and actual problems though.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
No, it was "listen to journalists misrepresenting scientific consensus", which is an understandable but still bad thing to say.
We've been through it Pizza, you can't both a) dismiss the 1990s predictions that Manhattan will be underwater by 215 as "that's journalists, you should've listened to actual scientists instead", and b) keep supporting the current doomer narrative promoted by journalists, despite actual scientists saying that AGW will cause a 4% decreased GDP by 2100 maybe.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
This comment is like a run down of climate denier talking points.
This right here is fucking hilarious because it's an outright lie and misrepresentation of a meme paper.
The authors themselves have laughed at climate deniers misrepresenting their research in this exact way.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
Can you link a paper that provides a different GDP impact? Else you're doing an isolated demand for rigor and sneaking in a biased null.
You're a very exemplar reddit science admirer.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
This is a big problem with people shilling "climate change isn't that bad" talking points.
You can't correctly predict natural disasters and the current research on the economic impact varies and likely underestimates the damage:
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
This is an unfaithful paper because it provides this number instead of percent GDP. This number is less than one third of the current world GDP and will be a minuscule fraction of 2100's GDP. If you want to read deep into it and prove me wrong, please do.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
You are absolutely out of your fucking mind and clearly did not even read that paper.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
Yes, I read the abstract, then started reading the paper but caught myself: they are unfaithful liars, why waste my time if I can demand prooflinks to actual data from Pizza?
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
Few things here you poorly educated buffoon:
A) The paper has straight GDP numbers.
B) The point of the paper was to show you why the modeling is flawed and can't predict natural disasters:
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
Post them.
Are you literally retarded? You come from: AGW will wreck everything, yes we only have studies saying otherwise but what if they are all wrong? I come from: the studies say it's not that bad, what do you have to claim otherwise besides your gut feeling?
Reddit should make a statue of a science admirer shaped after your drooping face.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
No, read it yourself.
This isn't about a gut feeling you buffoon. The outcome of a natural disaster is invariably bad, that is why it is a disaster. If the "modeling" you tried to cite shows a 4% reduction in GDP without including any natural disasters we can assume the natural disasters will make this number even worse.
Increasing numbers of hurricanes destroying coastal areas.
Mass migration driven by famine.
Tornadoes happening more often, with greater intensity.
So yes, when talking about the possible future damages of climate change we should absolutely assume the worst and respond accordingly because the alternative is a serious global crisis.
I have no idea why you're even trying to argue a topic you clearly have not a basic comprehension of.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
Nope, not succumbing to the first clop in your gish gallop.
Then provide papers that include the "much worse" stuff in their projections. "All papers say this but my gut says that it will be worse than what the papers say" is antivax reasoning my dude.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
We're done here man, you're mentally ill and this is pointless. You literally are too scientifically illiterate to even know what is being said to you and you're just miusing terms like "gish gallop" to avoid reading papers.
Have a nice day, was fun bending you over.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
I asked you to provide a GGDP projection from the paper you apparently didn't even skim yourself. Like literally one line quoted.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
No, I read the paper. I'm just not going to entertain this bullshit pathological lying you engage in, nor do I care for your blatant scientific illiteracy.
You're wrong, everyone knows you're wrong, and you will remain wrong.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
And your girlfriend is in Canada.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
I literally did date a girl from Canada.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
This proves that you're right about the effects of AGW.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-09
No, the research proves I'm right.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-09
Actually, the research proves that I'm right, you can't meet her tho she lives in Canada.
10 red1dragon588 2021-03-09
Uncle Ted is an anarchist which is just one step from being a lolbertarian, so I’m hoping they’ve got something more than just a discipleship
1 fernguts 2021-03-09
If I'd known she was destined for violent civil unrest, I wouldn't have been so critical of her earlier.
I would now like the record to show that I believe that FAS is a "superpower".
28 PacificSpices 2021-03-09
Based?
20 Protista_of_Peace 2021-03-09
Based beyond comprehension.
24 idio3 2021-03-09
Sweden and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
15 employee10038080 2021-03-09
Unfathomably based and TEDPILLED
5 BroboxylicAcid 2021-03-09
Potatedpilled.
27 alphetaboss 2021-03-09
She's finally come the only conclusion worth having. I'm proud of her.
22 Lysis10 2021-03-09
Greta kinda has a unibomber kinda look about her.
10 UnheardIdentity 2021-03-09
Unabomber*
9 Lysis10 2021-03-09
*unobomber
7 alphetaboss 2021-03-09
Reverse, reverse
5 Lysis10 2021-03-09
😂 I got a irl lol from this.
1 lickedTators 2021-03-09
Unibrow bomber
9 Leylinus 2021-03-09
It's a touch of FAS added onto the tism.
17 Pepperglue 2021-03-09
Now this girl knows what's up.
10 ason 2021-03-09
She should support modern technology since a time machine is the only way she'll get to lose her virginity to this version of him.
3 JeanPeuplu 2021-03-09
I hope this is real, but sadly it likely isn't.
1 SnapshillBot 2021-03-09
Drama posting as a whole rots your brain, the sub is easily one of the most transphobic subreddits filled with Enlightened centrists and alt-light trolls, the mod team is a bunch of weirdo nominally left succdems who post on Stupidpol about how they're the bastion of left thought.
One of them made a post about how they used to be a SJW but alienated all their friends and family and now decries idpol, when in reality they're probably just insufferable to be around
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 busslordlowkeybussin 2021-03-09
If she declares Jihad on climate change using Uncle Ted's old timey explosives then I will learn at her feet.